HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ
Subject: Re: big government conservatives
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:43:19 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <BtMKxp.2t1@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>
>Unfortunately, people who chose not to have sex didn't have many
>children, so there is an inherent genetic bias in favour of people
>who have sex whether they CHOOSE to or not.  Humanity is not best
>modelled in terms of rational decision makers...

Well, this cuts to the core of the issue, but I think it overstates
the emphasis on the word "rational."  Even if all decisions are
not made "rationally," they still emanate from that 
human being, who is the primary or sole actor of the decisions,
and who stands to either suffer or benefit by those actions.

What do we replace Homo Economicus with?


--Al Date
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3863 misc.legal:16410
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:26:26 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug25.120216.9806@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>One of the problems in our society (which Britain does not have) is that
>litigation can be taken on with little cost to the person starting the
>action.  If you slip and fall in a major store--you can get a lawyer to
>file suit on your behalf with the promise of being paid by the corporation
>when they settle.  If they know they'll at least get paid for their time,
>they have little to lose.

This is not the way it works.  Contingent fee lawyers ONLY get paid if
they win.  Thus, they have an incentive to screen out those cases
which are losers, even if the potential clients don't.


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:23:22 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

>If you really dont like fascism, you need to realize that by empowering
>the govt (whether for "good" causes of the right or of the left) you are
>contributing to the growth of a potentially fascist state.  

It's amusing to hear someone argue against fascism yet confer all coercive
power to the state. If the state is not to be trusted in the comparitively
trivial realm of taxation how can you possibly trust the state with the
sole ownership of the use of force? This is an honest question. Your
schizophrenia on this issue befuddles me. All the other powers of the state 
seem trivial comapred to the ones you have given it as its birthright.

>"Soak the rich!" springs forth from the same part of the human psyche as
>"Kill the Jews!"

Which springs forth from the same part of the human psysche that asserts
a minimal government enforcing only a few negative rights is the only
just and true government. Is there no continuum? 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:42:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.135539.7497@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

|> The American system fines those who bring frivolous suits.

Not very often.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3909 misc.legal:16594
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:00:36 GMT
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI


A few questions to stimulate a broader discusion:

In article <1992Aug25.135539.7497@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: (in response to another posting deleted for brevity)
>
>The American system fines those who bring frivolous suits.
>

As a practical matter, how does this work?  How 'frivolous' does a suit need
to be?  Does the person originally sued receive compensation, or can a wealthy
litigant simply regard the subsequent fine as anothe legal cost incurred in
the process of causing financial harm to a less wealthy adversary?

>
>...                   Under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC $ 2412, an 
>individual with a net worth less than $2 million or a corporation with a net
>worth less than $7 million or a 501(c)(3) non-profit group can recover
>attorney's fees if they prevail against the government in a suit.
>

Under what circumstances can these fees be recovered?  What limitations are 
there on the amounts that can be recovered?

>
>42 USC $ 1988 allows the court discretion to award attorney's fees to the
>prevailing party in a civil rights suit.
>

What are the guidelines for determining if such an award is warranted?  Do
you think the jury (if one was used) should make this decision?  Why is this
restricted to civil rights cases and not extended to all civil cases?  Should
it be?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.171919.4979@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.164211.17901@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug25.135539.7497@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> >
|> >|> The American system fines those who bring frivolous suits.
|> >
|> >Not very often.
|> 
|> Often enough.  In fact, Clifford Johnson was just here in misc.legal a
|> month ago complaining about all the fines people who bring frivolous suits
|> are being hit with.
|> -- 

I'm not at all interested in the whinings of Johnson.

My observation is there is an overabundance of suits each one of which forces the
defendant to cease his normal activities and repond.  See Huber's book describing 
the coercion and intrusion of discovery as an example.

Because lawyers are given the power to force someone to participate in a lawsuit
(subpoenas and default judgements) its entirely appropriate to change the rule
so that all suits are assumed to be frivolous unless accompanied with a 
reasonable argument (odds> 30% for example) for success.

It's news when a frivolous suit fine is made which implies it does not happen
very often.  Any idea what percentage of suits result in a fine?
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in U.S.
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:53:25 GMT

Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Distribution: 
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado

katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
: : 
: : In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
: : it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
: : the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
: : you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
: : meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
: : due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
: : theory today, though).
: : 
: Wrong. The DEA has the power to confiscate property without even charging
: you with a crime! Our wonderfule (NOT!) conservative supreme court has
: upheld this. Several of the Reagan/Bush appointees to the supreme court
: believe there is no right to privacy in the U.S. There are also sobriety
: checkpoints, which allow local law enforcement to stop and search people
: without probable cause. In short, while most people in this country have
: been cheering on the Reagan "Revolution," the Republican administrations
: of the last 12 years have been happily taking away our rights.
: 
: 
: 
: Kathy
Kathy, I agree with you 100% but what can be done to change this
terrible trend? The Democrats may not take away our rights but they
surely will steel our money!


-- 
------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
(303) 252-2885       12500 North Washington Street, Denver, CO 80241-2404
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3917 misc.legal:16622
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:58:08 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug28.050020.3597@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.025045.2639@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>>Here's an example. Take a claim C, with a 30% chance of receiving a
>>$100,000 judgment.  Thus the expected value of the claim is $30,000.
>>Now suppose it costs $25,000 to go to trial.  A rational actor will
>>take the case to trial (or settle for $30,000).
>
>Just a nitpick, but one that helps your argument -- a rational actor
>will settle for $5,000.
>
>In the case of contingent fees, it's not clear that the case would
>even go to trial -- the lawyer would see a 30% chance of a $33,333
>fee, and figure an expected loss of $15,000.  A contingent-fee lawyer
>wouldn't take this case.

Where does the $15,000 come from?  All the lawyer has to lose is his time,

The less business he has, the less it costs him to lose time.  The
system strives to a certain "equilibrium" level of litigation when there's
too little for some reason!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: big government conservatives
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:17:01 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>There are conservatives who actually believe in being conservative;
>i.e. looking to the past to see what worked, and trying to hold
>on to those things in the face of inevitable change.

Many of us want someone to look to the future.

>>Their distaste for homosexuality is another example.

>This varies from country to country.  There is a theory in the UK
>that everyone who went to a public (i.e. private) school was subjected
>to gay rape as a child, so some detest and some embrace.  I wouldn't
>know. :-)

I guess I was refering to American conservatism.

I did not mean to imply that ALL conservatives share these beliefs. I know
that I am not liberal on every issue but in general I am. When I say 
conservatives, I meant "the conservative viewpoint".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95	FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 31 Aug 1992 21:46:14 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Kent Sandvik) writes to Stephen Buckley:

 I have faith in that
 most religions on this Earth contradict each other. A universal
 truth would create a *universal* religion.
 
Hmmm. If we say that simple mathematics is universally true
then were is our universal religion?

Dano
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14578 sci.physics:13368 sci.chem:3161
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:34:33 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <1992Aug21.201524.20950@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>Chemical reactions are most definitely not random overall. Try and find 
>metallic Sodium in nature - it simply doesn't exist, but gold does - Gold is
>not chemically active while Sodium is very active. Thus Sodium is favored to 
>react with almost anything while its very difficult to get gold to react 
>with anything.
>

Oxygen is the second most reactive element after fluorine, it combines with
most everything, so it's hard to imagine a planet with an oxygen atmosphere,
and inconceivable that any life could exist in such a corrosive
atmosphere. :-)

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates!_________|
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Pi - please read !   
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:36:36 GMT

	The reason why pi != 3.14 in the Bible is that the pi wasn't actually  
	invited yet and the circumference was measured with a rope: First you
	measured the radius (5 cubits) and then you measured the circumference 
	by placing the rope to the circle six times. 6 * 5 = 30. 


-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Creator Gods
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Date: 28 Aug 1992 00:37:15 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Gerry Roston) writes:
 Paraphrased from a book by Stanislaw Lem...
 
 A computer scientist creates the ultimate simulation of a world and is
 able to look in on it.  Within this world, there are millions
 (billions) of "people" carrying out  their lives, etc.  [As a tie in
 to the creationist thread: Last Tuesdayism with an omipotent being
 creating a world...]  Anyway, this scientist's funding gets cut off
 and he must turn off the computer.  Is he a mass murderer?
 
 Note: Literal answers posted to the net are not acceptable.  Think
 about the implications philosophically before responding.

It seems to me this fits in better with talk.philosophy.misc
than it does with talk.religion.misc. 

Anyway, You are asking if a particular situation fits in
with the definition of "murder". For the sake of argument
I will assume murder means "wrongful death of a human being";
(i.e., you can't murder an amoeba).

The question then becomes one of whether the "people"
mentioned above fit the criteria of "human being";
even if you expand the definition of murder to include
some 'alien life form as found on star-trek-next-generation',
the same general considerations would apply.



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.kibology
From: sramming@athena.mit.edu (Scott '~ibo' Ramming)
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: Musical reference Indicates personal Tastes
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:23:59 GMT

From the epistle of entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard), starting at
the verse <Bu0BxD.JG3@world.std.com>:

>I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!
>
>Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
>must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!
>
>The number 4 said that the message must be spread throughout the
>whole of the world, passed out in Airports, in Harvard Square
>and on the internet.

What about handing out the message free in the yellow boxes at
selected Green Line and other (T) locations.

~ibo

--
the nonibo -ibo
M. Scott Ramming  
Cambridge MA 02139
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: u8515682@cc.uow.edu.au (Wayne Jefferson Doust)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: This pi=3 business
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:32:28 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:

>In article <BtLxJG.DA4@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.164010.4549@newsgate.sps.mot.com> 

>><Diameter = 10 : How many significant digits in 10? --> One

Correct

>>Two.

Also Correct

>><Circumference = 30 : How many significant digits in 30? --> One

Correct

>>Two.

Also Correct

>No, Paul, 10 and 30 have 1 significant digit.  

Correct, but Paul was not wrong.

>The last digit is not significant.

Correct

>If 10 were to have two significant digits, it must be represented by
>10.0. 

Wrong! Three significant digits

>Significant Digits:  "The digits of the decimal form of a number 
>beginning with the leftmost nonzero digit and extending to the right
>to include all digits warranted by the accuracy of measuring devices
>used to obtain the numbers."

Very Correct.

>So, the numbers obtained are subject to the accuracy of the measuring
>devices, and since no decimals are given, we must assume that the
>measuring device is accurate to whole numbers only, and as such the
>last digit is not significant.  Naturally, it gets worse with multiplication,
>since you are propogating the error.

Also very correct.

>>30 is an error, the correct answer is 31 to two digits accuracy. And it's not

Correct.

Example:

Take the number 33.33333.....

Correct to 1 significant digit =====> 30
Correct to 2 significant digits ====> 33
Correct to 3 significant digits ====> 33.3
Correct to 4 significant digits ====> 33.33 etc

Take the number 10.049

Correct to 1 significant digit =====> 10
Correct to 2 significant digits ====> 10
Correct to 3 significant digits ====> 10.0
Correct to 4 significant digits ====> 10.05
Correct to 5 significant digits ====> 10.049

For 10*PI = 31.415927

Correct to 1 significant digit =====> 30
Correct to 2 significant digits ====> 31
Correct to 3 significant digits ====> 31.4
Correct to 4 significant digits ====> 31.42
Correct to 5 significant digits ====> 31.416
Correct to 6 dignificant digits ====> 31.4159 etc.

Thus the number 10 may be correct to 1 or 2 significant digits, in
the absence of specification 1 sd should be assumed in allowance and
2 sd further measurement. Usually if the # of sd is not mentioned
then in just doesn't matter.

Wayne
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith/belief
Organization: Faith in ... um?
	<1992Aug29.200159.3388@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
	<la7brdINN76a@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
	<1992Sep1.183046.20893@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
	<la7ielINN7e5@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:47:40 GMT

(Ken Arromdee) writes:
"Try something to see if it works" is not the same as "believe"....

(Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
Good point.

me writes:
Yeah, there is some not so subtle weighting in there that is not expressed
in the words. I might try some new food to see if I like it because I believe
that most food is good, but I won't start eating plants to see if they are
poisoness or not. So I believe certain things until proven to be unbelievable
or not useful and I'll try certain things if I judge trying to be useful. But
I will not blindly try anything and I will not blindly believe anything. For
me the key is that I am the judge, not anyone else. I will take your opinion
and the words of books as input, but I will do as I see fit with them. It
seems to me that the way we use English is at fault. It's a common grift to
get someone to believe in something and then once they believe, they must meet
certain obligations, usually monetary. This is the basis of Madison Avenue and
the entire advertising industry. I may believe something, but nothing
else follows from that and the way I believe is probably quite different from
the way you believe. This is like saying that if you are a Christian and
believe in Christianity and Christian morality, then you must vote for Bush.
This doesn't follow, although I avoid all that nonsense by never admiting to
being a Christian, which I truely am not. That's the trouble with all these 
isms, once you say you belong, people draw conclusions about you based on 
their perception of what it means to belong and that is all misguided.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Seeing The Light in Bosnia
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:45:57 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

I note with interest that this thread seems to imply a Christian vs Moslem war
in the Balkans (with the Christians performing the attrocities). Firstly, I in
no way condone this stupid waste of human life. War is horrible and is a
result of man's pride.

   My problem with C vs M is that religion has very little to do with the
conflict. It is Serb vs Croat, Facism vs Freedom. News reports last night
(3/9/92) showed some "Christian" Serbs fighting for the "Muslim" Croats. What
we have (from what I can see) is just another despot using religion/nationalism
to uphold his own meglomania.

  Calling the Serbs Christian is the same as all Arabic Muslims calling all
Americans Christians, which is of course not true.  In the same way, calling
all Croats Muslim is the same as a westener saying that all Muslims are
terrorists, which is again not true.

  Throughout the centuries, that particular area of Europe (and indeed most
parts of Europe) have been fighting one another using religion and any other
excuse to justify their own evil desires. One man's desire vs another's.

  Shoot me down in flames of fire if I am wrong (I am sure that if my thoughts
are flawed I will be told!!) but don't generalise just because somebody comes
from a particular ethnic/racial group.

-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Why I am a Christian
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:16:58 GMT
Summary: Koran

In article <1992Aug25.190818.1634@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
[an english version of the koran and some helpful hints deleted]

If I read the koran without any commentary helps, I would conclude
the many "we" statements[meaning god]were strong evidence for the
trinity, just as the plural use in genesis:-)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc