HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 03:56:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.180204.18980@odin.corp.sgi.com> pcd@otter.esd.sgi.com (Paul C. David) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.204408.12260@leland.Stanford.EDU>, eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>|> >
>|> Yes, consumers are allowed to be stupid! Remember the DRAM industry in the US?
>|> Americans used to pay approx $3.00 for a 256kx1 DRAM chip. Then the Japs
>|> decide to undercut (which is , BTW illegal in this country). Now, the Fat Dumb 
>|> and Happy (yes, your word Phil) So-called-americans take the bait and buy
>|> the $1.50 JAPANESE import DRAMS. The US companies producing these go
>|> out of business, and then the japs rocket the price to $12 each. Who
>|> got screwed when it was all said and done? The Fat Dumb and Happy AMERICAN.
>
>First of all, there's something to be said for dispensing with your
>quasi-racist "Jap" vernacular.  You might fool some people into thinking

Oh, if you can't  (intelligently) attack my arguement, then point the
finger at me and call me a racist..... too many so-called ameicans do that 
nowadays.

>you're semi-intelligent.  Second ... the dumping idea occurs within US
>markets all the time and I don't hear many people complaining about that.
>That's called FREE ENTERPRISE.  Its not unamerican for American car makers 

Dumping is NOT free enterprise. It's called Government intervention. Export
subsidies. And Voluntary Export restraints are no different- the Gov't 
sells high dollar licences to those companies "priveledged to export". 

>to either import cars from Japan, or import parts for their cars.  That's
>also called FREE ENTERPRISE.  Its not even unamerican for said car
>maker to close plants in the US which previously made said parts, or 
>may have made a discontinued make/model.
>
>Let's also not forget that US companies are guilty of exploiting a
>foreign workforce which they perceive to be cheaper (maybe because of 
>lax safety standards in these countries).  This also takes jobs away
>from US workers.

Maybe US companies wouldn't need to do this if we weren't being attacked
from across the pacific, and dumb americans falling for it. Forty years
ago, when people actually cared about this country, it would have been
an outrage to buy a foreign car (as your first car). Now people think
it's trendy or something. If you don't like this country- leave- you're
not wanted. And if you don't like our products, then go work in a country
that you think is better. 

>
>So this whole protectionist argument strikes me as an attempt for us
>to have our cake and eat it too.  I understand your sympathy for it,
>since its such a populist issue, but it just doesn't wash as being valid.
>


Xref: sparky ba.general:4250 misc.kids:25343 misc.legal:18193
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:53:12 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct6.054031.18532@csc.canberra.edu.au> Stacey Curtis <sec@softserver.canberra.edu.au> writes:
>If you support the view that it's the pool owner's responsibility then
>please enlighten me on the liability issues in the following scenario:  I
>own the pool, it has been securely fenced with a council approved, legal
>structure.  Without my knowledge or consent your child comes over
>(trespasses) and severely injures or kills himself/herself trying to
>scale the structure (fence) to gain access to the pool.  Am I liable?

As far as I'm concerned, if the owner of the a.n. has taken reasonable
measures to secure it, such as an approved fence around a pool, that is
sufficient.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Followup-To: misc.kids
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.170232.8558@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <6869@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>>If you own a pool, you must do all that is within your power to ensure that
>>>that pool cannot be accessed by local kids.
>>
>>Why?  I didn't put the pool on public property.
>
>Because children (by definition) can not be held fully responsible for
>the consequences of their actions and a pool is an attractive nuisance.
>There have been people who suggest keeping the kids at home, building
>fences to keep them locked up, etc. That is reasonable for infants
>and toddlers, but once in the age range of perhaps 8-16, they need
>to be allowed to go out, see their friends, etc.

At which point it is the PARENTS' responsibility to teach the kids
to swim (and not to trespass, and to stay away from dangerous situations).

I'm proposing a new amendment to the US Constitution:

"Everyone else shall be responsible for the consequences of an
individual's behavior, except that individual.  This shall apply
doubly to parents and their children:  No parent shall ever be
held responsible for where the children go, what they do, or what
they see or hear.  These shall always be someone else's jobs,
preferably at the taxpayers' expense."

It should have no trouble passing, since it's what most people seem to
be doing already.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@tti.com to you!)
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4126 misc.kids:24982 misc.legal:17992
From: king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:02:32 GMT
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>Children should not die for the failures of the parents.
>All you have to do is put a fence around your swimming pool.
>If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

	Kids climb fences.  Also, isn't your fenced yard still
	a fence around the pool?  Must one build yet another,
	perhaps 12' high with barbed wire on top?  

	Maybe I missed a post from Judy, but I want to know
	if she is going to teach her child to swim and bring
	her neighbor's fence/gate up to her standards.  Or
	will she take the negligent route?

	Judy?

	Robin King
	king@glacier.stanford.edu
From: devon@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Devon Nichols)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: 800 Telephone for the Dead?
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:58:48 GMT
Distribution: ba

Hi there!  About a month ago someone posted a number for 
the Dead's Merchandising Office.  Can you send it to me again
please?

Thanks.
Devon
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: pal@xanadu.wpd.sgi.com (Anil Pal)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Reply-To: pal@wpd.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:21:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.184527.23524@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.011003.9962@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
|> >
|> >smoked pot and NOW wants to be PRESIDENT of this land. 
|> >
|> >I hate to mention him by name, but everyone knows who that SLEAZE is.
|> 
|> You watch what you say about Dan Quayle!

Yes, watch it!  The last person to allege that Quayle smoked pot was
tossed into solitary confinement for saying so.

-- 
Anil A. Pal
pal@sgi.com	(415)-390-5279
Xref: sparky ba.general:4173 misc.kids:25144 misc.legal:18081
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:24:05 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Oct5.161940.19789@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.151503.1992@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct3.045247.13563@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
>>>And what will you say to those who find handguns in the household
>
>>NOOOOOO!!!!!  DON'T START THAT ONE!!!!!  PLEASE!!!!!!
>
>Sorry, Reid, but it had to be done.  Phil will now have to think very
>carefully to avoid hypocrisy, and maybe we'll even get some of the
>net.libertarians involved.  What fun.

  While I'm not a {L|l}ibertarian, I wonder why anyone would make
such a flawed analogy (other than to start a flame.)  The analogy
to an unfenced swimming pool would be a loaded gun left outdoors.
A handgun in the household would be analagous to an indoor swimming
pool, or perhaps to a bathtub.  You may disagree with Phil, but
that does make either you or Phil into a hypocrite.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Xref: sparky ba.general:4094 misc.kids:24940 misc.legal:17968
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:16:24 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct2.151413.1142@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>Unfortunately, yes.  What's curious is that you used to sound pretty
>libertarian in the past, but current tone is comparatively coercive
>(some would say fascist).

I still am libertarian.

But, libertarian principles only apply among competent, consenting
adults.  Children are none of the above. They are not competent,
they can not consent by definition, and they are not adults.

I think the things we're been talking about are not much different than
age limits on drinking, smoking, driving, marriage, etc. Indeed, these
age limits are to protect a person from themself which is "worse" in
libertarian principles than rules to protect others. Yet most people
(NAMBLA being a notable exception) think age limits are appropriate.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4249 misc.kids:25342 misc.legal:18192
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisances (Was: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:48:57 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct6.104628.25500@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>>>Where do you draw the line?  What do you do if studies indicate that,
>>>of the remaaining fatalities that still occur with covered pools, 5%
>>>could have been eliminated if the owner built 12' fences around his
>>>property, put padlocks on all the gates and changed the combinations
>>>every week?
>
>>I believe the requirements are part of the law and as such, I consider
>>that to be a reasonable guideline. I haven't looked at the details but
>>would expect something like 6 foot fences, etc.
>
>I'd like a better answer, please.  First, what is it about this
>particular law that you find so satisfactory?  Second, exactly

Because it is effective. The kind of children who are most likely to be
hurt by an unfenced pool (don't understand the danger of water) are
very effectively kept out by a reasonable fence. The fence does not
impair the use of the pool by the owner and adds only a relatively
small cost to his total cost of ownership.

>what coercive measures are you prepared to codify?  And finally,

No particular coercive measures are specific to this issue.
The usual ones are sufficient. ("notice of requirement to
abate an attractive nuisance", etc)

>why did you draw the line where you did?  I'd prefer that the
>answer to the last question come from your values and not existing
>law.

I draw the line where it is necessary to protect the innocent.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
Xref: sparky ba.general:4180 misc.kids:25153 misc.legal:18085
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:04:35 GMT

In article 19276@netcom.com, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.181513.28037@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>
>>You do not have absolute rights on your own property for many good reasons.
>
>I'm not asking for absolute rights.  I don't want to strew cyanide-laced
>candy bars in my front yard, but I do want the right to an uncovered pool
>in the back yard without fear that someone's trespass will get me in
>trouble.

The difference seems to be one of degree, not one of principle.

Perhaps you think that your intent makes a difference, that if you intend to
not to do any harm (by having a swimming pool) that your obligation is somehow
less than if you do intend harm (cyanide candy bars).  While this may be 
something in your favor, it doesn't change your obligation to the community
to protect children from harm, whether intentional or not.  The attractive
nuisance laws are specifically directed (in my opinion) to things which are
not intended to harm, but which do inflict harm through negligence and inattention
of the owner. 

There are concepts in law of malice, simple negligence, and gross negligence.
All have relevance.

>
>>In your story, the driver did stop, although perhaps a foot too late.  
>>The officer wrote up a ticket for jaywalking, which seemed reasonable.  
>>Are you claiming that the fact that the person was jaywalking made the
>>driver somehow less obligated to avoid hitting him or somehow less obligated
>>to stop?  
>
>C'mon, you know the answer;  *intent* is key in this situation.

Yes, see above.  It shows that your story has NO relevance and no parallel
to attractive nuisance laws.

>
>What if the car had run over the boy's foot and then continued
>>on without stopping?  I'd presume that the officer would have attempted to
>>cite the driver for leaving the scene of an accident or hit-and-run.
>
>Yes, but for the "run," not the "hit".

How would you know that?  I'd wager that the driver would be cited on 
multiple charges.

>
>>You seem to hold it to be very significant that the driver was not cited.
>>Two points: (1) It may have appeared to the officer that he followed the law 
>>and his obligation, there may not have been anything to cite him for.  
>>(2) Police officers have significant latitude in whether to issue a citation
>>or not; another officer might have cited him for reckless operation or other 
>>infractions. 
>
>I think that had you saw the accident for yourself, you'd realize that
>it would be a rare cop that would scratch the driver in this case.

So?  What realtionship does this have to attractive nuisance laws?
How does one isolated traffic accident relate to a principle of protecting
children from hazzards in the community?

---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Newsgroups: ba.general
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:31:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.222847.777@leland.Stanford.EDU> marcush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marcus Edward Hennecke) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.220911.26650@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct5.201438.28137@dante.uucp> mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones) writes:

>>>As a possibly interesting note to add to this conversation, I just
>>>got back from spending a few weeks in Japan, and while I was there I
>>>took a walk through some of the big electronics shops in Tokyo and
>>>Osaka.  Your problem seems to be with the Japanese corporations
>>>undercutting American prices because of trade tariffs.  I don't think
>>>that's the problem, though, because I noticed in Japan that the prices
>>>on electronics goods are far, far cheaper than prices in the U.S. for
>>>equivalent products.  That is, I could buy a Sony television for much,

>>Perhaps, due to the high imbalance of trade, your dollar isn't worth a
>>damn. 

>But if the dollar weren't worth a damn compared to the yen wouldn't
>that mean that the prices in Japan were outrageously high for U.S.
>citizens?

Yes, Marcus, but Eric doesn't think that far ahead.  If he did, this
entire ridiculous post wouldn't have occurred...



-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
From: culver@uts.amdahl.com (Eric B. Culver)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Air Show
Keywords: Air Show
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:04:11 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

The last NAS Moffet Field Air Show will
be held this October 17 & 18. The Blue
Angels flying team is expected for this
final show. 
-- 
#ifndef _disclaimer
#define _disclaimer
Saru mo ki kara ochiru
#endif

 
Eric B. Culver
Software Engineer
amdahl!culver
From: gjackson@us.oracle.com (Gregg Jackson)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Libraries
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:09:34 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
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 <1992Sep16.002224.19821@oracle.us.oracle.com> skanga@us.oracle.com (Shiraz Kanga) writes:
>Does anyone know of any libraries located in Foster City / San Mateo /
>Redwood City. Any locations/phone nos will be appreciated
>

I used to frequent the Redwood City library, before I moved to Cupertino. It's
on Middlefield just North of Jefferson in downtown Redwood City. It's seemed to
have a good selection of books -- it's only drawback was that it still used
a card catalog. Some people may love those 3x5 cards, but I find the 
computerized catalogs easier to use. It's been a year or so since I've been
there, so they may be planning to convert to a computerized system.

Oh, yes, the library is in a converted firehouse. It makes for an interesting 
space. 
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: pal@xanadu.wpd.sgi.com (Anil Pal)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:05:31 GMT
Reply-To: pal@wpd.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.220119.25165@leland.Stanford.EDU>, eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.010459.13524@odin.corp.sgi.com> pal@wpd.sgi.com writes:
|> >
|> >You still haven't answered the point that I and others raised here,
|> >namely that the price rise in DRAMs was *not* due to monopolistic
|> >gouging by Japanese chipmakers, but rather the result of US government
|> >policies.
|> 
|> I certainly have, as this argument has gone full-circle.
|> They (collectively, in an organized manner) lowered the price
|> far below fair-market value, AND below thier cost to produce.
|> The US gov't is stupid for not acting, and the Japan Gov't 
[...]
|> US gov't policies COULD prevent it, but they didn't
|> (directly) cause it.

You *still* haven't explained where and how DRAM prices rose, which was
your original claim.  Nobody disputes that DRAM prices fell.  You claim
this is/was a bad thing because the prices subsequently rose
drastically (after the good old US makers were driven out of the market
and the evil Japanese were free to gouge).

Yes, prices rose, but BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT FORCED THE JAPANESE
MANUFACTURERS TO RAISE THEM.  Once the US government backed off, prices
fell again.

-- 
Anil A. Pal
pal@sgi.com	(415)-390-5279
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: stupid consumers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 00:49:54 GMT

>
>>Yes, consumers are allowed to be stupid! Remember the DRAM industry in the US?
>>Americans used to pay approx $3.00 for a 256kx1 DRAM chip. Then the Japs
>>decide to undercut (which is , BTW illegal in this country). Now, the Fat Dumb 
>>and Happy (yes, your word Phil) So-called-americans take the bait and buy
>>the $1.50 JAPANESE import DRAMS. The US companies producing these go
>>out of business, and then the japs rocket the price to $12 each. Who
>>got screwed when it was all said and done? The Fat Dumb and Happy AMERICAN.
>
>Uh, should someone tell this guy that the solution that was attempted(*)
>was a REPUBLICAN solution and it drove the price to be $20 a chip!
>
>Does anyone else remember how the entire computer industry STAGNATED
>for an entire year because nobody would introduce newer, more powerful
>machines due to the price of the larger memories such machines would
>require?
>
>Tom
>(*) The solution was a tarrif that caused such a shortage you couldn't
>find chips if you had the $20-$30/chip to pay for them!
>

Actually, I thought the Reaganomics solution was a "voluntary export
restraint" which was IMHO, a bad move. I don't remember the price going 
that high (for more than a month or two) for the part I quoted.


Newsgroups: ba.general
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:42:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.191951.16634@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>An element of judgement must be used here, as someone who left poisoned
>candy bars by the sidewalk in their front yard is clearly culpable.
>But I for one have a very hard time implicating pool owners when 
>children trespass and drown.

I guess that's the heart of the matter. I consider an unsecured pool to
have a lot in common with poisoned candy bars on the sidewalk. You
don't. Society does (hence the doctrine of "attractive nuisance").

I'm sorry you don't accept the decision of me and society. You will
be bound by society's decision, however.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
From: ddh@earth.esd.sgi.com (Daniel Hachigian)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:19:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

|> An element of judgement must be used here, as someone who left poisoned
|> candy bars by the sidewalk in their front yard is clearly culpable.

|> But I for one have a very hard time implicating pool owners when 
|> children trespass and drown.

So are you saying that it's not a black and white issue?  The former case
above seems to indicate that in especially obvious cases that the neighbor
should be held culpable.  But then where do you draw the line?  If the
neighbor had a valid reason for placing the candybars out (eg, to poison
plague carrying rodents) is he still culpable?  Or is he culpable because
he failed to make parents aware of the risk?  Would it be good enough to
have a warning sign out?  Would he still be culpable if the poison was only
in the back yard?  If not, would he be culpable if there was no gate on the
back yard?

The point is that if you are going to grant that there are some circumstances
in which the neighbor should be held culpable then you have conceded your
philosophic point that the property owner should be free to do what they
wish with their own property.  Instead it simply becomes a question of where
to draw the line.  You'd draw the line at the front yard whereas the courts
have drawn the line at the backyard.

As soon as that happens, then I think Phil's point about the severity of
the consequences becomes tenable and apropos.

Dan

ps  I don't really know the answer; I just like to argue.
Xref: sparky ba.general:3985 rec.arts.theatre:2697 ba.food:3319