HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Making Your Telephone a Feephone
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:34:23 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <92323.153124RFLOOD@ESOC.BITNET>, <RFLOOD@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>'Everyone' in England a few years ago knew of someone who had converted
>his telephone so that no charge pulses were passed back to the person
>who originated the call.....supposedly, the conversion consisted of
>wiring a capacitor & resistor in the phone line, so that the incoming
>charge pulses were blocked, and the exchange electronics 'saw' a phone
>where the handset had been replaced, whereas sufficient dc still flowed
>thru the phone to keep the circuit open. Was there any truth in these
>rumours ? I never met anyone who had actually done it, but there was
>always some guy three or four acquaintances across reputed to use it !

Seems unlikely on the face of it, though given my experiences with British
electronic equipment, I suppose they could've managed to put together a
telephone network so screwed up that something like that would work :-).

I *CAN* tell you how it works in the U.S.  British systems probably work
similarly.  When someone phones you, the CO starts sending a ring signal to
your phone.  That signal continues as long as there is a DC open circuit at
your phone (i.e., the handset is in the cradle).  When the DC circuit is
closed, the CO senses this and:
	1)  Discontinues the ring signal;
	2)  Connects the call;
	3)  Registers the fact that the call has been put through.
Things remain in this state until the DC circuit opens again.  At this point,
the CO:
	1)  Disconnects the call;
	2)  Registers the fact that the call has ended.
Now, if the CO is actually transmitting voice signals down the line, it
believes there is a call in progress.  Period.  No combination of capacitors
and resistors is going to have it sending voice signals and not realizing it's
sending voice signals.

As I said, though, my experience with British electronic equipment leads me to
allow for the possibility that the Brits managed to create a system that was 10
times more complicated and 1/10 as reliable as the obvious way to do things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 03:10:37 GMT

In the strictest sense, inerrancy makes no claims about the authors of
the inerrant work, other than the claim that they were able to produce
something without errors.  Attempting to disprove inerrancy by
bringing in other information about the authors is at best extraneous
and at worst red herring.

The question that has just been asked is essentially: Does inerrancy
exclude the use of idiom?

Observations about God do not provide an answer to this question.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Scientific error in bible (was biblical inerrancy)
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:41:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.084258.1@evax.gdc.com> byczko@evax.gdc.com writes:

>	Some infer that the bible incorrectly states the value of
>Pi as exactly three. If the text of 1 Kings 7:23 is examined it says:
>
>" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other:
>it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line
>of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

>	This refers to the dimensions in approximate terms and it
>does not give the profile of the vessel or the dimension of the
>brim. It is uncertain where the line was placed relative to the brim.

Even if it were meant to be exact, it is possible that the ancient
Hebrew had no (or a poor) method for dealing with fractions.  Since the
Hebrew number system is not decimal, 3.14159... has no real equivilent
in ancient Hebrew.

Besides, nobody knows the value of pi.  All we know are increasingly
better approximations.  I can infer that the Bible places the value of
pi at 3, we must recoginze that this is the best possible approximation
to 1 signigicant figure.  To say it is wrong is in and of itself wrong,
we can only say it is not very precise.


>	Another common beleif is that the bible says the earth is flat
>based on verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. The words
>actually suggest four portions of the earth in the sense of quadrants.

Or in the sence of the 4 points of the compass.

>In addition, there is scripture that says the earth is circular that was
>written about 700BC; Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the 
>circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;".

I don't recall the verse, but the Bible also says He compasseth the day
from the night, meaning that the "line" which dives day from night is a
circle.  If the earth was flat this would not be possible, but it's
quite easy for a sphere(oid).
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hot coffee (was Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:43 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
Summary: Not so easy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <20NOV199216213727@vxcrna.cern.ch>, german@vxcrna.cern.ch (GERMAN,FERN./EP) writes...
>> 
>>b) You should add the milk before you go as the rate of cooling of the
>>coffee is proportional to the temperature difference between the
>>coffee and the room.
>>
>It's perhaps true, but it isn't so simple:
>The constant of proportionality depends on the kind of matter there is
>in the cup, black coffee is not the same as coffee with milk. I think 
>one have to take into account the different specific heats of both
>liquids. What is independent of that is the rate of loss of heat, not 
>the rate of decrease of temperature.

Both coffee and milk are essentially water, so their specific heats are
not very different.

This question raises a related physics "imponderable."  If you put
hot water and cold water in a freezer, which will freeze first?
For some combinations of temperature and environmental conditions,
the answer is surprising.

You can find a detailed explanation in the sci.physics FAQ.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:05:50 GMT

>[The Bible] also says that pi=3.

The Bible does not directly say this.  In 1 Kings 7 we find
measurements of 10 and 30 cubits for the diameter and circumference
respectively of a round Sea of cast metal.  From these measurements we
can determine a value of 3 for Pi.  Note that this is accurate to the
precision given by the measurements.

As such this "error" doesn't buy us much.  Had the measurements been
recorded so that Pi could be computed as 3.1, then we would simply
note that Pi is not 3.1 either.  Similarly for 3.14, 3.142, 3.1416,
3.14159, and so on.  It is not possible to write down measurements for
the diameter and circumference of the Sea, or any circular object for
that matter, in such a way as to yield the exact value of Pi.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:27:38 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)

In article <1e90l1INNavh@agate.berkeley.edu>, shirriff@sprite (Ken Shirriff) writes:
>>>They felt that a more likely source was combination of the luekemia
>>>causative agent and the visna virus found in sheep.

>>And it's gibberish.  Look at the sequences.  It's not difficult.

>If anyone wants a copy of the sequences, send me email, and then you
>can compare the sequences yourself.  There's no big coverup here:
>HIV-1 is similar to SIV, HIV-2 is very similar to SIV, and neither
>are similar to the human leukemia virus (HTLV) or bovine leukemia
>virus (BLV) or sheep visna (OLV).

A dendrogram comparing all these viruses and others, using the most
highly conserved gene sequence (for reverse transcriptase), can be
found in AIDS v6,#8, p771 (1992).  Four SIV strains, two HIV, and
visna are listed among others.  I don't know what the "leukemia
causative agent" is--their tree has a mouse and cow leukemia virus.

HIV-1 is closest to one of the SIV's, HIV-2 to two SIV's, these all
branch together with a fourth SIV.  These form one branch, which are
connected to another branch consisting of visna and another sheep
virus, one goat virus, and a cat virus.  This then branches with a
horse and then a cow virus.

>        End of conspiracy theory.

Hahahaha.  You are speaking to monkey brains.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: tad@sdf.lonestar.org (Tad Dowe)
Subject: Re: Idiot theories abound (AIDS).
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:35:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.162710@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:


>   Goddamnit could one of the SKEPTICS please construct and AIDS-was-caused-
>by-the-govenment theory?  Then it won't be quite so silly.

>Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU 
  
The military tested biological warfare techniques during the '50s and '60s.
They sprayed SanFrancisco from outside the bay with an aerosol to test what
the dispersion of the "agent" would be into the bay area. They used a bacteria,
I forget the specific type, which would not normally be infectious; except
when the person's immune system was very poor. Since this bacteria is normally
present in our environment, it makes one wonder how they determined which
sample was theirs and which was a normal species. I propose that they "tagged"
the test bacteria by "cutting" a genetic tag into the test sample(s). This
"tag" was carried/cut into the genetic material via use of SV material (now
know as reverse transcriptase.)

Tests were conducted in various parts of the world; e.g., Africa, Japan, Haiti, and, of course, the USA. In New York, fungal test material was spread through-
out the subways. This material would also have to be "tagged" in some way;
perhaps using SV?

Since rapid advances had been made in biology/genetics since 1944, it isn't
beyond the realm of possibility that the action of SV was known by the mid to
late '50s. Specially, in military biological research, where efforts to mut-
ate virulent species of bacteria had been extensively studied since the '30s.

Still, this isn't a true conspiracy. Even if it were true, the spread of 
HIV, as a result, would have certainly been accidental.

Tad



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:22:22 GMT

In article <1dq7shINNnhs@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.024428.1534@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>Just think what this world would be like if say 25% of the world population
>>adhered to that teaching!
>
>Right.  Reminds me of an old phrase:  "If I had some eggs, I could make some
>ham and eggs, if I had some ham."  John a creed that goes against human nature
>and which is unachievable can very well do great harm even if it looks good on
>paper.  In fact, ESPECIALLY if it looks good on paper.  So your argument in
>favor of Christianity, to wit, that we can't judge it based on its empirical
>results because people can't conform to its ideal is utterly fallacious.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Your're wrong Carl. It is achievable and has been done so by many
people throughout the centuries.  Why, I'll bet that if you were
to try, you would be amazed at what you could do! But you do have to
try first. :)

>

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Ethics
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:29 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <GERRY.92Nov16134820@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes...
>In a recent post, Carl suggested that the results of the Nazi's
>"research" has not been made public because of the means used to
>obtain it.  So the question is this: If information has be obtained
>using an unethical means, is it ethical to use the information anyway?
>I don't see a problem with using such information, as long as the
>people who gathered the initial data are punished by society for their
>unethical behavior.  In the aforementioned case of the Nazis, they
>were all imprisoned or executed and will obviously not benefit from
>their efforts, so why not use the information?

Another example - the several radiation-effects studies done on the 
victims of WWII atomic bomb blasts in Japan are some of the best data
we have on the effects of radiation on people in general, pregnant women
in particular, short term effects, long term effects, etc.  Should we not
use this data because the experiment was the outcome of an arguably
highly immoral act?  I don't think so.

Of course, this example is different than the Nazi mutilations done
specifically for supposedly scientific purposes.  Still, I think that
we should avail ourselves of whatever information we can.  In a certain
sense, putting these heinous acts to ultimate good use could be a bit
of solace for the families of the victims and a sort of ultimate revenge
upon the perpetrators - using the information for the benefit of the
groups of people they despised so much.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:15:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.010556.9465@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:

>I'd still say that the fact that Yeshua died a traitor's death was an enormous problem for
>the early church, and find it very difficult to believe it was a problem they deliberately
>cultivated. 

Well, if you think that a "crucified Messiah" is a problem, a "Messiah
hanged on a tree" is a complete impossibility. 

      "for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse"
                                    -Deut. 21:23

How can somebody possibly be the Messiah if they are under God's curse?
But change the story a bit, blame it on the Romans, and THIS problem
nicely goes away!



-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:00:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.044128.3896@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>The problem is worse than this discussion hints. The differences between
>the Gospels (especially the Synoptics) are not merely those between
>eyewitnesses. Rather, they are transparent efforts to "clean up" errors
>or problems in the earlier text. For example, Mark quotes his prophecy in the
>Septuagint approximately correctly, from memory; Matthew quotes it
>exactly right. Matthew is aware of the implication in Mark's
>baptism scene that Jesus was a sinner, and hence needed baptism by
>John to make him pure enough for a divine mission; hence, he adds the
>passage having John tell Jesus that he has no *need* of baptism.

These are *your* interpretation of events.  You are assuming that if
one Gospel writer goes into more detail on a particular event then
he is necessarily trying to deceive.  Your logic only makes sense
if one assumes at first that the writers are trying to deceive.

>Matthew is aware of the implication of Jesus' illegitimacy in Mark 6:3,

This is again *your* interpretation.  If Joseph, Mary's husband was
dead at the time, then they would have referred to Him as Mary's son
since she was the only living parent at the time.

>and hence softens the insult to Jesus' paternity; Luke rewrites it,
>removing the insult completely. These are not mere 'differences
>between eyewitnesses', this is a sophisticated attempt to tidy up the
>loose ends of a messy story. It's like Nixon cleaning up his damn
>Watergate tape.

I guess that is one way to look at it, although I do not see it that way
at all.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: The Efficacy of Prayer
Originator: jsue@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:54:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.183047.4239@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>Is it also not possible that many do good despite being christian? I am
>not trying to label Christianity as evil, but there does not seem to be
>any overall correlation between being Christian, and being positive.
>

Has somebody made the statement that Christian's are the *only* positive
force on earth?  I think that in order to progress or improve ourselves,
we always need to have our sights set on some final "visions" of where
we would like to be.  A model.  And to many, the writings in the bible
are their model.

The dangers and negatives come into play when we try to use our
"model" (ideals/beliefs) to change someone else.  I think this kind of
tendency was talked about in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
(Heinlien?), which I read a few years ago.  In this book the moon
became the place where earth people sent their criminals.  The
inhabitants of the moon decided they wanted to emancipate themselves from
earth, and be their own society.  In doing this they needed to create a
government and laws.  I found it very intriguing how "typical" human
responses were demonstrated in this story.  Specifically, the tendency
of people to try to create laws to control how others live their lives.
Examples of this are laws to make gambling illegal, etc.. 

There are some very interesting insights in this book about how people
really do act/react.  I think, in general, that someone choosing a belief
system to follow because it "speaks" to them is great!  However they give
all belief systems a bad name when they use their belief system as a means
to rationalize control of others.

More to the point of this discussion.  I think that if you read the New
Testament from the standpoint of your personal life, it seems much more
positive.  However, those who use it as a "weapon" against others tend
to be more vocal and drown out these positive aspects.





-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: aids and the cia
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:14:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) writes:

>In article <17NOV199216042949@elroy.uh.edu> st1xu@elroy.uh.edu (Carr, Emery D.) writes:
>>
>>read AIDS and the doctors of death. 

>read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A very good book, IMHO.

I've been looking other opinions on it. Do you know of any reviews?
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,   \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it." \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                           \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:14:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov9.181421.11697
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov9.015251.13517@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>
>There is actually very good evidence that the Sanhedrin had jurisdiction over
>capital cases of a religious nature. If Yeshua's crime was blasphemy, as the 
>gospels claim, then Jesus should have been taken out and stoned. The fact that
>he was crucified by the Romans shows that his was considered a secular crime
>against Roman law, not a religious one against jewish law. The idea that the
>Jews couldn't execute him for blasphemy is nonsense, as the executions of
>Stephen and James in Acts ably demonstrate. 

Actually, several Talmudic passages, as well as other sources in the
Rabbinical literature, state that Jesus WAS stoned to death, then
hanged on a tree (as prescribed in Deut. 21:22-23). 

It is only the Gospel accounts of the trial - that you and I, at least, 
can agree were fictions composed to promote somebody's political aims -
that claim Jesus was crucified.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"