HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh)
Subject: Re: Phone # for CARL system
Followup-To: alt.religion.emacs
Keywords: EMACS MAKES A COMPUTER SLOW
Organization: Solbourne, User Interface Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.022253.22367@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: 
>Hey, vi is a *fine* editor.

"Honey, how are you?"
"Oh, I'm FINE..."

Yes, indeed, vi is a fine editor :-)

Warner
-- 
Warner Losh		imp@Solbourne.COM
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
From: kberlin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimon Berlin)
Newsgroups: nyx.misc,du.general,co.general
Subject: Re: FYI - USWest wasting our money again
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:05:37 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <1992Sep11.145101.7594@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>
>
>Today I just read in the Rocky Mt. News that it will be $15/month +
>$.15/minute for -- are you ready -- nothing more than an on-line
>phonebook.  (You get software, or for $300 flat or $12/month more, a
>simple terminal.)  Supposedly just unveiled for Minneapolis.

Minitel terminals are free in France, so is access to the online phone
directory. Commercial services are about 1 FF/minute ($.20/min).
>
>Reason #1: Maybe at $.50/month it would work.  Geez, I pay $14/month
>for one phone line!  Your average person is not going to shell out
>this much when phone books are virtually free (and mostly easier to
>use).  How often do you REALLY look things up in the phone book or
>call directory assistance?  If it were worth $.10 to look something up
>(about what it's worth to me on-line), this implies I need to look up
>150 items a month.  And if one search takes a couple minutes (to wade
>through the clunky menus) this is already at $.30 a search.  If I use
>this "a lot" and look up 100 items a month, I'm looking at $45/month
>for this!  Fubar.

One of the reasons of the relative success of Minitel in France is the
amazing amount of subsidies that went into the project. I think that France
Telecom is several billion Francs into the red because of this.

>Reason #3: Videotex.  Blech!  I think MS-windows and X have proven
>that even non-computer-geeks can read decently small size fonts on
>screens; we don't need to regress to the middle-ages here with 40
>character wide screens (which the picture showed; or is it 32?).  (As
>for the "transmission speed" argument, I'd rather it be just a
>straight ASCII text interface; either that, or use it as grounds to
>justify ISDN for homes.)

The screen is 24x40, with "semi-graphic" characters - uuuugly. Transmission
is an asymetric 1200/75 baud.
Some Minitel terminals support 80x24 but there's no way around the internal
modem. France Telecom plans a second generation "high-performance" terminal
working at a blazing 4800 bps. Wheee.

>
>Reason #4: Another Propietary Program.  Presumably we won't be able to
>dial in with Procomm, or telnet in via the internet.  Bag it right
>there.  It'll be too limited for real use (as they always are), buggy,
>clunky ...

Possibly the most FAQ in soc.culture.french: how do I get access to Minitel
from Internet (or vice/versa). The awful truth is: there is no public
gateway.
From: pcb@clinicom.com (Peter Bohne)
Subject: WANT CU BUFFS TIX!
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:08:04 GMT
Organization: CliniCom Incorporated, Boulder, CO
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Greetings to netnewsland!

I'm looking for CU home game tickets (2 or 4) for October or
November.  Which game is not an issue.  Anyone with tickets they
need to unload or season tickets they won't be using???  Please
e-mail me (or post if the e-mail goes unanswered (doesn't reach
me)).  Thanks MUCH in advance.  I will kiss feet, grovel, etc. if
necessary...

pete

,----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| pcb="Peter Bohne"                    "..and what is good, Phaedrus, and    |
| work_phone="303/443-9660"               what is not good?  Need we ask     |
| co="clinicom"                           anyone to tell us these things?.." |
| export pcb co work_phone                                                   |
|     Clinicom, Inc. 4720 Walnut St. Suite 106 Boulder CO 80306              |
`---------------------------- pcb@clinicom.com ------------------------------'
From: ratzan@pilot.njin.net (Lee Ratzan)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: terminal server in denver
Summary: terminal server in denver
Keywords: computer network
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:43:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I will be giving a talk on Internet services at the Library
and Information Technology Association in Denver. It would
be useful to know of a local phone number to which I can
connect with a terminal server and then TELNET to my
home machine in New Jersey.

Does anyone know of such a number (perhaps U. Denver or
U. Colorado has one?)


Thank you,

Lee Ratzan
Univ of Medicine/Dentistry of NJ
email: ratzan@umdnj.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:02:43 GMT

In article <1685F7493.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
>     ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
>     orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall
>     constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any
>     person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
>     status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
>     discrimination.

To me it is quite clear that this would make it legal to discriminate
against homosexuals. It is also clear to me that this is the entire
purpose behind this amendment. It is not-so-thinly disguised bigotry
coming from a group of incredibly self-righteous fanatics who think
they know what lifestyle is best for everybody and are willing
to have it forced on everyone whether they want it or not. So
much for a "free" country. This means "freedom only if you
agree with *us*".  Intolerance is *not* a family value. At least, 
it wasn't in *my* family.

NO on #2 means YES for freedom to live your own lifestyle. VOTE NO
ON #2 and vote yes for freedom.

--Greg
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:14:00 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Sep15.033509.16943@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.191438.21464@intellistor.com> wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund) writes:

>>It appears that Amendment #2 will prevent the state from providing
>>protected status to gays and lesbians.  This means that if somebody is
>>denied employment, housing, etc. because they are or appear to be gay
>>or lesbian then there is no recourse under state law.
>
>On the other side of the coin, any such person denied employment, housing,
>etc... on legitimate grounds could sue _claiming_ discrimination. 
>The threat of a nusance suit is enough pressure to make someone hire/rent
>to/etc... despite valid objections (such as lack of qualifications.)

In fact, *anyone* who is denied employment or housing on legitimate grounds
could sue, claiming to be gay or lesbian.
How can you prove that somebody *isn't* gay or lesbian if they say they are?

Amendment #2 is ill-intentioned bigotry, but laws granting preferences based
on race, sex, or personal habits are generally well-intentioned mistakes.
I oppose both.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: guyw@dakota (Guy Wells)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Keywords: prejudice 
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:35:25 GMT

Clifford Winslow:
>>need only look to their bumber sticker which says "HATE Is Not A Family
>>Value".  [It is "HATRED", ya' fools!! "Hate" is a verb.]  They try to
>>convice everyone that other minority groups will be the next attacked.

Jeff Berry: 
>According to the Random House Dictionary, Unabridged,
>"hate" is a perfectly acceptable noun, as well as a verb.  

Actually, the bumper stickers probably should say "hatred." I used the
Webster Collegiate (9th edition), and hatred is

		_prejudiced_ hostility or animosity.

I believe that the bumper sticker writers were probably going after the
prejudiced in society.

"Hate" is just "intense hostility," it's not a prejudiced hostility.

My $0.02.

-- 
--
Guy M. Wells <guyw@uswest.com>  Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, no
U S WEST Advanced Technologies  one elses, and certainly not USWEST's!
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:35:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.191438.21464@intellistor.com> wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund) writes:
>When somebody has protected status it means that it is illegal to
>discriminate against that person based on some characteristic such as
>race or sex.  In general, it is ok to discriminate in favor of the
>protected status.

Then I'm not sure _anyone_ should have "protected status." What
happened to equal protection of the law?

>It appears that Amendment #2 will prevent the state from providing
>protected status to gays and lesbians.  This means that if somebody is
>denied employment, housing, etc. because they are or appear to be gay
>or lesbian then there is no recourse under state law.

On the other side of the coin, any such person denied employment, housing,
etc... on legitimate grounds could sue _claiming_ discrimination. 
The threat of a nusance suit is enough pressure to make someone hire/rent
to/etc... despite valid objections (such as lack of qualifications.)

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: nexus@ylum.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeff Berry)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Keywords: prejudice 
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.183525.18922@advtech.uswest.com> guyw@dakota (Guy Wells) writes:
!Clifford Winslow:
!>>need only look to their bumber sticker which says "HATE Is Not A Family
!>>Value".  [It is "HATRED", ya' fools!! "Hate" is a verb.]  They try to
!Jeff Berry: 
!>According to the Random House Dictionary, Unabridged,
!>"hate" is a perfectly acceptable noun, as well as a verb.  
Guy Wells (hi, Jalut)
!Actually, the bumper stickers probably should say "hatred." I used the
!Webster Collegiate (9th edition), and hatred is
!		_prejudiced_ hostility or animosity.
!I believe that the bumper sticker writers were probably going after the
!prejudiced in society.
!"Hate" is just "intense hostility," it's not a prejudiced hostility.
!My $0.02.

Well, actually, I would tend to say that niether hate nor hatred should
be considered a "Family Value".   Sure, prejudiced hostility is bad, but for
that matter, intense hostility is pretty bad, too.

	But, in fact, all this is wandering a bit from the point - it is however
a fine exercise in why "sound bite" politics don't work very well.  Almost any
real life issue can not be reduced to a sound bite/bumper sticker and still
retain total information exchange.  
	On the other hand, "Hate, Hatred, and other hostile attitudes as 
portrayed by those who disagree with my politics do not in some senses fit in
with their self-proclaimed political agenda" does not make a very attractive
bumper sticker.


badger                                      Don Alexandre Lerot d'Avigne
Jeff Berry                                  Seneschal of Caer Galen, Outlands
               nexus@ncar.ucar.edu
NCAR doesn't tell me what to think, and I return the favor.
"You're a notch and I'm a legend"-------Alice Cooper
"You're still doing the things that I gave up years ago.."-----Lou Reed
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:23:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.033509.16943@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Then I'm not sure _anyone_ should have "protected status." What
>happened to equal protection of the law?

I tend to agree with this (which no doubt makes me an automatic racist
in some people's eyes), but this amendment, which is clearly targeted
at one specific group, is *NOT* the way to go about it. What is needed
is a much broader-based change, something which would make "reverse"
discrimination illegal also. This amendment strikes me as an attempt to
restrict lifestyles and keep gays in the closet. Granted that not all
supporters of this amendment see it that way, but it looks to me like
that would be the actual effect of it.

--Greg
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:18:05 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Sep11.180243.3195@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <1685F7493.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
>>     ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
>>     orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall
>>     constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any
>>     person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
>>     status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
>>     discrimination.
>
>To me it is quite clear that this would make it legal to discriminate
>against homosexuals.

I've got bad news for you, Greg...it's already legal in most of Colorado
(Boulder is one exception).

Instead, what this does is prevent the passage of laws which would make it
illegal to discriminate, etc., and make the antidiscrimination laws that 
Boulder and other places currently have invalid.

Frankly, I think this is indeed a thinly-disguised attempt at
constitutional bigotry.  I also think it's going to go down in flames
in a major way -- I predict that about 75% will vote against it, since
it's not only bigotry but it's the kind of stupid narrow-minded
crusade that most people who aren't far right-wing zealots would be ashamed 
to be caught supporting.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow)
Subject: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:17:23 GMT

 
Hail! Citizens of the State of Colorado:
 
It has come to my notice that the groups opposing the proposed ammendment
#2 on the upcoming November 1992 General Election Ballot have employed
what any intelligent person might call "scare tactics" and "half-truths",
saying that the ammendment will legalize discrimination and hatred--one
need only look to their bumber sticker which says "HATE Is Not A Family
Value".  [It is "HATRED", ya' fools!! "Hate" is a verb.]  They try to
convice everyone that other minority groups will be the next attacked.
 
In an effort to clear the air and keep everyone's mind focused upon
the issue at hand, find below the actual text of the ammendment:
 
Constitutional Initiative # 2
An ammendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado
Article 2, Section 30:
 
     NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
     ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of
     its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies,
     political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
     shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation,
     ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
     orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall
     constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any
     person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
     status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
     discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be
     in all respects self-executing.
 
 
 
Clifford Winslow ------> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com
 
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                                         |
 |           1/2 truth + 1/2 truth = One Complete LIE !!!!!  --Me          |
 |                                                                         |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                              F L A M E S :                              |
 |                                                                         |
 |                       1.  Cheerfully accepted.                          |
 |                       2.  Dutifully read.                               |
 |                       3.  Summarily dismissed.                          |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: The above expressed viewpoints, opinions, and observations, |
 |             except where attributed, are solely those of the author and |
 |             do not necessarily reflect those of Storage Technology      |
 |             Corporation or Storage Technology Corporation management,   |
 |             staff, stockholders, suppliers, or customers.               |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 19:14:38 GMT

In <1992Sep11.172607.1274@colorado.edu> tesar@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bruce Tesar) writes:

>    Now, can someone please explain to me what, in a legal context,
>is meant by "protected status",  or "minority status"?

Somebody with "protected status" or "minority status" receives special
privileges under the law.  The basis for these is the assumption that
people either will at present or have in the past discriminated
against people of a particular group.

For example, anybody of a non-white race (basically judged by skin
color or spanish surname) receives protected status in employment,
housing, and a number of other areas.

Women have protected status if applying for jobs which are
traditionally "non-female".

The new Americans with Disabilities Act along with previous laws makes
it illegal to discriminate aginst somebody with a disability (and
under the ADA a company may be required to make special arrangements
for a disabled worker).

Protected status may also be provided based on religion or national
origin.

When somebody has protected status it means that it is illegal to
discriminate against that person based on some characteristic such as
race or sex.  In general, it is ok to discriminate in favor of the
protected status.

It appears that Amendment #2 will prevent the state from providing
protected status to gays and lesbians.  This means that if somebody is
denied employment, housing, etc. because they are or appear to be gay
or lesbian then there is no recourse under state law.

If the amendment fails and if the Colorado legislature gives gays and
lesbians protected status, it means that an individual may go to court
if the individual feels he or she was discriminated against due to
sexual preference.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: tesar@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bruce Tesar)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:26:07 GMT

In article <1685F7493.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
>
 [some commentary deleted]
> 
>In an effort to clear the air and keep everyone's mind focused upon
>the issue at hand, find below the actual text of the ammendment:
> 
>Constitutional Initiative # 2
>An ammendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado
>Article 2, Section 30:
> 
>     NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
>     ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of
>     its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies,
>     political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,
>     shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation,
>     ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
>     orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall
>     constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any
>     person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
>     status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
>     discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be
>     in all respects self-executing.
> 
> 
> 
>Clifford Winslow ------> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com
> 
    Now, can someone please explain to me what, in a legal context,
is meant by "protected status",  or "minority status"?

    The amendment seems to deny the state from being able
to "entitle any person or class of persons to have ... claim of
discrimination." Is this to be interpreted as meaning that the state
of Colorado cannot have laws against discrimination of any kind?

Bruce
-- 
Bruce B. Tesar                    Internet:  tesar@cs.colorado.edu
Computer Science Department
University of Colorado at Boulder 
Boulder, CO  USA  80309-0430
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: nexus@ylum.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeff Berry)
Subject: Re: CO Constitution Ammendment #2 Verbage
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:11:58 GMT

In article <1685F7493.WINSLOW@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> Clifford_Winslow@stortek.com (Clifford Winslow) writes:
> 
>need only look to their bumber sticker which says "HATE Is Not A Family
>Value".  [It is "HATRED", ya' fools!! "Hate" is a verb.]  They try to
>convice everyone that other minority groups will be the next attacked.

According to the Random House Dictionary, Unabridged,
"hate" is a perfectly acceptable noun, as well as a verb.  

	Or to paraphrase, It is Hate, ya fool, hate or hatred are both nouns!



badger                                      Don Alexandre Lerot d'Avigne
Jeff Berry                                  Seneschal of Caer Galen, Outlands
               nexus@ncar.ucar.edu
NCAR doesn't tell me what to think, and I return the favor.
"You're a notch and I'm a legend"-------Alice Cooper
"You're still doing the things that I gave up years ago.."-----Lou Reed
Newsgroups: sura.techs
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 11:24:21 -0500
From: James Sturges <sturges@fiona.umsmed.edu>
To: techs@sura.net
Subject: subscribe
Newsgroups: sura.noc.status
To: status@sura.net
Subject: UTK down
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 14:54:47 -0400
From: "Roy Alcala" <ralcala@sura.net>



09/06/92	UTK down
 14:50		The University of Tennessee at Knoxville is currently 
		unreachable due to a local power failure.  They expect
		to be back up around 15:15.



Roy Alcala
SURAnet Operations
(301) 982-3214
Newsgroups: sura.noc.status
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 14:51:31 -0400
From: K.A. Long <klong@sura.net>
To: status@sura.net
Subject: SURA9-scheduled down



09/15/92	SURA9 will be down to swap in a CSC4 at
		23:00 tonight.

		Affected sites are Department of Energy-OSI,
		American Council on Education, Applied Physics
		Lab, Naval Research Lab-Connection Machine
		Facility, American Red Cross and the University
		of Delaware-128.4 network.


Kim Long
Newsgroups: sura.noc.status
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 23:23:50 -0400
From: Ramin Farahi-far <ramin@sura.net>
To: status@sura.net
Subject: UTK down, VAND, MEM-ST, and JUDE affected.

09/13/92	UTK down, VAND, MEM-ST, and JUDE affected.
23:00		University of Tennessee in Knoxville has lost connectivity 
		due to major power outage. Sites affected by this outage are
		Vanderbilt University, Memphis State University, and St. Jude
		Children's Hospital. No estimated uptime is known at this time.


Ramin Farahi-far
SURAnet Operations
ramin@sura.net						(301) 982-3214