HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnl@convex.is.macsch.com (David Lombard)
Subject: Re: Gender depicting pictograms
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:36:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.202922.20675@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>Recently the subject of pictograms for restroom/toilet doors came up
>over in alt.folklore.urban.  One gentleman claims he has seen the
>symbol 'circle' on a mens room and the 'triangle' on women's.  Others
>doubt this and my personal experience has been the reverse, that is
>'triangle' for men and 'circle' for women.  Is there a civil engr
>handbook that would identify the correct symbol usage?
>

Although I forget which of these is correct, the reason is to help
visually impaired people to determine which door to use.


Regards,
DNL

                 MY_COMMENTS = MY_OPINIONS = NOBODY_ELSES;

David N. Lombard    The first thing we do,         The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp
dnl@macsch.com      Let's kill all the lawyers.    815 Colorado Blvd
(213) 259-4911      II Henry VI, IV.ii             Los Angeles, CA  90041
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:03:53 EST
From: Venkatesh <KODURV@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.engr.civil
Subject: Address/Information of Research Council

I am completing my Ph.D. in structural Engg. from Queen's University, Canada.
      I am interseted in applying for Post-doctoral positions in Universities/
      Research Institutes in Canada/USA. My area of specialisation is


             I apreciate any information from fellownetters.  I would like
       to know the adress of National Research Council of USA.

           Thanks in advance.


         Kumar
Newsgroups: sci.engr.civil
From: naina@eng.umd.edu ('Mohammed Rafay)
Subject: Looking for a job as a transportation engineer
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:19:49 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

I need some from civil engineers on the network. Soon I will be graduating with a M.S in Civil Engg. concentrating in transportation engineering from the 
University of Maryland at College Park. I am looking for a job anylpace in the 
continental U.S.A as a Traffic engineer/Transportation engineer or Planner.

I would appreciate it if anybody has any information on firms or agencies
hiring transportation engineers.

I can be reached at (301)-405-3777 or 405-3778 - Office
		    (301)-441-3090 Home


Thank you 

Rafay.

naina@delorean.eng.umd.edu
From: me414_us6@king.eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.engr
Subject: Re: the basic subject nature of this newsgroup
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:33:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Nov17.143342.382
Reply-To: me414_us6@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <BxMozv.AyC@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v087mxgb@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Shawn E Thompson) writes:
>
>Man oh man!~
>
>
>they should rename this newsgroup to:
>
>
>sci.engr.gripe.philosophy.whine.discuss.everything.but.tech
>subjects.and.dont.dare.ever.discuss.engineering.cuz.the.
>net.is.too.busy.discussing.every.other.politically.correct.
>complaint.subject.from.education.to.work.ethics.to.why.my
>toes.sweat.at.the.office.
>
>
>:-)
>
>

Amen to that. This undergrad thought he had seen the
height of complaining and whining until he hook up with
this service.
Newsgroups: sci.engr
From: natelson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Douglas Natelson)
Subject: thermodynamic model of air
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: sci.engr
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:34:51 GMT

Hi.

I'm interested in a thermodynamic model of air over the following 
range:

	Pressure: 2e-4 atm to ~10000 atm
	Temperature:  100 K to 2500 K

outside the vapor dome.  I've already got William Reynolds' 1979
model from his book _Thermodynamic_Properties_in_SI_, and I'm
looking for others.

Specifically, I'd like h(rho,T), P(rho,T), s(rho,T) if possible.

Any help would be appreciated, especially FORTRAN code, if 
available.

			Thanks.

			Douglas Natelson
			natelson@phoenix.princeton.edu

Newsgroups: sci.engr
From: ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson)
Subject: Re: Contraption building ideas?????
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.230220.7359@ee.ubc.ca> jeffc@ee.ubc.ca (Jeffrey Chow) writes:
>Hi,
>
>  I'm leading a group of people in a contraption building activity.
>I'm looking for ideas for contraptions which exploit creativity and
>innovation on the part of the participants.       
>
>  The people(mostly adults from late teens to mid 20s) will be given
>approximately one hour to design and build the contraption to see who
>has built the most engineeringly sound device.  I'm looking for contraption
>ideals which do not require expertise in any specific area of engineering,
>and would be cheap and fun to build.
>
>  Some contraptions that have been built before include:
>    - a contraption to protect a raw egg from cracking when dropped
>        from a fixed height
>    - paper plane with largest wingspan which could fly the farthest
>    - balloon powered cardboard cars with the longest range
>
>  Anybody got some other neat ideals????


Howabout  -bridges (cardboard/paper) or supports
	  -paper object that takes the longest time to
		hit the ground from a specified height
	  -build the highest tower out of some
	 	specified number of 8 x 10 sheets of paper
	  -a boat out of clay that holds the
		most number of marbles without sinking
	 
ajackson@ernie.princeton.edu


Newsgroups: sci.engr,sci.physics
From: ellis@msl475a.erim.org (Ken Ellis)
Subject: Re: Do scientists or engineers need this sort of program? (force lines)
In-reply-to: diesel@odie.ee.wits.ac.za's message of Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:17:22 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Nov19.185034.1318@Princeton.EDU> <diesel.71@odie.ee.wits.ac.za>
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:16:10


This sort of a program would do what is called "inverse scattering":
i.e., given a measured field, determine what the source function is
that created that field. People have been working on this problem for
years and many journals are devoted to this subject. In particular, it
forms the basis for synthetic aperture radar, computer aided
tomography, and seismic imaging. Lots of algorithms have been
developed and software has been written to solve specific inverse
scattering problems.


--
_____
\                                      |  Opinions expressed here are solely
 \   ERIM   Ken Ellis                  |  those of the author and do not
 /          ellis@erim.org             |  necessarily represent those of 
/____|                                 |  his employer.
From: david@kbssun1.tamu.edu (David Browne)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Date: 24 Nov 1992 06:09:49 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: kbssun1.tamu.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

About pi ...

I seem to remember seeing a program on either PBS or the Discovery Channel
that hypothesized that the reason pi is bundled into the measurements of
the circumference of the pyramids is that the ancient builders used a
wheel that was 1 cubit in diameter as a measuring tool (like an odometer),
and that they paced off 280 or some number of revolutions.  Did I dream
this, or has someone else heard something similar?

David Browne
david@kbssun1.tamu.edu
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:31:25 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Mea culpa.

Well, I have to modify my defense.  I confess to missing a whole section
of Zerxes post.  There are after all people here who subscribe to the idea 
that the ancient stone structures had something to do with aircraft or 
spacecraft or aliens.  In the spirit of my earlier postings, I have to 
offer this point of view potential validity too, although I am as skeptical 
as the conventional interpreters about this.  But in the spirit of this 
forum, it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question as an archaeological 
theme.

So we have approximately three points of view. 

1. The conventional view that holds the pyramids are remarkable structures 
but did not involve anything extraordinary to build them. This view also
holds that they were tombs, as indicated by the sarcophagi found in the
interior chambers.

2. The pyramids as space ports view, that a superhuman highly technological
civilization, either earthly or extraterrestrial, built the pyramids and 
used them for all kinds of technologically advanced things that we know 
nothing about any more.  Some of the proponents of this view hold that the
same super-intelligent beings are manipulating life on our planet today
and are going to appear in various ways, if they haven't already.

3. My view (so far I have not heard any other advocates), that the pyramids 
were indeed constructed by means of concepts and principles that we can
no longer duplicate today, that the conditions of both the natural order
and human consciousness were different than they are today, but that
human beings built them.  I also expressed in another thread my belief
as to what they were used for.

Now, I have to admit that I sympathize with some of the posters from group 1
and have little pationce with group 2 myself.  So, I can appreciate their
lack of patience with group 3.  But no one is going to throw up his hands and
admit, I am a fool and a superstitious credulous idiot.  You are right, I
give up.  I was wrong.  The  problem remains is, is it possible to discuss
the pyramids from all three points of view without straying too far from the
topic of this forum, namely archaeology.  I admit that I am at a loss for
an answer.  I like to think that a discussion of group 3 is possible, but I
am bound by my own statements of principle to admit the possibility that an
intelligent discussion of 2 is possible too.

I should point out that one avenue that could keep it on track would be to 
request hard data from the pyramids themselves.  They can at least throw
light on the question, not resolved in some peoples minds, of just what was
required to build the pyramids, what they were built for, and whether or not
we could do it today if we had or wanted to.


Gerry Palo
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Nov 3rd NOVA on pyramids
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:43:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.151410.28513@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org
(Gerry Palo) writes:

	[unfortunately quoting my whole fucking article ... ]

> >	2.6 * 10^6 blocks / 201618 hours = 12.9 blocks/hour
> >
> >throughout the whole bloody reign of Khufu.

> Interesting numbers.  One small point.  There is not a shred of
> evidence that Khufu's reign was bloody.  That it must have been

Umm... "bloody" is an English idiomatic usage, originating from
"by our Lady."  I do not think the expression means what you think
it means. :-)

As to evidence, we *do* have a shred testifying to Cheops as tyrant --
namely the tradition recounted to Herodotos by his Egyptian sources.
This is terrily late, and I wouldn't put much weight on it, but it is
a hell of a lot more than we know about him from any *contemporary*
sources.  Given the long run of pyramid mania, we need not postulate
slave-driving and misery in their construction, but that whole issue
is a red herring anyway.

You continue to show signs of being a crank.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:09:54 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov18.144909.26222@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>I have heard claims that the scrolls are being suppressed because they offer
>>dramatic confirmation of the New Testament and vice versa, because they 
>>contradict it.
>
>The only reason for their suppression which has any kind of plausible
>proof is that the scholars who have yet to publish their scrolls are
>keeping them under wraps to protect their exclusive access, thus
>ensuring themselves a place in the Dead Sea Scrolls saga.  As soon as
>the scrolls are public, they have no more clout as the "experts" on
>those documents since everyone will be able to read and study them.
>
>This started as the conventional courtesy among scholars of right of
>first publication.  Rather than simply publish new documentary finds,
>one scholar (or team) is chosen to do the initial work of
>reconstruction, transcription, and interpretation.  This scholar can
>then publish his initial work along with the photographs of the
>document for the rest of the scholarly community.
>
>However, I think that in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this
>priviledge has been grossly and intentionally misused by the scholars
>of the Ecole Biblique and other such institutions.  I don't believe
>any of the stories that the scrolls are being suppressed for
>idealogical reasons.  I think the scholars are just selfish.
>
>I am fervently in favor of making the "suppressed" scrolls public.  I
>think several decades is far longer than a reasonable time to wait for
>first publication.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
>                    jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how can they have any clout if they never publish?  Sooner or later
they will be dead (if some of them aren't already) Is it maybe a matter 
of a job-for-life sinecure?  Anyway, what can be done to get the scrolls
made available, at least in facsimile?

Gerry Palo (e-mail to 73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:48:14 GMT

In article <Bxyq15.6zL@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>	The pyramid stones, some of which weighed up to 70 tons, were so finely
>cut and positioned as to give joints of less than a fiftieth of an inch in
>thickness.  Not to mention that the tools employed by the Egyptians, at the
>time, were not of sufficient hardness to even dent some of the types of stone
>used in the construction.  Next, a fine cement was then run into these joints
>so expertly as to give an even coverage of areas as big as five feet by seven.
>The pyramid's now almost totally despoiled original outer casing of polished
>limestone (all twenty-one acres of it) was levelled and honed to the standard
>of accuracy normal in modern optical work.  As a geodetic marker and an orbital
>observatory, the Great Pyramid is so perfectly oriented with the cardinal
>directions that modern compasses are adjusted to it.  Furthermore, this
>spectacular pyramid is sited at the exact center of the geometrical quadrant
>formed by the Nile Delta.  Using the Sacred Cubit, nearly every one of the
>Pyramid's basic external and internal measurements can be expressed as a
>function of the quantity pi and 365.242.  The quantity pi, by the way, had
>supposedly not been discovered yet, and 365.242 is the number of days in the
>solar tropical year.  And lastly, though archeologists all consider the pyramid
>to be a tomb, not one corpse has ever been found within the structure, nor is
>there any evidence to indicate that their ever were.

Can't be that perfect.  The blocks are visible in pictures.
Sounds like rose-colored hearsay to me.
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix (really Khufu's Pyramid)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.180810.14801@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>
>This relates to a couple of current threads here in sci.archeology

     Apparently.  Isn't serendipity wonderful.  However, though I have
     never read sci.archeology, I would suspect that y'all's thread
     is never-ending.

     Isn't there a FAQ with which to pummel people who suggest changes
     in nature's laws and space aliens?

>So now we have at least opened up the discussion about the use of the pyramids
>as tombs.  I think these are the recent discoveries I remember reading about.
>
>Withdrawing any previous statements about shreds of evidence, the evidence that
>we do have that the pyramids were built as tombs is very questionable.  That they had a l

    The point is that *all* the evidence about this time is questionable.

>It is interesting that after the Old Kingdom the pyramid forms were never again 
>used, for tombs or anything else.  

     Not so.  The Saites loved to bury people in Pyramids, including
     the old ones.  In addition "private tombs of pyramidal form 
     or incorporating a pyramid in their architectural design were
     built from the Middle Kingdom until Roman times." Edwards, "The
     Pyramids of Egypt".

>Question: Did all the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom 
>have pyramids, of whatever size?  This might help resolve the question of whether 

     Who knows?  For instance, we have not found a pyramid of
     Huni who supposedly reigned over 20 years.  However, Snofru after him
     is now thought to have had three.  Zoser, Sekhemket, and
     Khaba (III dynasty) before him each supposedly had a large one.  
     So, during at least one period, we are left with too many for the number
     of kings.

>the pyramids were built to bury the pharaohs or for other purposes of life.
>
>The "tradition" that Khufu is buried *below* the pyramid is nothing but that, a
>tradition.  Indeed, if he were buried in the grounds around the pyramid it would
>be below the pyramid. I too have a feeling that there are still interesting things 
>to be discovered at Giza (and I am not looking for alien spacecraft). 

     Of course it is nothing more than a tradition, it also has him
     buried on a subterranian island connected to the nile.

     Other traditions have the blocks floating down a magic road.

>I would appreciate it if you could cite some specific references for this material. 

    Almost any legitimate comprehensive source on the pyramids has
    this information in it.  I have already given two that include 
    such information.

    Have a good day.

                               dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:33:40 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov15.211236.1@adcalc.fnal.gov> mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov writes:
>Sorry to chime in at such a late date about the Dead Sea Scrolls but I just
>got back to reading this list and came across a few items concerning fraud 
>and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Just what was the fraud concerning?  And is there 
>a translated version of the Dead Sea scrolls available?
>
>					Mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov
>

Fraud would not be the word of choice. There was a query about following
up on the book "The Dead Sea Scroll Deception" which has as its basic
thesis that the Roman Catholic Church conspired to deprive the rest
of the world of access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The purported motive
behind this "deception" is that the Church is uncomfortable with 
evidence that the Qumran community might have been composed of early
Christians led by the brother of Jesus. A considerably less 
inflamatory approach is taken by Robert Eisenmann (I believe of
the Claremont system), and much of the research in "Deception" is
based on his work. The Biblical Archaeology Review, a magazine
which is sort of the "Scientific American" of the Biblical 
Archaeology world has covered the controversy (including some 
interesting material in their latest issue on the controversial
"Pierced Messiah" text). BAR is not a peer-reviewed journal and
occasionally engages in some activities that might be categorized
as circulation-boosting (they are famous for printing letters from
fundamentalists cancelling subscriptions), but is nevertheless
a good source for this material.

All opinions are mine, and standard disclaimers apply.

Jack F. Love
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:55:29 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov19.160954.3276@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>they will be dead (if some of them aren't already) Is it maybe a matter 
>of a job-for-life sinecure?  Anyway, what can be done to get the scrolls
>made available, at least in facsimile?
>
>Gerry Palo (e-mail to 73237.2006@compuserve.com)

BAR is doing just that, and of course the official publications
will be coming out much faster now.

Many thanks to the few of you who have encouraged me to add to
this disscussion. But I haven't seen any questions that could
not be answered simply by picking up the latest issue of BAR
on the newstand, or of course getting it from the library.  Now
if we want to have a discussion around some of the issues, that's
another matter.

The reason I solicited feedback is that I am very concerned about
the effect that the lawsuit now pending against BAR will have (this
may be one of those cases where even if BAR wins, they will lose
because of the expenses they are incurring). 

The question is by no means a one-way affair. The Israeli scholar
who is suing has a valid point. He spent months and perhaps even
years piecing together a fragmentary work and he feels he has the
right to benefit from its publication. BAR for its part argues 
that the text (as reconstructed by the scholar) was already
published in some obscure Polish publication, and therefore "the
cat was out of the bag." 

If there continues to be interest, we can either summarize
the last BAR article on the subject, or perhaps someone with
access to a scanner can upload it.

Jack F. Love