HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Nuclear waste (was Australian Research Reactor Proposal)
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:11:46 GMT
Reply-To: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au

In <Bz8E4C.7x7@research.canon.oz.au> greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney) writes:

:In the nuclear environment, any accident at all is intolerable and has
:far-reaching effects; 

Surely even in the nuclear industry only certain accidents are
intolerable and have far reaching effects.

:			in the real world in which we live, it's just not
:possible to run _all_ nuclear reactors perfectly safely.

:I didn't say it was impossible to run a single reactor safely, I said that it
:was impossible for all of them in the world to be run safely. Three Mile
:Island nearly melted down, and Chernobyl exploded, so it can no longer be said
:that all nuclear reactors can be run safely.

Your logic is faulty:

_all_ nuclear reactors are unsafe == there does not exists a safe
reactor.

:Not a good example since it's so easy to contrast with the USSR's nuclear subs;
:they had a tenancy to dump decomissioned but still highly radioactive reactor
:cores straight into the ocean. There was a newspaper article just a few weeks
:back about the problems of cleaning the resulting mess up.

You are just simplifying the argument by lumping things vaguely
related.  Just as not all nuclear reactors are the same, not all
nuclear subs are the same.  There are many different designs of
nuclear reactors for nuclear submarines.  ExUSSR subs (not just
nuclear) are all badly designed.  The USSR's Alpha attack subs
uses a Sodium coolant in their reactors.  Just think what Sodium
would do with water ?  USSR's subs have such pool shielding,
USSR's sailors called them "widow maker".  

Yes, nuclear reactors can be unsafe but by better design and
careful management, they can be safe.  Again, U.S. Navy's nuclear
submarines are good examples.  

:>                        Instead of using accidents to scare, why
:>don't you put up some sound scientific arguments that the nuclear
:>industry will never be safe.

:The reasons why all nuclear plants can't be run safely aren't purely
:scientific: they are political, legal and economic. You may be able to run one
:safely from a scientific standpoint, but that's not how they all work out in
:the real world.

In the case of Chernobyl, the design of the reactor is clearly at
fault.  In fact, the Chernobyl design has been abandoned a long
time ago by British nuclear scientists because it is inherently
unsafe.  
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: Graham Mann <mann@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
Subject: Melbourne performance artist's address?
Organization: University of New South Wales
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:37:00 GMT

Recently Stelarc, the Melbourne cyberpunk performance artist
known for his strikingly weird technological statements
(e.g. having himself suspended by hooks peircing his
skin from cranes on building sites;  his mechanical 
"third hand" project) has had a high profile on TV. I 
wonder if anyone in Melbourne knows his electronic mail
or physical mail address. The author of a U.S. book on
cyberpunk art is interested in contacting him, and I
need a go-to.

Thanks in advance

Graham Mann
AI Lab
UNSW.
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: harsant@headplant.trl.OZ.AU (Dave Harsant)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 07:14:25 GMT

In article <chris.724049855@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>Because it's a highly emotionally loaded term. The conotation is negative.
>If anyone is to blame for the "cream skimming" it's the Government which
>introduced competition. But if Telecom had been as wonderful as everyone
>is now saying (;-) there wouldn't have been a need to introduce competition.
>So let's blame Telecom for being silly enough to create the climate for their
>own demise.

Actually, I think it is more appropriate to say that the Government was
pressured into introducing competition by groups who could see that there
was a lot of money to be made if they could grab some of the high return on
investment bits.  The primary leaders of the attack on Telecom have been 
multi national companies, a few wealthy local vested interest groups, and
certain overseas "experts".

Actually, what confounds me most about the things which are happening
in this and other countries is how some of these economic vandals have
come to be called "rationalists".  What is rational about Australia
embracing the "level" playing field, in the current world economic climate?

>So perhaps the Government should sell Telecom tomorrow so that it will
>be a private company and safe from it's own owner gutsing its business!
>Or perhaps we should just lie back and stop worrying about whether our
>telecommunications industry is going in the right direction...

Yeah, let's sell to AT&T. Then we don't have to worry about anything.
Who needs Australian owned companies?  Sell off everything, and make a
quick buck to meet some good business objectives.  Let's stuff the
environment while we are at it (as if we aren't), because conservation
costs too much.  Yeah, the experts know what's best for us, so don't
worry about it.  Why not appoint Kerry as PM.  No, even better, sell
him the job.  Then he won't have to waste time pressuring the
Government to rubber stamp his take over bids.  I can feel the wealth
trickling down now.

>also do it via a direct subsidy too, if it has to be subsidised to make
>the objective possible. Surely democracy is about the people deciding on
>the distribution of resources and services, not some faceless accountant
>in a grey building in Melbourne.

I wish!  Look around the world.  It is money, or force, and the power
which goes with either, which drives most of the current Government
policies, not the people.  Ten years ago, who would have thought a Labor
government would be planning to sell off Telecom.  Does the community as a
whole really benefit from this?  Should economic efficiency be the number one
driving factor in our lives?  I certainly don't think so.

--
Dave Harsant,
Telecom Australia Research Laboratories  |  d.harsant@trl.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Cream-Skimming (was Directory Assistance)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:27:01 GMT

In article <summer.723859035@murillo> summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield) writes:
>
>This whole discussion raises a few interesting questions.  I don't have the
>answers, so does anyone know:
>
>1) Is Optus under any obligation to provide a directory assistance service?
>   Also, is any Australian carrier under any obligation to provide such
>   a service INCLUDING numbers for services operated by other carriers?
>

Optus is ONLY providing STD, IDD and mobile services and as such you cannot
get a 'number' from them. (Not sure about the mobile area). Thus they have
no directory to assist, that expensive area is left up to AOTC. An area where
the 'level playing field' is not level. NO cream in DA.

>   My opinion on this is that a carrier should provide numbers for services
>   operated by other carriers, since this is part of providing a complete
>   service to their own customers.  On the other hand, once the ballot has
>   happened, and individuals have selected their preferred carrier, it seems
>   only fair to me that carriers should have to provide a complete set
>   of services (including directory assistance) to their own customers.
>   Should people who choose Optus as their preferred carrier have free
>   access to Telecom's service?  I think not, and would like to see a
>   system where Telecom would charge Optus for this -- it would then be
>   up to Optus to decide whether to pass the cost on to the customer.
>
So what would you charge? 1. A true business cost. 2. What the government
allowed? Optus and AOTC are not competing fairly, the government has said
that Optus WILL get 25-30% of the telecommunications market, no matter what
market forces say.

>2) Can people choose Optus (by dialling '1') from a Telecom Payphone?  I
>   don't think they ought to be able to, but I suspect they can.  If
>   Optus want payphone customers, they should have to ibstall their own
>   payphones.  Actually, in a deregulated environment, anybody should
>   be able to install and operate payphones, connected to the network
>   of their choice -- the user of the phone should have no say in
>   the network(s) traversed in connecting their call.  This is just
>   my opinion, of course... fee free to disagree!

Optu have NO payphones. This is one very NON-PROFITABLE area that AOTC
must cover from other revenue.( which the government is reducing.) This
is why payphones are being reduced. They are expensive to provide.
Again NO CREAM in payphones.

>
>Mark.
>          --------------------------------------------------------
>              Mark Summerfield,  Photonics Research Laboratory

DJ...
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Call length (was Re: Optus v AOTC...)
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:58:31 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <2502@eram.esi.COM.AU>, dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall) says:
> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>> When I did my teletraffic engineering course in my Telecom days (some time
>> ago), it was stated that the average length of a call is 3 minutes, or
>> thereabouts.
> 
> Was this before or after modems became popular?

When did modems become popular? :-)  I started with Telecom in 1985, so no
doubt modems weren't as popular then as they are now.  However, neither were
mobile phones, and the average length of a mobile phone call is much less than
three minutes.  They'd probably cancel each other out!

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:11:36 GMT

dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall) writes:

>In article <6957@otc.otca.oz>,
>    brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>| When I did my teletraffic engineering course in my Telecom days (some time
>| ago), it was stated that the average length of a call is 3 minutes, or
>| thereabouts.

>Was this before or after modems became popular?

Are modems significant in the amount of traffic they generate yet? Are 
they any worse than teenage daughters anyway? 

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Teenage daughters
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:13:20 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
X-Witty-Saying: "Mobius strip - see other side for instructions"

In article <chris.724657267@suite.sw.oz.au>,
    chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:

| >As for teen-age daughters, I guess I'll find out soon enough.  She's
| >only nine, but is already calling her friends...
| 
| Frightening thought, all things considered. Boyd?

Uh-oh, what have I said now?

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: ggr@nareen.acci.COM.AU (Greg Rose)
Subject: Re: Let's sell Australia.
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:04:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.013308.27060@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>mwp@iconix.oz.au (Michael Paddon) writes:
>
>
>>I've got an even better idea! Why don't we sell Australia, lock, stock and
>>barrel to the highest bidder. An entire continent, rich in natural resources,
>>should be worth at least 20 trillion dollars or so. That's enough to make
>>every man, woman and child a millionaire.
>
>
>>How about it, fellow Australians?
>
>Yup, let's do it. And quick, before our beloved great helms persons and
>leaders sell us out too. Let's start with Parliament House in Canberra.
>Should fetch at least a couple of billion dollars (that's what it cost).
>Its contents, after grinding for bonemeal, we could sell off too. It's
>all good organic manure, after all.

A perfect illustration of the fallacy! If we leave Parliament house
alone, it will CONTINUE to produce GOOD ORGANIC FERTILISER,
essentially FOREVER!
--
Greg Rose                 Australian Computing and Communications Institute
ggr@acci.com.au                                              +61 18 174 842
`Use of the standard phrase "HIJACKED" may be inadvisable' -- CAA
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 04:14:50 GMT

miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>Well, I grew up 60 miles from the nearest exchange (except for the one
>that was located in our house and served 4 other subscribers.) There was
>certainly a certain amont of subsidisation, since in the country
>exchange facilities tend to be smaller and less capital-efficient, but
>otherwise country subscribers have *always* had to pay the full cost of
>provision. If you lived outside the deignated area, you had to build
>your own telephone line to the nearest exchange, even.

It may come down to choice of words, Mark, but I don't agree with the
"full cost of provision". Until the Whitlam govt changed it in 1974,
rural subscribers paid a lower rental (despite the fact that telecom's
rural plant was more expensive to install), and the same connection fee
(usually to the nearest cable run) regardless of the cost of providing
that run.

If you want more data on this, there was a parliamentary enquiry on this,
as well as the Vernon enquiry report.


-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:15:43 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <1992Dec14.122645.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, sysnet@cc.newcastle.edu.au (David Morrison) says:
>> BT responded to Mercury by greatly improving the reliability of their
>> payphones, improving the design of the phone booths,
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Instead of the familiar red boxes which kept out the noise and were
> weatherproof, they now have blue posts with phones attached, where it is
> almost impossible to hear the other person if there is ambient noise, the
> other person cannot hear you if the wind is blowing, and you get wet if it
> rains. This is claimed to have made the payphone business profitable??

What you've described is *one* of the styles of the Mercury payhone.  In fact
that style is used sparingly (I saw some in shopping malls).

The BT payphones I used were quite nice.  They were of a booth design (not on
a post), easy to open doors, pretty well soundproofed, nice styling.  And easy
to find (lots of them around).

The payphone business became profitable by the payphone division improving its
efficiency and improving the business (by the methods I mentioned) to increase
the attractiveness of payphones to users, who then used them more often.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.general,aus.computers
From: markw@cltr.uq.oz.au (Mark White)
Subject: Request for Info - System Manager/DATAPAC
Keywords: help information system manager
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:05:03 GMT

Hi--

An organisation I know, with an existing Xenix system, has recently been
hassled by a local "consultant" (no flames, but sometimes this sort of
thing makes me angry) who insists that their Xenix system is a pile of
s*** and they should move to "System Manager", manufactured by "DATAPAC",
which I'm told is an Australian company.

My question to the net-- what is System Manager?  I've never heard of it,
does anybody know anything about it, and (even more importantly) does anyone
know anyone who uses it?

My concern is that said consultant has "over the last 2 months" been trying
to restore a present system that has become corrupted.  It is also stated
that (and I paraphrase) "The exact cause of this corruption is not really
clear however it could have been something as simple as turning off the
system without shutting down"-- needless to say a quote (for a new system,
totalling several thousand dollars) is attached.

Now I'm not trying to say that SCO Xenix is the world's best operating
system-- it isn't.  But for the consultant to say (to non-informed users)
that their existing system is THAT fragile, without any real evidence,
well, that goes against my principles.  

Any information on System Manager would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark

markw@cltr.uq.oz.au
--
Mark White                                        | Email: nctmw@jcu.edu.au
National Centre for Studies in Travel and Tourism | Phone: +61 7 870 9212
James Cook University of North Queensland         | Fax:   +61 7 371 8485
P.O. Box 705 Indooroopilly QLD 4068  AUSTRALIA    | Home:  +61 7 870 3373
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:06:11 GMT

What must be remembered in this debate is that one of the reasons the
second licence was set up, and sold off to lucky Optus, was to get
rid of the financial black hole masquerading as a satellite carrier:
Aussat.

The success of this has been brilliant. Most people are quite unaware
that that highly geared albatross is now off the taxpayers' backs, and
that taking on Aussat's debt was a (major) price that the "successful" 
bidder had to pay to get the privilege of "cream-skinning".


-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au  
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: mwp@iconix.oz.au (Michael Paddon)
Subject: Let's sell Australia.
Organization: Iconix Pty Ltd (World Headquarters)
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:05:32 GMT

In <1992Dec11.071425.15130@trl.oz.au> harsant@headplant.trl.OZ.AU (Dave Harsant) writes:
>Yeah, let's sell to AT&T. Then we don't have to worry about anything.
>Who needs Australian owned companies?  Sell off everything, and make a
>quick buck to meet some good business objectives.  Let's stuff the
>environment while we are at it (as if we aren't), because conservation
>costs too much.  Yeah, the experts know what's best for us, so don't
>worry about it.  Why not appoint Kerry as PM.  No, even better, sell
>him the job.  Then he won't have to waste time pressuring the
>Government to rubber stamp his take over bids.  I can feel the wealth
>trickling down now.

I've got an even better idea! Why don't we sell Australia, lock, stock and
barrel to the highest bidder. An entire continent, rich in natural resources,
should be worth at least 20 trillion dollars or so. That's enough to make
every man, woman and child a millionaire.

We invest the money and employ asians at slave labour rates. When Japan
finally goes bust, we buy back Australia for a song. Hell, we can probably
afford it on the interest we earned from our money.

The end result: a sound profit.

How about it, fellow Australians?

                                      Michael
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:10:11 GMT

In article <chris.724049855@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>
>Because it's a highly emotionally loaded term. The conotation is negative.
>If anyone is to blame for the "cream skimming" it's the Government which
>introduced competition. But if Telecom had been as wonderful as everyone
>is now saying (;-) there wouldn't have been a need to introduce competition.
>So let's blame Telecom for being silly enough to create the climate for their
>own demise.
>
Emotive - Yes    Negative connotation - Yes     True - Yes (Sounds like an
Optus ad). Blame the Government - yes, but we let it happen. 

>They've been in business for a very short time. You can hardly expect them

Can you name any other business that gets assistance from its competitors
to establish itself?

>I never said that I didn't think that (say) the phone service wasn't an
>essential for country people and aught to be affordable for them. It was
>you who suggested that we could only do this via cross-subsidy. We can
>also do it via a direct subsidy too, if it has to be subsidised to make
>the objective possible. Surely democracy is about the people deciding on
>the distribution of resources and services, not some faceless accountant
>in a grey building in Melbourne.

Why should I as a tax payer subsidize some country person's phone? Next
you will be suggesting that the Newspapers should get a tax payer subsidy
to deliver the city newspapers into country regions.
If Telecom/Optus can finance their operations to cover the entire country
through cross-subsidies then that is normal business practice.

>Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd		Internet: chris@softway.sw.oz.au

DJ...

Newsgroups: aus.general
From: adt@technix.oz.au (Andrew Tune)
Subject: Re: Cream-Skimming (was Directory Assistance)
Organization: TechNIX Consulting Services, Melbourne, Australia
	<1992Dec8.221138.11375@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
	<summer.723859035@murillo>
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:04:40 GMT

In article <summer.723859035@murillo> Mark Summerfield writes:
>    This is just my opinion, of course... fee free to disagree!

You mean you don't charge for dissension?  Wow!  ;-) ;-)

adt.
-- 
TechNIX Consulting Services Pty Ltd		   Phone: +61 3 819 3339
Gnd Floor, 197-199 Riversdale Rd		   Fax:   +61 3 819 3278
Hawthorn, 3123, Australia                       Email: adt@technix.oz.au
     "What if there were no hypothetical situations?" -- Jeff Sauder
From: dev@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Devindra Weerasooriya)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Melbourne performance artist's address?
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:02:03 GMT
Distribution: cs
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia

mann@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Graham Mann) writes:

>Recently Stelarc, the Melbourne cyberpunk performance artist

(deletions)


>"third hand" project) has had a high profile on TV. I 
>wonder if anyone in Melbourne knows his electronic mail
>or physical mail address.

(deletions)

You could try sarc@citri.edu.au

Devindra.