HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cangyuan@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:19:36 GMT

In article <BuCEr5.JB9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
writes (on the US' sale of F-16s to Taiwan).
> 
> I think the Chinese government is over worried and the
> Taiwanese is over joyed. What a big deal!
> 
> Xiao Li

I think the Chinese government has reasons to worry.  The combat power of
the 150 F-16s is not the major concern.  However, this sale signals that 
the US "cares" about Taiwan's security.  

I also think China has reasons to be upset with the US, which just recently
pressed China not to sell arms to the middle east.  
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:24798 soc.culture.taiwan:12862 soc.culture.hongkong:10462
From: poon@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Ka-Cheong)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Question about the UNIX "talk Command"
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:53:13 GMT
Reply-To: poon@schaefer.UUCP (Ka-Cheong)
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics

In article <1992Sep4.160125.1218@uxmail.ust.hk> keith@uxmail.ust.hk (Keith H. K. Chow) writes:

>	Could anyone have the idea why a SUN machine cannot talk with
>an IRIX machine via "talk" command in UNIX. I have tried thru' ULTRIX
>and worked well with IRIX. But whenever I "talk" with IRIX machine
>with SUN, it can never make but only with a message of 
>"Check for Caller's invitation ..." and the system hanged.

The way talk works is as follow.  Talk first checks with the callee's talk
daemon whether the callee has requested a connection.  If not, talk will
try to connect to the talk daemon in the callee's machine, and leave a
message there.  Talk will leave a message in the local talk daemon too.  
The callee's talk daemon will then notify the callee if he/she is logged in.
If the callee runs talk at this point, talk will check with the caller's 
talk daemon as described above.  Since there is a message there, talk will 
know how to connect to the caller.  Then a connection is established.

The reason talk in SUN cannot talk with other machine is that SUN's talk
messes up with the network byte order (correct me if wrong).  So if the
other machine uses different  byte order, when SUN's talk tries to connect
to the talk daemon, everything is messed up.

Checking caller's invitation means talk is trying to connect to the talk
daemon.

>	Could anyone suggest me a solution to this problem? If so,
>please send it directly to me with the following addr:
>keith@ustsu2.ust.hk

There is no good solution, I think.  The best you can do is to get ytalk.
Ytalk can work with both the standard talk and the old talk (SUN).
Moreover, ytalk has a conference talk feature.  That is, many people can
talk at the same time if they all use ytalk.  The screen will be divided
into several regions and each region corresponds to one person.  

I am not sure if there is a newer version of ytalk out there.  The version
I got has some bugs.  It will crash the NeXT, I mean makes NeXT enter
the monitor mode, if you do not change some codes.  It won't compile right
away in DEC, you need to change a line.  Anyway, it is a good program.

Have fun!!!

								Poon.
From: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: US Ironclads (Was: Re: US colonializing )
Date: 15 Sep 1992 09:02:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Reply-To: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.106

Various naval experts writing on the Dreadnought and ironclad ships...

Robert Platt writes:

> If you include "ironclads" (ie. iron outer layer over wood hull) the
> first was the Confederate ship "Virginia" (formerly the "Merrimac").
> The second was the "Monitor".  They fought each other in one of the
> more famous naval battles of the American Civil War.  The Virginia
> was driven off at the conclusion of the battle.

Especially since this is soc.culture.china, I should mention that the
first recorded ironclad warships were built by the Koreans in the 
fighting Hideyoshi's invasion in the 1590's.  The military genius
behind these ships was Admiral Yi Sunsin, still revered as Korea's
greatest military leader.  These Kobukson ("Turtle ships") were
covered with iron plates on the sides and over the gently rounded
top, which was covered with spikes to prevent boarding. They were
armed with cannon, and propelled by both oars and a single sail
(see 500 Won Korean note for a drawing).  Using these ships, Yi 
Sunsin was spectacularly successful in wrecking havoc among the
Japanese supply ships.  My memory is rusty, but I recall that at
its height, Yi's navy had some 30 of these ships, and in some battles
defeated large Japanese fleets of several hundred ships. Like Nelson, 
Yi was killed in the final pivotal battle in 1597 when he drove
off a Japanese fleet of 133 ships with a fleet of only 12, sinking 
31 in the process (this last part copied from a history book on
Korea :-)).

Joe Huang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Taiwan's Diplomatic Victory?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:32:00 GMT


I have seen a couple of posts saying that F-16 sales is a diplomatic
victory for Taiwan. 

I can hardly agree with this. Bush has been blocking the sale for
years. Only because it is a election year, only becuase the economy
in the US is in so deep trouble and only because Bush's re-election
is in so deep trouble that he granted the sale!!

I do not see any victory for Taipei and the only thing I see is that
Uncle Sam is willing to sacrifice every thing for himself.

c.q.
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan (Stop Stereotypes)
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:38:42 GMT
Organization: New York University

yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:

>v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
>>In article <65500096@acf3.NYU.EDU>, yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes...
>>>Don't you think the USA fed up Taiwan, Taiwan benefited from the cold
>>>war.
>>>I said this because some Taiwanese posted a few posts recently saying
>>>how much surplus they have, etc.

>>If you say Taiwan was fed up by USA, you will also imply that mainland is
>>being fed up by USA right now. If Taiwan had not have to put so much on
>>defending itself from the threat of mainland, it might have became as rich
>>as Japan now.  Don't feel insulted when you see the posting of Taiwan's
>>surplus, you can also do it if you choose the right system.

>We get presure from the USA when our surplus reach the same level, 
>but that amount of money won't help China much, this is very simple, 
>say if taiwan has a surplus of 20 billion, USA won't let China
>has a surplus of 1000 billion.
>In the cold war, because taiwan is the frontier, USA helped it
>develope economy.
>If there were not a cold war between Mainland and Taiwan, we were
>all friends of the western countries, Taiwan won't have any
>advantage than other provinces, if Taiwan has been as rich as Japan, 
>how about other provinces, say Guangdong and Fujiang?

>Ze Yang


I COMPLETELY agree with Ze Yang on this issue PLUS I would like to point out  
the following:


1). Although China has a significant trade surplus with US, I don't think
this surplus amounts to an equally significant profit. The reason is simple:
labor in China is cheap and it is often made even cheaper when trading with
US so that China can aquire the cash needed to buy more expensive US equipment
which is usu traded at a more significant profit. That's why China really
has to tolerate a sacrifice in exchange of the surplus and the arguing goes
the other way around - the Chinese thru hard work is feeding up America.

2). One non-trivial reason that America is rich today is the very existence 
of the developing countries among which China is the biggest. For example,
an American on welfare probably cannot afford a dish made in USA; however,
it turns out that he/she can afford to buy 10 dishes made in China. On the
other hand, a hardworking Chinese worker probably can afford only 1 dish
made in China. My point is America is at a strategically advantageous
position in the sino-American trade. The existence of this trade is an asset
to USA instead of a liability.

- Li, Qiang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: I care,Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:19:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.205123.10657@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>CCP is so eager to take over Taiwan and has the military might to do it
>>(unless you are intentionally blind not to see it). When they are
>>invited by those TIers, they would be very happy. This is the last thing
>>most of us would like to see. I suspect some of Tiers are just CCP
>>spies.
>>
>
>If so, the pro-unificationers will be much qualified to be CCP spies.
>If CCP can easily take over Taiwan without noticable resists, will CCP wait
>for so long ?  If CCP is so eager to take over Taiwan, what makes CCP wait
>and hesitate not to do so for over 40 years ?
>
>Yi-Chieh

I know the reason why CCP didn't take over Taiwan in the past 40 years:
(for those who are not interested please press 'n', since it's ultra
secret stuff I got all the way from top CCP brass  ;->)  









































They know that if they take over Taiwan, Yi-Chieh Chang will start writing
TI posts to flame the CCP Cadres and bores them to Death!  

Oh boy aren't they really scared!     
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: kykcheun@napier.uwaterloo.ca (KAREN CHEUNG)
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Zhou Dynasty
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:17:46 GMT

Sorry, this is just a test.  Please ignore.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: fsbrn12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Andrew Hsu)
Subject:  Mao's pleonastic oxymoron.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  9 Sep 1992 17:55 EDT  

I was always of the opinion that Mao was a good writer. His articles are plain,
persuasive, and tart. However, did he really know what he was 
talking about? Now I'm not so sure. One of his famous articles was
titled

"Lun(4) Ren(2)min(2) Min(2)zhu(3) Zhuan(1)zheng(4)"

People are so familiar by now with the term that no one ever asks
what that means. Of course, Minzhu Zhuanzheng is an oxymoron, and was
meant to be one. But,

Ren(2)min(2) == people

Min(2)zhu(3) == democracy
                where min(2)== demo == people
                      zhu(3)== cracy == to rule

Zhuan(1)zheng(4) == dictatorship == rule

So the title actually translate into

"On People People Rule Rule, by force!" How's that for an pleonastic tautology.
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view.
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:06:40 GMT
Organization: New York University

jchang@shmps.ohio-state.edu writes:

>For all you insensitive, bloody thirsty, chavinistic pigs from mainland,
>go back to hell, that is where you belong.

>For all you scum bags who want to take Taiwan using force, may your
>descendants be cursed and suffer.

>For all you shit face who hate Taiwanese and support CCP's agression
>toward Taiwan, go home and f**k yourself.

Just leave this guy alone.

Li, Qiang
From: yong@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Science in China 14
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:44:20 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Science in China (Part 14)

Between 1040 AD and 1049, in China, Tseng Kung-Liang publishes the first
recipes for three varieties of gunpowder.

Sometime between 1041 and 1048, Pi Sheng (a Chinese), an obsure
commoner, invents movable type (for use in printing).

On 4th July 1054, the supernova that now forms the Crab nebula is
observed in China, Japan and the Arab lands, it is visible for 22
months; Some Chinese books are printed with movable type between 1050
and 1059.

A Chinese Tseng Kung-Liang's Wu ching tsung yao (Compendium of important
military techniques) in 1084 describes magnetized iron "fish" that float
in water and can be used for finding south; about this time the Chinese
begin to use the compass for navigation, most likely using the iron "fish"

A Chinese Shen Kua's Dream pool essays of 1086 outlines the principles
of erosion, uplift, and sedimentation that are the foundation of earth
science; this book also contains the first known reference to the use of
magnetic compass for navigation.

In 1092, in China, Su Sung builds a giant water clock and mechanical
armillary sphere; it is considered the finest mechanical achievement of
the time.

In 1105, the Chinese build a pagoda 28 m (78 ft) high from cast iron,
each level cast as a single piece.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25485 soc.culture.taiwan:13298
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:13:30 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <10SEP199216172457@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>Treaty is something between two governments with full sovereignty.
>How many people in this WORLD still think that Taipei is a legitimate
>and sovereign government? If not, how can one sign a tready with it?
>Not to mention Beijing!!!!!

I don't understand your position.

The only reason few governments recognize the Taipei government
because they are afraid of damaging relations with the Beijing
government.  If Beijing wanted to "recognize" Taipei in the same way
that North Korea and South Korea "recognize" each other, then there is
absolutely nothing to stop it from doing so.

The trouble is that I can't think of any reason how the PRC government
would benefit itself by recognizing Taipei.  Hence, I think it's
rather unlikely that it would do so.  Taipei, on the other hand, seems
quite willing to have dual recognition.
From: H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: test
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:07:39 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908648@ccw403

.-..  ---  -.  --.  
.-..  ..  ...-  .
-.-.  ....  ..  -.  .-
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin)
Subject: Re: The purpose of a country. (Was: F-16's fear?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:22:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.203846.25381@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>There will no problem for Taiwan to unite with China someday when
>>Chinese in the US are as willing as the Taiwanese to go back to
>>their homeland. After all, we are of the same race and speak the
>>same language. No Taiwanese is going to fight against uniting with a
>>truly democratic China that takes good care of her own people.
>>
>>Regards.
>>
>>- Allan
>
>Even though, I still don't see why Taiwanese should consider to unite with
>China. To be on your own boss in a small company will always let you make 
>more money than being employed in a big or huge company, isn't it ?
>If you can be a boss in a company and paid more than you are employed,
>will you consider to be employed by other companies ?
>No matter what happened to China, Taiwanese will be absolutely better 
>off if Taiwan stays away from China.
>
>Yi-Chieh 
  Interesting point.  I would guess you are a strong supporter for Taiwan
independence.  By your logic reasoning, not only Taiwan should stay away from
China, but the richer part of Taiwan should declare its independence from
other poorer parts of Taiwan.  Following this logic, Taiwan would become a
United Nation consisting of thousands of small countries, is that what you
want?

  Brian 



Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:31:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.150013.3639@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>
>> >>   PROC(Mainland)
>> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
>> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
>> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> > 
>> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
>> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
>> > 
>> 
>> For defence, if you believe that. 
>> c.q.
>> 
>> 
>
>Sure, I believe it.  Even A-bomb, H-bomb, and chemical weapon are also for
>"defense."  You can find a lot of "defense" magzines; you can not find a

A-bomb and H-bomb are deterence weapons.  When a country has it
so it can say "don't mess with me, if you nuke me I will nuke you too"
to its hostile rivals.  

>"offense" magzine.  But, where is the beef? I still can not find the
>answer.  Why the ratio between MiG-31 and Su-27(or MiG-29) is 224+ : 96. 
>This ratio is not a good combination to me and I think they should either
>lower the MiG-31's number or raise the air-superiority fighter's (MiG-29 or
>Su-27) number to balance this
>ratio.


Not if they don't want to attack a lot of people, than they need a lot
of interceptors to patrol its airspace.  

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25617 soc.culture.japan:8108 soc.history:8315
From: talamar@cs.concordia.ca (ANTONELLI michael a.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,soc.history
Subject: Re: US Ironclads (Was: Re: US colonializing )
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:33:16 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <CB.92Sep11113852@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>Well, at least I qualified my misidentification!  OK, I had the wrong
>name, but there *was* an English ship of about 1870, to which my posting
>applied; I think the rest of what I said was correct.  See Scientific
>American, about 2 years ago.
>
>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

I believe that the article you are refering two is the "H.M.S. Warrior"
from the December '87 issue of Scientific American.  The Warrior was 
launched in 1860 and was the first "iron-hulled" warship.  It rendered
all other ships obsolete and started a rapid warship arms and armor race.

Also, someone in this thread mentioned the Gloire.  The Gloire was a 
wood-hulled warship that had been plated with iron and equipped with
steam power.  According to the SA article, work began on the Gloire in
March 1858.

-- 
******************************************************************************
Michael Anthony Antonelli            Internet: talamar@cs.concordia.ca
                                     Fidonet:  Talamar at 1:167/133
Concordia University, Montreal (Canada)
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:14:38 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

In article <1992Sep06.122322.22692@medsys.rn.com>, bbs@medsys.rn.com (Public BBS System) writes:

> China exports more to the U.S. than it imports from the U.S. It would
> not be wise to cut the trade. Getting emotional doesn't help.

Rather Hongkong exports more Chinese goods to US than imports.

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
*           "I didn't think I ate that much!"                                *
*                                       -- Ding Chavez                       *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: test
From: Tao Yao <TAYAO@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 6 Sep 1992 01:09:35 EST
Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ.

JUST A TEST.
JUST A TEST.
JUST A TEST.
JUST A TEST.
JUST A TEST.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25599 soc.culture.taiwan:13399
From: utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:10:44 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <1992Sep15.060453.15639@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.030641.14599@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
>
>>Think from the point of view from Chinese and British government. They
>>will consider Taiwan or IRA as groups against the government. 
>
>Think from the point of view from the Yugoslav government.  They will
>consider Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina as groups against the
>government.  Yeah right.
>
But before those three countries independence is recognized by the
world community, none of the government sold any weapons to them.
Actually not even today.

The Chinese government is recognize as an official one by either USA or
France, then selling weapons to its enemy is an obvious insult. Due to
the circumstances, China and USA do have an agreement that USA can sell
weapons to Taiwan when Nixon visited China. Although the amount and
level of the weapon is debatable. But other European countries selling
weapons to Taiwan is a way of violation of the rules made by those
countries themself.
 
>>Someone just mentioned about offence and defence. But usually the winner
>>have the last say. I believe the selling of F-16 is more symbolic than a
>>military one to both CCP and KMT. Of course to America, it is just a
>>matter of money. I guess Bush even wishes to sell more F-16 to China.
>
>But what is so wrong with Bush wanting to sell weapons to Taiwan that you have
>to be so against it?
>
Right or wrong? Depends who is talking. To Bush, to the GE workers in
Texas, nothing is wrong. To CCP it is wrong. To Taiwan people, it is
hard to say. The effect of those F-16 to defend Taiwan is still
controversal, would it be better to spend those money in some more
usefull place.

>The United States should be selling the weapons for its own benefits; the fact
>that China objects should not be a concern, other than possibilities that the
>Chinese objections will bring results that are not desirable for the United
>States.

Right, the selling is for US's own benefits. But non of Bush or Clinton
would have said such word. (They are talking about the peace, or some
thing like that in Asia) Otherwise China has every right to sell
anything to any country without concerning the objection from US.
Actually China already starts that, selling nuclear technique to Iran.
If both sides don't restrain themselves then the consquense is not very
pleasant. What US is going to do now? Selling F-16 c/d, F-18, or F-22 to
Taiwan. And China, put nuclear bomb on sale? Of course none of those
will be the concern of you. As far as you have some toys you will be
happy.

Tingli Pan
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25407 soc.culture.hongkong:10697 soc.culture.taiwan:13232
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: I'm very disappointed in Chinese
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:28:02 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep1.194111.25930@csl.sri.com> dchan@cisco.com (Derek Chan) writes:
>   How much money do you get
>   from a population that is 80% illiterate. 

One small correction.  75% is the LITERACY rate.  The population on
the Mainland is about 75% literate and 25% illiterate.