HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jammer@eskimo.com (Lyle Harwood)
Subject: Re: IT'S A MIRACLE!!
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: pnw
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:27:50 GMT

Tracy Monaghan (monaghan@cac.washington.edu) wrote:
: In <13098@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles
Wilson) 
: in an excitable state writes:
: 
: >There is NO recession!  Can you believe it?  Imagine that.  In fact,
: 
: Obviouslyyou were not paying attention.  There was a recession, it
just wasn't
: 'officially announced' until after it ended :)
: 
: >according to a report just released by the experts (economists from
: >several Universities), the recession ended in March 1991!!  But they
: >didn't want to announce in prematurely (before the election).  Now
: 
: The data was inconclusive until this time, the reason being that the
: recession was so small, and the recovery (such as it was) was even
smaller.
: 
: 
: >that President Bush has taken the hit for a worthless economy (best
in
: >the world right now), the truth can be made known.  In fact, they say
: >that if there is a downturn in the economy, it will be the start of a
: >NEW recession.  What out Governor Clinton.  You won't be able to
blame
: >it on Bush!!
: >
: 
: Really, you ought to cut back on your caffeine ;^)

I'd love to stay and chat about the recession, buy I'm late for work.
From: charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Tax the rich!
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:02:27 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1533@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
>aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>estimate at $400 billion next year.

Nor would eliminating the ENTIRE defense budget for a year.  BUT,
eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would completely
pay for the deficit.  Interesting...

Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: IT'S A MIRACLE!!
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Distribution: pnw
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:11:31 GMT

In <13098@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:

:There is NO recession!  Can you believe it?  Imagine that.  In fact,
:according to a report just released by the experts (economists from
:several Universities), the recession ended in March 1991!!  But they
:didn't want to announce in prematurely (before the election).  Now
:that President Bush has taken the hit for a worthless economy (best in
:the world right now), the truth can be made known.  In fact, they say
:that if there is a downturn in the economy, it will be the start of a
:NEW recession.  What out Governor Clinton.  You won't be able to blame
:it on Bush!!

What difference will it make -- the media won't report it!

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
From: damocles@nostromo.eisley.wa.com (Randy Vice)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:04:49 EST
Organization: The Nostromo BBS

>In Oregon general aviation pilots pay a user fee that is supposed to go
towards
>search and rescue operations, but I don't know how much of the cost this
covers.
>
>
>- jeff

Interesting.  Do you know if they give Civil Air Patrol/Air Force a cut on this
"user fee" for their SAR missions?

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
damocles@nostromo.eisley.wa.com     :  Where is Bruce Morrow when you need 
damocles@eisley.wa.com              :  him? -- BillyBob Bork, CEO, B5 Corp.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their own arms." -- Samual Adams
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: driving in snow (or other low traction conditions)
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:38:18 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <MS-C.725157709.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
/Walter Bright writes:
/>When this happens, the
/>best thing to do is *Jam The Brakes On And Lock All 4 Wheels*. What this
/>does is cause the car to slide in a straight line (while still rotating).
/The other deadly edge about ``lock your wheels and slide to a stop'' is that
/by sacrificing the remaining adhesion you have, you have given up all control
/over your vehicle.  You may, in fact, end up going further that you would have
/if you had held on to your adhesion.

The rest of my post stated that you lock the wheels when you are spinning.
When you are spinning, the tires are not rotating and you will not be slowing
your rate of deceleration by locking the wheels.

If you are going in a reasonably straight line, you will lose about 30-60% of
your stopping power if you lock the wheels, as opposed to "threshhold braking".
"threshhold braking" is applying enough brake pressure so that the wheel is
just short of skidding, i.e. it is moving about 15% slower than the road.
It makes a sound known as "happy tires" to racers, that is, "a happy tire is
a singing tire". It is worth practicing happy tires, to do so, jam on the
brakes till you get a full lock, then back off slightly. You'll get the idea.
What anti-skid brakes do is do this automatically, though a skilled driver
can outperform asb.
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Subject: Re: just when you thought you had heard it all
Organization: Fast Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:26:45 GMT

In <21DEC199215003083@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:

>>She is now suing the school district for megabucks on the grounds that the
>>school's athletic program failed to disclose to her that football is a sport
>>in which you can get seriously injured.

>What this plaintiff will probably need to prove:

[... deleted ...]

>Probable defenses:

[... deleted ...]

>Of course, I'm not licensed to practice, but this is basic tort law.  As you
>can see, the plaintiff may, at first glance, have some trouble with this case.

Thanks for the informative summary of what is involved. In non-legal terms it
amounts to convincing a jury that the plaintiff didn't know she could get hurt
playing high school football.

There are two interrelated reasons these cases come about:

1) Too many lawyers, with too much free time. They're basically a burden to
their firms unless they have something to do. So why not have them out there
trolling the legal waters for new and innovative ways to screw insurance
companies (ie the public). They take these cases on spec. If they lose,
they're no worse off than before. If they win, they get a nice fat chunk
of the spoils.

2) The American system of justice, which doesn't force the losing side to pay
the winning side's damages (except in unusual cases). If the parasitical
leeches doing the legal prospecting were faced with paying the winning sides
$200/hr fees every time one of their assinine theories crashed and burned,
there would be far less of this crap clogging up the courts.

-----

What's 10,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea?

A good start.

[appeared in the Wall Street Journal, believe it or not]
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier)
Subject: Re: The Cos on skids, and the Snow Problem problem
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:48:45 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Alan Batie (batie@agora.rain.com) wrote:
: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
: >Additionally, there is NO salt used at all on the roadways, just sand 

I don't think that's true for Seattle.  There was something about
them trying that new synthetic ice melter this year.

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  

Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: griffenj@ssd.intel.com (Jeff Griffen)
Subject: Re: Tax the rich!
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Divison, Intel Corp.
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:14:51 GMT


Back to the original post - taxing those with incomes > $200K.  If you are
trying to start a small business, you will find that 1) venture capitalists
are a tight group, and typically don't invest in firms unless the projections
are for huge returns; 2) banks don't want to touch you unless you have a lot
of capital to reposses (store inventories do nicely); 3) the only real source
of investment money for, say, a small startup software firm is professionals.

Yup, it's that heinous group of exploitive bourgeoise that is investing in new
jobs, cottage industries, and originality.

- jeff
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: IT'S A MIRACLE!!
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:04:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1hn8igINN8uv
Distribution: pnw
Organization: UW Computing
NNTP-Posting-Host: red1.cac.washington.edu

In <13098@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) 
in an excitable state writes:

>There is NO recession!  Can you believe it?  Imagine that.  In fact,

Obviouslyyou were not paying attention.  There was a recession, it just wasn't
'officially announced' until after it ended :)

>according to a report just released by the experts (economists from
>several Universities), the recession ended in March 1991!!  But they
>didn't want to announce in prematurely (before the election).  Now

The data was inconclusive until this time, the reason being that the
recession was so small, and the recovery (such as it was) was even smaller.


>that President Bush has taken the hit for a worthless economy (best in
>the world right now), the truth can be made known.  In fact, they say
>that if there is a downturn in the economy, it will be the start of a
>NEW recession.  What out Governor Clinton.  You won't be able to blame
>it on Bush!!
>

Really, you ought to cut back on your caffeine ;^)
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Tax the rich!
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:44:12 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
estimate at $400 billion next year.

And if you did confiscate all their income, what would you do about the
next tax year? People don't work for nothing.

Clearly, although "tax the rich" makes great campaign rhetoric, to finance
the government spending programs the tax increases will have to dig deep
into the middle class.

"Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help
to create a new job and a new salary, and these new jobs and new salaries
can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more
growth for an expanding American economy."

			John F. Kennedy
			13 Aug 1962
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Tax the rich!
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:10:26 GMT
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon

[]

	"Town Hall had a discussion on SS the other night. One critic
	said that the SS ``trust'' fund is completely gone. Empty!
	Kaput! Drained!"

It's a matter of perspective.  The surplus of FICA tax income over
entitlement outgo has been invested in Treasury bonds.  In other words,
"loaned" to the rest of the federal government.

But what else would you do?  Say you're the fund manager and you're
sitting on 100e9 dollars for ten years.  You can't stuff
thousand-dollar bills into your mattress -- you have to invest the
stuff somewhere.  Treasury bonds are the "reasonably prudent"
investment of choice here.

The interesting question is: are those T-bonds held by the feds
included in the figure reported as the national debt?

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: just when you thought you had heard it all
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:00:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: oregon.21DEC199215003083
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <MS-C.724879834.377401575.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>,
 Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes...
>It seems that a girl[*] made it into her high school's football program.  I
>believe she played fullback, although I'm not sure.  During a game, she got
>hit and seriously injured; subsequent surgery was necessary to remove her
>spleen and a kidney.
> 
>She is now suing the school district for megabucks on the grounds that the
>school's athletic program failed to disclose to her that football is a sport
>in which you can get seriously injured.

Well, the courts are generally reluctant to impose liability for negligence in
recreational sports cases; most states require reckless behavior.  The facts
here, on the other hand, may be distinguished as an ordinary failure to warn. 
Even then, assumption of risk would probably be an adequate defense (spectators
are generally considered to assume risk of injury at sproting events, so why
not players?)

What this plaintiff will probably need to prove:
1.	That the case is an ordinary failure to warn and that therefore she can
collect if the district was merely negligent.
2.	That the district's servant (presumably the coach) did fail to warn.
3.	That she (or the reasonable high-schooler) would not have been aware of
the danger beforehand.
4.	That she (or the reasonable high-schooler) would not have played had
she been properly warned.
5.	That her playing was the cause of the injury.
6.	That her injury was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the failure
to warn (in a general sense).
7.	That she suffered damages.

Probable defenses:
1.	Assumption of risk.
2.	Intervening (mis)conduct by another party.
3.	Contributory negligence.

Of course, I'm not licensed to practice, but this is basic tort law.  As you
can see, the plaintiff may, at first glance, have some trouble with this case.

>I wonder, with the current push to get homosexuals into the military and to
>get women into combat duty, if we will see similar lawsuits about failure to
>disclose that combat is an activity in which you can get seriously injured,
>maimed for life, or killed?

Probably not.  Sovereign immunity would apply, as combat is almost always in
connection with government policy.

						Dan, ad nauseum
						Daniel Reitman
						DReitman@Oregon.UOregon.Edu
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Tax the rich!
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:57:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: bcstec.BzoI85.15o
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Boeing

In article <1533@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
>aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>estimate at $400 billion next year.
>
>And if you did confiscate all their income, what would you do about the
>next tax year? People don't work for nothing.
>
>Clearly, although "tax the rich" makes great campaign rhetoric, to finance
>the government spending programs the tax increases will have to dig deep
>into the middle class.







Why is it that this message did not become clear before the election.
Perhaps it did but no one heard it.  Irrespective, we will be getting
this deficit under control one way or the other according to Pres. Clinton.












-- 
Statement made by Oliver North when asked to comment on Clinton's draft
record.  "I would rather vote for Jane Fonda than Gov. Clinton!  At least
she has been to North Vietnam."
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: The Recession
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:56:36 GMT

In article 9978@u.washington.edu, monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>The Center for Business Cycle (?), the official arbiter of economic
>trends, has declared that the latest US recession ended in March 1991,
>and we have been in a recovery ever since.

For their next trick, they will show how people can be resurrected from the dead
by defining life in just the right way.  Sort of like defining employment in 
terms of reduced claims for unemployment benefits.  Statistics can be a wonderful
comfort in times of trouble.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
From: kylee@eskimo.com (K.Y. Lee)
Subject: Imtec 1452C monitor
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:36:02 GMT

Does anyone in the netland know anything about this monitor?  Who services
them now?  I believe it is CGA, but I am not sure.  To save the net bandwidth,
please E-mail me.

Thanks,

Kyu Y. Lee
kylee@eskimo.com
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: driving in snow (or other low traction conditions)
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:33:31 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <47460@ogicse.ogi.edu> hakanson@bogart.cse.ogi.edu (Marion Hakanson) writes:
/But once you do lose it totally, you can do something else while
/you're praying and hanging on.
/According to Sam Posey, in a Road & Track (Magazine) Performance
/Driving video I have, such a situation is one time that you should
/lock up the brakes.  The reasoning is that once you've spun the car,
/if the brakes are locked you are at least decelerating, and you will
/continue in a straight line in the direction you were last traveling
/(note that this may not be in the direction the car is pointing!),
/even if the car continues spinning around.  This is preferable to
/having the car shoot off at full speed in whatever direction the car

Just such a situation happened to a friend of mine last week. He got hit
by a drunk on the freeway causing his car to spin out of control.
Remembering the racing school he & I took last August, he immediately
locked all 4 wheels. His car rotated and came to a stop without
exiting the freeway, while the drunk careened off the road and down
a 60 foot ravine. Just that one incident easilly paid him back for the
cost of the racing school ($2000).
Newsgroups: pnw.general,or.general
From: mikelo@cecil.mentorg.com (Mike Lottridge)
Subject: Georgia Tech Alumni in the NW?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:55:33 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

I'm curious if there are any Georgia Tech alumni out here in 
the great NW -- specifically, the Portland area. I got my 
BEE in 82, my MSEE in 90. 

Mike Lottridge
mikelo@dsd.mentorg.com
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: driving in snow (or other low traction conditions)
Date: 28 Dec 92 03:46:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec27.194618.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Dec26.070956.20925@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
> Another thing besides a map, gloves and boots:  if you're driving in
> areas that are susceptible to snow and cold, pack along a blanket and
> a snowmobile suit.  While growing up in the Midwest, I had a "emergency"
> box that I kept in my trunk:  map, gloves, snowboots, hat, ski goggles,
> snowmobile suit, blanket, flares, "C" rations, etc.  I know, it may
> seem extreme to some, but it saved my butt once when I became broken
> down out in the middle of nowhere at 2:00 AM on a VERY wintry, snowy
> night.  I ate some of the food, set out flares, and put on all the
> above-mentioned items.  When no help came after two hours of waiting,
> I put on the goggles, grabbed my flashlight and walked 5 miles 'til I
> got to a farmhouse.  I was lucky, since I had cold-weather gear on 
> me.  I'm not saying this is needed everywhere, but in some parts
> of the Northwest, it's just common sense.
> 
> allen

Another good item is a tent and a Coleman lamp/stove.  Especially if
you're going from Fairbanks to Anchorage.  === Al Sparks
From: mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: driving in snow (or other low traction conditions)
Date: 21 Dec 92 07:24:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: Ikkoku-K.MS-C.724922673.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: David Barts <dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0

David Barts writes:
> so many of the Texas drivers had about driving on snow in NM (the
> very same Texans who ten demonstrated their utter incompetence at
> negotiating an icy, banked hairpin curve and ended up 30 feet down
> a road embankment)

Interesting.  The last time I was in Albuquerque/Santa Fe, the car I rented
had Texas license plates.  It was winter, there was lots of snow & ice on the
roads, and I got to hear lots of tiresome lectures about how ``you Texas don't
know how to drive on ice.''

Bigots is bigots.
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: driving in snow (or other low traction conditions)
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:41:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.725157709.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

Walter Bright writes:
>One thing I learned is that there is a point of no return on a skid, and
>that is when the angle of the car is more acute than the angle the wheels
>can turn. At this point, you are going to do a 360.

Huh?  That's just being sideways.  It's quite possible to put a car sideways
and remain in control.  Some of us do it for fun, although not on the public
roads (where it's called ``reckless driving'').

I was under the impression that is what we were talking about; what to do when
you get sideways in spite of your best efforts.  There's no great skill needed
in recovering from a minor shimmy.  You do need a realistic assessment of your
vehicle's capabilities on the road you purpose to take.

>When this happens, the
>best thing to do is *Jam The Brakes On And Lock All 4 Wheels*. What this
>does is cause the car to slide in a straight line (while still rotating).

You may want to consider what is lurking at the end of that straight line.  I
see plenty of cars which attempt to climb a steep S-curving road, with ditches
on both sides, on ice.  Repeated tests have shown that the ditches work quite
well.  One of the best testers is the ``I can drive on snow, just get a little
momentum going'' crowd.  The irony, of course, is that there is a detour that
is straight as an arrow through the hills; it only adds about 1/2 mile to the
total trip.  But no, they have to test the S-curves and the ditches.  Great
entertainment to watch.

The other deadly edge about ``lock your wheels and slide to a stop'' is that
by sacrificing the remaining adhesion you have, you have given up all control
over your vehicle.  You may, in fact, end up going further that you would have
if you had held on to your adhesion.
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general