HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx03.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Satanic Crime units?? Re: WoD: Frontline Report
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:29:35 GMT

In article <2A9CE672.4692@ics.uci.edu> honig@aster.ics.uci.edu (David A.  
Honig) writes:
>  jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> >>Since USEnet is not US govt property and is indeed not even limited to  
the US
> >>the US consitiution has no more bearing on it than that of the USSR or  
Germany.
> >
> >Well - not if you ask the US govt, which apparently holds the opinion
> >that it's laws and standards apply globally.  I don't think USSR (RIP,
> >though EC is trying to revive the idea) or Germany have made that
> >claim.  Hmm, then again, there was Hitler and the Soviet Union has had
> >some quite outgoin leaders also.  Hmm, perhaps you're right after all.
> 
> Remember that the US now believes that it can kidnap foreign nationals
> on foreighn lands for US violations.

	The US Supreme Court ruled this was legal only
	in a case where the current extradition treaty 
	did not bar such a removal of the suspect to 
	US custody.  Legal extradition treaties still
	hold preeminence.  The Court has also ruled
	that those provision of the Constitution which
	use the term "people" apply only to members of the
	American national community; but that those which
	use the term "person" apply to everyone.  Thus -
	as stated in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez - a foreign
	suspect has no 4th amendment protection against
	search and seizure but does have the right to
	be provided legal counsel upon arrest.

	This should not be taken as indication of personal
	agreement with the above.  I'm only stating
	the current factual situation.  NOTE:  I am not
	an attorney.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
Subject: Re: 800 number for PFDFA
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:47:43 GMT

you don't need to make a big deal out of calling these guys.  Just call
them up and ask them if they could send you information on the program,
what they are doing, who they receive funding from, and how you
could possibly involve your business in their funding.  All legitimate
questions, all will use up their funds in postage, printing, processing,
and (cheapest of all) telephone time.

In article <64504@cup.portal.com>, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
|> >That bunch of liars, the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America," now has
|> >an 800 number for information:  800 624-0100.
|> >
|> >I hope that readers of this forum will spread this number far and wide,
|> >and use it creatively and often.
|> >
|> >"Hackhead"
|> 
|> It better be from payphones.  Be advised that "800" number customers
|> have the option of getting a list of numbers from which the number was
|> called (as they have had for years, long before "caller ID" was proposed
|> for ordinary subscribers).
|> 
|> These days it is impossible to tell where PFADFA ends and the State
|> begins.  With caller ID and a modest amount of hardware and software,
|> they can have a system of identifying "troublemakers" that Adolf Hitler,
|> back in the days of the Partnership for a Jew-Free Germany, could not
|> even dream of.
|> 
|> 
|>     Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
|> ---------------------------+----------------------------------------
|>   atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information

--

Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
(612) 645-0168 voice mail         [DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS; NOT MSCI'S]

      ___________________________________________________
      Dump the Republocrats:      vote Libertarian in '92
      ---------------------------------------------------

% echo "potatoe potato" | spell
potatoe
%
From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Civil Forfeiture -- A letter to the local paper
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:33:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article <1992Sep4.134125.10562@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.042817.22253@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Certainly drugs are a problem in our society today.  Certainly the dealing 
>>of crack and other dangerous narcotics damages neighborhoods and lives.  
>
>A Hearst newspaper will probably not blink an eye over this unsupported
>statement.  They were the original purveyors of the racist "marihuana"
>hysteria.  I, on the other hand, do object.  I believe that drug laws are
>the problem; not drugs themselves.  Without drug laws, there would be no
>"turf wars"; so "drug related" murders would drop to near zero.  In
>addition, drug purity would improve; and cost would decrease.  
>

I have been reading "Drug Legalization:  For and Against," and one of the
arguments advanced in many of the articles against legalization is the
likelihood of an increase of drug use.  Specifically, it is often argued
that a drug with strong potential for abuse, such as cocaine, if made 
easily available for low cost with known purity, would result in an increase
of users.  The position taken is that keeping such drugs illegal provides
enough disincentive to most people that they will not risk trying the drug.
Removing that disincentive would result in many (one can only speculate on
how many) more new users, some portion of which would likely suffer the
consequences of drug abuse.

I will personally admit to having some gut feeling that if cocaine were
legalized, and one only need wander down to their local pharmacy to pick some 
up, use of cocaine would go up.  This is perhaps the one point the
prohibitionists have made for which I am unable to find a rebuttal.  However,
the conclusions they draw from an increase in drug use (societal depravity)
are different from those I draw.

Interestingly, as much of the book as I've read, the arguments against
legalization, by and large, use heroin and cocaine whenever making points
about the likelihood of abuse (primarily because of their addictive
properties).  In my view, many of the articles offer nothing to counter
the idea of legalizing drugs such as marijuana and the psychedelics.

mb
-- 
Mark Boolootian		booloo@llnl.gov		+1 510 423 1948
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey)
Subject: Re: NHRA announces Piss Testing
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:48:51 GMT

scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>[Regarding NHRA urine testing]
>One could argue that the testing is voluntary - you don't have to take the 
>test if you don't want to compete.

One could argue that competing is voluntary--you don't have to race if
you're afraid some drug-crazed looney is going to ram into you.
---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com
   TI pays absolutely no attention to me or my opinions; therefore,
   the foregoing posting cannot possibly represent TI's viewpoint.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.activism
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Civil Forfeiture -- A letter to the local paper
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:28:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

I have written to the local paper today on this topic.  Additionally, I 
have decided as well to publish it here....

C'mon folks, let's get out the pen and show 'em that it really is mightier
than the sword.  We'll see if the Trib has the guts to publish this.


Voice of the People
Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL  60611


September 3, 1992


I would like to speak out on the abuse known as civil forfeiture.

An example of this was portrayed for us today in the Chicago Tribune.  You 
profiled a family which is in the process of losing their home due to a 
forfeiture action because their child is suspected of dealing narcotics.  
Not tried and convicted, mind you, but suspected.  Further, it is not the 
accused's house they wish to seize, it is his relatives!  The persons being 
punished by this seizure are acknowledged as having committed of no crime 
at all!

Certainly drugs are a problem in our society today.  Certainly the dealing 
of crack and other dangerous narcotics damages neighborhoods and lives.  
But our government is no more deserving of respect than a drug dealer when 
it becomes a band of armed thieves by practicing the seizure of innocent 
persons' property without due process of law.

It is high time that the citizens of this country take back our right to 
be secure in our property as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in 
Amendment IV.

--- 
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6040 alt.society.civil-liberty:5621
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Good News: Great Anti-WoD article in a teen magazine!
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:50:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <H42ZPB8w165w@korova.uucp> <la4tt3INN31i@boogie.cs.utexas.edu>

>If you read it, you'd realize it isn't so fluffy.  Sassy is building a
>reputation for levelling with teens, even if "grown-ups" don't like
>it.  I remember hearing some time ago that some cosmetics companies
>like Maybelline had pulled their ads because they thought Sassy was
>giving too-explicit sex advice.

No doubt Second Lady Tipper Gore will stand up to the money-grubbing
publisher of Sassy, just like she stood up to the money-grubbing
record labels, and just like Bill "I want to be your boot camp President"
Clinton will stand up to the money-grubbing drug dealers.



    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: To clarify
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:19:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <UebPG=200VAwI2_t5r@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>While you are mentioning dictatorships you may want to include
>the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, Noriega of Panama,
>and even Saddam Hussein. The first was brought to power by the
>CIA and all were propped up at one time or the other by the US.

Hey, you forgot to throw in the Ozone Hole and the AIDS virus too. 

[blither, blither on Hussein]

>I say, the only explanation is: self-interest.

[blither, blither on the Shah]

It's nice to know you avail yourself to a United-States subsidized network, in
a university which happens to be in the United States, and suppored by money
from the U.S. government (now, just who do you think PAYS for that physics
research? Money doesn't grow on trees, and tuition doesn't cover it all). Not
to mention the Evil U.S. military which has prevented the Canadians from
invading this country :-)

Perhaps you'd like to make a list of Communist dictatorships which were
supported by the former Soviet Union? Or Third-World dictatorships which played
both sides against the middle? 

It's easy to pick our our faults. We don't throw anyone in jail for airing them
in public. Or kill them. 

Marcos was deposed because the United States insisted upon free elections, and
ultimately Marcos left because he was shown the door with U.S. help. Noriega
was ultimatly removed by U.S. troops after failing to honor free elections in
Panama...

Of course, we would have been much more consistant to let Marcos do what he
wanted to in the Phillipines and Noriega in Panama, hmmm? And let Hussein keep
Kuwait. 



                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lunar Society
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:45:47 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug25.132307.21329@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>... by Dr. Jerry Pournelle, present Chairman, along with Dr. Philip
>>Chapman (former Apollo astronaut) 
>
>There has never been any Apollo astronaut named Philip Chapman that ever
>flew on a mission.  Are we having our chains yanked, or maybe this guy
>went through the training, but didn't fly?  What selection group was he
>in?

He was in the second group of scientist-astronauts, selected in 1967.
That group was basically a victory of optimism and politics over
realistic crew needs; if memory serves, they were privately warned
quite early that their chances of flying on Apollo were slim.  You
wouldn't recognize most of their names, because few of them stuck it
out long enough to actually fly... especially since it became clear
to them quickly that it was not possible to combine astronaut status
with an active scientific career. Chapman resigned in 1972.  A few of
them did go on waiting and eventually made it up; Bill Lenoir was one
of them.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 23 Aug 92 08:56 PDT
Subject: Re: Summary: Russian-Indian deal
Nf-ID: #R:oeZbYyu00Vog0GC0YC@andrew.cmu.ed:291013443:cdp:1600000007:000:2192
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 23 08:56:00 1992


To:    talk.politics.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    India/Russia
Date:  23 Aug 1992

Arun Gupta writes:

>The claim was made in WL's article that reverse engineering a space
>vehicle to a ballistic missile is possible. All the examples given,
>however were the other way round -- the ballistic missile was reverse-
>engineered into a launch vehicle. Are there any examples the other way
>round ?

The Agni is widely believed to be an example of a space launch
vehicle that was adapted to use as a ballistic missile.  The solid
rockets of early SLVs, developed with extensive European assistance,
according to an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
in the last year or two, were then applied for ballistic missile
use.

This is the reason for suspicion, though this time around I think
it is not well-founded.

>According to the books here (will real experts comment please ?), plutonium
>bombs are tricky and designs need to be verified by tests (unlike uranium
>bombs which one can be fairly sure of without testing)...

It is no longer the gospel that _nuclear_ testing is required
for plutonium bombs.  According to Mordechai Vanunu, Israel has
sophisticated boosted fission implosion weapons, and perhaps
fusion weapons, without testing (with one likely exception).
Non-nuclear testing and computer simulation are thought to
suffice.

>The MTCR states that the final
>sale decision is the sole decision of the sovereign state involved,
>but the US is not respecting this, is it ? 

The issue in this case is not the MTCR per se, but U.S. legislation
implementing the MTCR, the Missile Technology Control Act.  This
Act _requires_ the United States to impose sanctions on states
or companies making deals beyond the bounds of the MTCR.  What I
do not know, not having a copy of the Act in hand, is how a deal
is determined to merit sanctions.

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 20:58:20 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Indian Space Activities
Distribution: na

A little historical perspective on some of the ISRO activities was
provided by _The Times of India_ (Bombay, 9 July '92):

"French aerospace companies have assured the Indian Space Research
Organization (ISRO) supply of space components whose exports are banned
by the United States.

Thomson-CSF and Matra of France are stepping in to substitute the U.S.
as major suppliers of space components to ISRO.

stuff deleted

The director of space of Thomson-CSF, Mr. Michael Traizet, said, "We
would be pleased to help out ISRO."

stuff deleted

Asked what assistance was required by ISRO, he said discussions centered
around supply of travelling wave tubes (TWT), radiation hardened
semiconductor devices, and charge-coupled detectors for the next series
of IRS (sic) satellites.

Hughes Corporation of the U.S., a German company, and Thomson-CSF are
the only manufacturers of TWT's.  After the U.S. ban on ISRO, Hughes has
refused to supply the TWT's."

--------------------------
The TWT's and radiation-hardened semiconductor devices could be used for
both military and non-military applications.
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:09:05 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: To clarify


Let me state as clearly as I can:

The US has the undisputed right (as far as my opinions go) to try to
protect its vital interests.  It has the right to control to whom
US corporations may or may not sell.

To determine the benefits and risks of such control will generate some
difference of opinion; and one would hope that this is based on objective
evaluation of the technical data -- for example, is a cryogenic rocket
engine usable on an ICBM ? and so on.

If the decision is to be made based not just on the possibility of misuse,
but also the probability -- namely, the credibility of declared intentions,
then the debate becomes harder. I do not think any decision, for or against
should be based on this.

In this regard, Larrison's article has two technical points -- that satellite
launchers (with or without cryogenic engines) can be made into ICBMs, and that
India has nuclear weapon capability.

He has one point on the intentions: that the missile and satellite program
use the same first stage rocket.

He is mistaken about the manufacture of rocketry in Hindustan Aeronautics,
Ltd., however.

Lastly, his invalid points (and in which to my mind constitute a smear)
about intentions are: that Russia is waffling on a treaty, and that ISRO
spread false rumors about deals with General Dynamics and with the French.
Neither is true. ISRO did have the said negotiations. If indeed Russia is
party to the MTCR (which it wasn't even upto late 1991), then the sanctions
are unjustified, because the MTCR states that the final decision of sale or
no sale is to be left to the sovereign state (one might argue that the US
was violating MTCR !).

What bothered me was that it wasn't as though these matters were
hard to check on. I, someone with passing interest in this,could
find that these last statements of Larrison were wrong in a matter
of hours in a library; and so I conclude that there is a deliberate
attempt to mislead in these statements.

*******

I will also remind readers that it is also the right of Russia and
India to pursue what they consider to be their national interests.
The US has no moral right or any right other than self-interest to
try to prevent India from acquiring nuclear or missile capability.
Don't pretend otherwise.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Further Question
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:31:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <0eaFZ7i00iQC0bbHYJ@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>This leads me to the question: As some posters have written, it is
>generally agreed today that plutonium bombs can be built to work
>without nuclear testing. What are the equipment needed for
>this to be feasible ? (For example, presumably the X-ray
>cameras would be a help.)

If you are trying to build implosion bombs, especially efficient ones,
you badly need some way to get a look at the implosion process as it
happens.  The Manhattan Project used several, but still did not really
have full confidence that the implosion bombs were going to work.  (This
is why one of them was tested at Alamogordo beforehand, while the very
first gun bomb ever built was dropped on Hiroshima in full expectation
that it would work.)  Flash X-ray systems are one of the major ways of
inspecting an implosion in progress, and the M.P. used them.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: To clarify
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:41:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <weayINq00VpQ4CKEoz@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

[Lecture on Evil United States funding Pakistan in alleged violation of law
cut, since, obviously, the Indian government would never ever violate their own
enacted laws, noooooooo, only the Great Satan would be so perverse ...]

>Is the US evil ? No. I think the ideals in the Constitution and in the
>Declaration of Independence of democracy and human rights and the government
>being for the people, a servant rather than ruler, will come to be accepted
>by most people as the basis for building their own societies.

Sure. It has. Look at Eastern Europe, Russia, and various other little
countries since 1979. Africa is especially up on the hit parade of embracing
democracy. Rather than caste systems, Communism, or dictatorships.

>But its only the blindest and most deluded patriot who equates the government
>(even a democratically elected government) and the nation. And I can give
>you example after example where the guiding principle of the US government
>abroad was pragmatism or expediency and not reflecting at all the
>values that American society is supposedly built upon.

Sure you can. If I had time, I could pick any government around the world and
start listing actions which do not jive with their supposed values.

You sound like an Iranian. "We love the American people, but hate their
goverment." Now, just who do you think works in the government and elects its
officials. Mickey Mouse and his secret Disneyland cabinet? Hardly. The PEOPLE
of the NATION. 

Our system isn't perfect, but I don't need a lecture from you and the Maple
Leafs as to how Evil and Flawed it is. If you don't like it, fine. Become a
U.S. citizen and vote. 

>The best I can do then, is to say that the US is guided by self-interest,
>which is a legitimate reason for doing things. For it to claim some kind
>of moral authority is hypocrisy or blindness.

Providing aid to feed Ethopian and Somalian refugees doesn't strike me as being
in our self-interest. Nor does aiding Bangladesh flood refugees. I guess it was
self-interest which drove America to launch Pioneer, and Voyager. Don't know
what kind of profits we'll get. Maybe first claim to Titan? 

Moral authority comes from the Constitution and all those democratic values
which you are so eager to praise. We may not function at the ideal, but we
strive and work for that ideal every time we step into the voting booth, debate
a particular policy, or work for change of the system. 


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --