HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: drug-free schools
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:58:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.163849.8740@crd.ge.com>, ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>		I can honestly say that I NEVER observed anyone selling,
>	or even using, alcohol on school property ! Tobacco was used
>	in designated "smoking areas", but was NEVER sold. It doesn't
>	require a rocket scientist to figure out why this was the case.

I knew people in who used alcohol in high school, but as far as I know, they
didn't sell it.

Students may not sell cigarettes, they just give them away.  To a parent,
mooching is just as bad as buying.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8275 talk.politics.medicine:777 sci.med:24624
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:41:18 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
> >
> >starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> >> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:
> >> }And beta-blockers are just one category of drug!
> 
> >> Yep.  I posted an article about the Fascist Death Authority's censorship on
> >> notification of results of aspirin studies on heart disease from the Orange
> >> County Register.  The suppliers of aspirin are banned from telling anyone
> >> on their labels that their risk of death could be decrease by 40% if they took
> >> some each day.  This adds about 20 grand more deaths to their body count.
> 
> >No, their risk of death from heart disease could be reduced by 40%. Their 
> >risk of death overall would not be decreased at all.
> 
> From that standpoint, none of medicine is useful.  

Huh? An effective medication *should* lower your risk of dying this week. 
I wasn't talking about the total death rate, which is obviously 100% in 
the long run and not worth commenting on. I was talking about numbers of 
deaths per unit time in the study population.

In the study, the experimental group had a lower rate of heart attack, but 
not a lower rate of death per unit time.

Aspirin reduces your risk of heart attack and increases your risk of 
hemorrhagic stroke. If for unknown reasons it was a direct cause of the 
other increases in death rate seen in the study, then it provides no net 
benefit. Before getting excited because deaths due to heart rate decreased, 
it would be worth making sure that aspirin actually prolongs life, instead 
of making up for reductions in one risk by increasing other risks.

> The question is about the increased length and quality of life.  

Exactly what my point was. If taking aspirin does not actually increase 
your length of life, what good is it? The fact that it's cheap has nothing 
to do with it. I want efficacy and safety, too, and without the FDA there's 
little chance of either.

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:8244 talk.politics.medicine:688 sci.med:24442
From: delisle@eskimo.com (Ben Delisle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:31:51 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <- Public Access Internet & Unix -



	One soultion is to take the FDA and make it the 
same type of organization as UL ( Underwriters Labortories ) 
Whereas the companies may to choose to have  to have an
approval by an 'FDA' or not, and the consumer therefore may have
the choice also; just as there is a choice on many types of
consumer goods that have the 'UL' seal of approval for meeting 
their safety requirements.
	However to fake a 'seal of approval' would result in
criminal or civil legal action. 

 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: From _Scientific American_
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:12:47 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

| Imagine if everybody was free to market any drug they wanted any way they
| wanted.  How high would the death toll rise?

Instead of imagining such a ridiculous thing, try imagining something
realistic: the marketing of pharmaceuticals where the claims made had
to be true, and product liability would still exist.

Hey, such a policy is good enough for child safety seats.

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


"The times they are a-changing."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz lifeboats - launcher issue clarification
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:54:11 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1jjumpINN3ou@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>Baloney. Figure out transportation costs from Russia + Cost of U.S. launchers.
>Compare to Proteon <sp> launchers in Russia, without all the integration
>headaches. 

Proteon launchers never existed. There is a heavy Proton launcher (payload
of up to 22 tons in low orbit), but Soyuz spacecrafts are launched by Soyuz 
launchers. The design goes back to late 1950s, they are very reliable and 
dirt cheap. I think that the idea to buy both spacecraft and launchers from
Russia may be fruitful.

>
>> This will be both cheap, create an additional
>>market for the struggling U.S. commercial launch market,
>
>No, providing work for poor Russians. Which is not a Bad Thing. :)

Exactly. $@)

>Get a law written to force NASA to contract for alternate means of delivering
>astronauts, other than Shuttle. 

Speaking seriously, that might help to breach the boycott of Glavkosmos
commercial activities by the USA and EC states that is influenced by the NASA
and ESA officials who are afraid of honest competition.

>
>Set it up as a REAL market solution, rather than psuedo-bootstrapping voodoo 
>which does NOTHING to develop U.S. technology, other than to prove you can take
>a '60s Made-in-Russia capsule and put it on a uprated '50s booster, something
>whereby the money spent stays in the United States.
>
>If you guys start playing the least cost game, the least cost solution is to
>buy American astronauts tickets to Star City for launch on the Soyuz/Proton
>express... don't kid yourselves.

I repeat - Proton _never_ launches Soyuz into orbit. It is used for launches
of Mir station modules and other heavy stuff.

-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Goldin News from This Week's Space News
Date: 26 Jan 1993 04:46:23 GMT
Organization: Caltech:  Pasadena, California, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

	I got this week's issue of Space News in the mail Monday (well,
actually, I borrowed someone else's copy...) and found two articles about
Goldin's future at NASA.  For those who don't get a chance to look at Space
News, here is some summarized information from the articles:

	* Goldin is staying on as administrator until the Clinton 
	  Administration until they tell him otherwise.  Since the
	  transition team is lagging filling political jobs like the
	  administrator position, Goldin may remain in office for months
	  even if it is the new administration's intention to do
	  replace him.

	 * NASA public affairs associate administrator Bill Livingstone and
	  a "handful" of other non-career NASA civil servants were asked on
	  21 January to resign fron the agency.

	* James Jenson, a former congressional staffer who was a member
	  of the NASA transiton team for Clinton, has started to talk with
	  a wide range of industry, academic and congressional officials to
	  solicit names for potential replacements for Goldin.  The work
	  is apparently in its early stages.

	* Rep. George Brown (D-CA), chairman of the House Science, Space and
	  Technology Committee, has said that he is "a little unhappy"
	  that the Clinton administration hasn't made a decision on whether
	  or not to keep Goldin.

There are a lot more details in the articles, but time constraints prevent me
from providing more.  The above is a good general summary of the article.
Another article in the issue delt with the mixed reviews Goldin and his work
have received, especially in the areas of procurement reform, the budget,
reorganization, the space station, new launchers, and "faster, better,
cheaper" science missions.


-- 
Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   			   	 jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov
 	  Final score of the Interstellar Space		Deep Space 9
	  Station Championship Softball Game:		Babylon    5
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Phone number to save Goldin
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:12:20 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com



I called.  they took the message.

i suggest everyone else call too.

pat
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:02:17 GMT

In article <1k3qupINNo4r@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>>Your being a bit selective here Doug....

>No, I personally disagree with your fast and loose budget numbers. I do NOT
>disagree with any contractor who says they can do anything

If you go back and re-read my postings you will see that the 'fast and
loose budget numbers' are in fact the contractor estimates. No doubt you
have now changed your mind? Or do contractor numbers you don't like
still count as 'fast and loose'?

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: larry@labrador.fishkill.ibm.com (Larry Pieniazek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:51:08 GMT
Reply-To: lar@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: Ya Right!

In article <0fNLWO200iUyA3s2h9@andrew.cmu.edu>, Theodore Wadsworth
<tw1t+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> In your discusions of Proton launched Soyuz not being able to reach a 28
> degree orbit is this including the possibility of launch from the Cape
> York facility.  I am not aware whether the facility is currently capable
> of handling proton launch.

Since I for one have been lead to understand that nothing has been
built there yet, it is my impression that the facility is not even
currently capable of handling an estes launch. :-)

-Lar

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','

Don't blame ME, I voted Libertarian!

#include <std_disclaim.h>
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
NNTP-Posting-Host: queen.eng.umd.edu

In article <1993Jan26.190217.17239@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1k3qupINNo4r@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>No, I personally disagree with your fast and loose budget numbers. I do NOT
>>disagree with any contractor who says they can do anything
>
>If you go back and re-read my postings you will see that the 'fast and
>loose budget numbers' are in fact the contractor estimates.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^

Sure they're estimates. That's before bending hardware, contract overruns, and
unforseen problems. 

In the Real World is that it ain't so easy. Unless you take the Sherzer line.

> No doubt you
>have now changed your mind? Or do contractor numbers you don't like
>still count as 'fast and loose'?

No more so than the mythology you use to come up with a budget number for
a typical shuttle launches. 

Whastamatter, slow day at lobby central? 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re:  More Soyuz as ACRV
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  10:10:04

Needless to say, I have some questions about your stated assumptions:



 
It has not ever been tested in orbit for 3 years.

There are other factors besides the fuel lines in limited the life
of a Soyuz in orbit

Would you really want to risk your life on a lifeboat in orbit
that had never had its engines fired?

What happens if the shuttle fleet is grounded right before the three
year lifespan is the Soyuz is up? What happens to the Space Station 
program? Can you spell single point failure?





___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz lifeboats - launcher issue clarification
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:20:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: queen.eng.umd.edu

In article <1993Jan21.175411.31823@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF) writes:
>In article <1jjumpINN3ou@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>Baloney. Figure out transportation costs from Russia + Cost of U.S. launchers.
>>Compare to Proteon <sp> launchers in Russia, without all the integration
>>headaches. 
>
>Proteon launchers never existed. There is a heavy Proton launcher (payload
>of up to 22 tons in low orbit), 

OK, so I can't spell. As noted above.

>I repeat - Proton _never_ launches Soyuz into orbit. It is used for launches
>of Mir station modules and other heavy stuff.

Suggest you dig up back copy of Av. Week. Lockheed has exclusive rights for
marketing the PROTON launcher in the U.S.A. and is looking at them with an eye
to deliver the ACRV to Freedom, since Soyuz's launcher doesn't have the oomph
to get it in the right orbit.

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 23 Jan 93  10:50:16

If Lockheed is seriously considering launching Soyuzes on Protons
to SSF, they are ignored several very real constraints; this would
not be the first time a business made a bad decision. 
 
A stripped-down Soyuz already exists; it's the one the Russians
use now. Trying to drop 6,000 lbs from the current Soyuz is kind
of like trying to drop 6,000 lbs. from you. The final result wouldn't work too 
well. 
  
A Proton can't get a 14,000 lb Soyuz into the orbit of SSF; even if it could, 
an Atlas-Centaur would do the job better, and pretty much at the same cost.
There are integration costs with the Atlas - guess what, there are integration 
costs with the Proton, too. The Soviets never launched
a full soyuz on a Proton in the old days.
 
The Proton is not man rated. Not even Leonid Breshnev agreed to fly a
person on a Proton - they're quite nasty.
 
It is practically impossible to add strap-ons to a Proton - you would
need to completely change the assembly line procedures, and create new
tools and dies, especially for adding strap-ons. After all, the structures
that *look* like stra-ons on the sides of the current Protons are *not*. They 
are fuel tanks that feed fuel lines inside the first stage. Proton currently
has no strap-ons, and no real capability of adding any. Not to mention the
major revisions to the launch structure and transport vehicles.
 
My feeling here is that you are not too familiar with the Proton, and your
ideas about its capabilities are based on this lack of information.
 
As for the bill you mentioned; why not talk to your congressperson to get
*their* feedback? It's probably not a bad idea - except that it is politically 
infeasbile. However, if your congressperson if willing to introduce the bill, 
we can probably get some folks to support it.
 
As for the inability of the Soyuz to act as a platform for satellite repair - 
don't worry, the Soviets have already used it as such. The
Soyuz is a fine platform for such things. 

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Phone number to save Goldin
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:09:58 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1jpde4INNmki@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>
>I called.  they took the message.
>
>i suggest everyone else call too.
>
>pat

Now that Bill (not enough sax) Clinton holds the reins, what are the 
appropriate phone numbers regarding Goldin?  I assume that there are
numbers at the White House and at the Office of the Veep that would
be best to use now ...
 
How about CongressCritters?  Anyone that we should be leaning on?
-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:44:58 -0500 
From: Theodore Wadsworth <tw1t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality

In your discusions of Proton launched Soyuz not being able to reach a 28
degree orbit is this including the possibility of launch from the Cape
York facility.  I am not aware whether the facility is currently capable
of handling proton launch.
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Launcher 4 Soyuz (was Re: Soyuz lifeboats - launcher issue clari
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:04:43 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1jphelINNqmi@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>Suggest you dig up back copy of Av. Week. Lockheed has exclusive rights for
>marketing the PROTON launcher in the U.S.A. and is looking at them with an eye
>to deliver the ACRV to Freedom, since Soyuz's launcher doesn't have the oomph
>to get it in the right orbit.

The idea of using Proton to launch Soyuz doesn't meet much enthusiasm among
us Russians. First, though the current Soyuz launcher is not powerful enough 
for the task, Proton it _too_ powerful, so it may be necessary to launch a
degraded version (less first-stage boosters or smth.). Second, though Proton
has a very good reliability, it was designed as a cargo launcher. It uses
toxic fuels and undergoes _very_ uncomfortable accelerations during launch.
It may be used to launch Soyuz to Freedom, but still the decision is far
from optimal. BTW, some people in Russia think that Lockheed purchased the 
right to sell Proton in the US without any intention to do real sales - just
to forbid anybody else to use the right. However, this may be just another
paranoid rumour. A really good decision in the long run would be to arrange
Soyuz assembly line in the US. :)

-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:44:50 -0500
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains
NNTP-Posting-Host: oit.gatech.edu

In article <252310ced@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>As for the inability of the Soyuz to act as a platform for satellite repair - 
>don't worry, the Soviets have already used it as such. The
>Soyuz is a fine platform for such things. 

What did they fix, and when?  I don't remember hearing anything about this...
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Phone number to save Goldin
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:10:09 GMT

In article <1jpkamINNo68@mirror.digex.com> mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney) writes:

>Now that Bill (not enough sax) Clinton holds the reins, what are the 
>appropriate phone numbers regarding Goldin?  

People should switch to calling the White House comment line at
202-456-1111. Please call.

>How about CongressCritters?  Anyone that we should be leaning on?

I am working that issue now. I expect to post an update including the
names of some Senators early next week.

Keep the cards and letters coming.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Soyuz vs. reality
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:15:43 GMT

In article <1k4bsoINNbp@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>>No, I personally disagree with your fast and loose budget numbers. I do NOT
>>>disagree with any contractor who says they can do anything

>>If you go back and re-read my postings you will see that the 'fast and
>>loose budget numbers' are in fact the contractor estimates.

>Sure they're estimates. That's before bending hardware, contract overruns, and
>unforseen problems. 

>In the Real World is that it ain't so easy. Unless you take the Sherzer line.

Well golly Doug, just yesterday you where perfectly happy with Lockheed
estimates about Proton. You argued that we should accept them because
Lockheed knew more than you or I.

Yesterday Lockheed took the 'Sherzer line' with your approval because
you liked what the experts said. But at other times when you didn't
like what the experts say, suddenly they don't know what they are
talking about.

Funny how overruns and unforseen problems disapear when Doug likes the idea!

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+