HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: Beluga Whales Die at Shadd Aquarium in Chicago, Ill
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:43:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.213104.337@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>Thanks for posting the information, Bob.

    Please don't post this stuff to news.misc!

--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files!           Gerry Swetsky  WB9EBO  |
|                 vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet                    |
| Home (708)833-8122       vpnet (708)833-8126      lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Subject: ohip billers ?
Reply-To: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: ont
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:06:42 EST















 Hi All,

 Are there any OHIP BILLERS out there reading this newsgroup.?




  from Internet  <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>



---
  ACCESS/MAIL 1.00 #0274  Tagline frequencies are Open....
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Illegal Satellite Pickups
Keywords: copy right
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:13:48 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <38oZRB1w165w@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca> turtle@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
(Barry Hutsel) writes:

>hilbig_t@qis.dofasco.ca writes:
>
>> Could someone pleeeaaaassseee explain why the heck it is illegal to unscrambl
>> scrambled satellite signals, yet it is not illegal to eavesdrop on celular
>> phone conversations (ie without a court order).
>> 
>Perhaps it's because the programs being broadcast on the satellite are 
>copy righted and the cable company has the right to charge you for the 
>use of their copy righted material?

Hmmm?  Doesn't make sense.

Just because there are copyrighted books doesn't make photocopiers
illegal.  There are legal things to copy.

Similarly, there is no reason that everything broadcast from a
satellight is copyright.  I could, if I wished, buy satellight time
and broadcast information of my own, and if I wished, place that
material in the public domain.  There would then be public domain
information to be received.

Also, a radio tuned to a station isn't making a copy in the legal
sense, so copyright law doesn't apply anyways.

And finally:  Copyright is a CIVIL matter, not an "illegal/legal"
matter.  The difference is important.

----

However, there is nothing to stop the government from passing silly
laws, some of which might explicitly apply to satellight dishes.  I
am not a lawyer.

(To paraphrase somebody famous, "Nobody's life or property is safe
while the government is in session".)

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
<Ring> [...] "Sorry, I'm all booked up." "Who was that?" "The library." - B.C.

Newsgroups: ont.general
From: jack@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Jack Cooper)
Subject: Re: Response To Take Back The Night	 
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:08:53 GMT

In article <ALAVIGNE.92Oct6105838@bmerh930.bnr.ca> alavigne@bmerh930.bnr.ca (Andrew Lavigne) writes:
>
>(Ken Lawrence writes):
>>The Anti-Rape Movement and specifically the "Take Back The Night" protests
>>cannot allow men to participate because every man is a potential rapist.
>

I question this as being the reason men aren't encouraged to participate.
I had heard from another source that the reason men aren't recruited
to help organize is because the protest is about women, specifically,
reclaiming the right to be safe at night.  Having men involved in
organizing the event would defeat the purpose.

>
  (Knee-jerk reaction to dubious assumption deleted)
>


>  ... The 
>>Anti-Rape Movement encourages men to educate other men and to be supportive 
>>onlookers to  womyn only protests.
>
>Why?  Why can't they be supportive to women, period?  Why the need for a split,
>a schism, a separation?  I thought we're supposed to be TOGETHER on this kind
>of thing.  Geez.
>
>Basically, I totally disagree with this line of reasoning.
>

Just because men aren't explicitly sought out to help organize the event
doesn't imply that their presence is unwelcome.  Anyone have direct
experience from actually attending the protest?



>Andrew Lavigne
>Bell-Northern Research
>alavigne@bnr.ca
>


-- 
Jack Cooper - Arts Computing Office            --  E-mail: --
      University of Waterloo              jack@watarts.uwaterloo.ca
        Waterloo, Ontario                 
=====  If I could do it all over again, I wouldn't dwell in the past.  =====
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Illegal Satellite Pickups
Keywords: copy right
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:27:51 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <6y7ZRB1w165w@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca> turtle@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
writes:

>pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:
>
>> And finally:  Copyright is a CIVIL matter, not an "illegal/legal"
>> matter.  The difference is important.
>> 
>Civil just means you can't be put in jail. It's still a violation and you
>can get dinged in the pocket book.  Also there's no reasonable doubt req.

Civil means more than that.  If a cop finds me breaking somebody's
window, he'll arrest me.  It's illegal to go break people's windows.

I can gleefully copy books in front of a cop all I want.  Copyright
is a civil matter.  Copying material, even copyrighted material,
is not illegal.  It's the copyright holder who has to sue me.

In fact, I do REGULARLY copy copyrighted material.  I don't break
copyright.  There are a number of reasons I can do this legally:

	- Copying my own stuff (there's an example in this posting).

	- Fair use of somebody else's material (there's an example
	in this posting)

	- Copying with permission (you may recall my quest to
	convert a wordperfect file, done with the permission of
	the author).

But even if I do it unfairly, without permission, of somebody else's
stuff, it's NOT necessarily going to be a problem!  Without checking
with the owner, you can't tell if he even cares.  Even if the
copyright owner cares, it doesn't matter unless he does something.

I have been a victim of copyright violation:  Once upon a time I
wrote a story :-), and a draft I gave to a friend to proofread got
copied and distributed, to my dismay (it was a lousy draft).  But
because it's a civil matter, it doesn't matter who knows about what
the friend did; the police can't do anything, *I* have to do
something.  (And I'm not about to sue a friend!  At least, not a
broke friend :-))

The key thing about a civil matter is that lawsuits have to be
started by the offended party.

The above goes for all civil matters, not just copyright:  The
offended party has to start a lawsuit, or there can never be a
lawsuit.  The police can't start a lawsuit about a civil matter,
and the busybody down the street can't start one.  Only the injured
party can.

But, as "turtle" correctly points out:  Civil matters are judged
by the weight of evidence, unlike legal matters, which must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
<Ring> [...] "Sorry, I'm all booked up." "Who was that?" "The library." - B.C.

P.S.
I have used as _an_example_ the assumption that articles posted to
ont.general remain copyright.  This is a topic that often causes
long, drawn-out debate.  If you don't agree, please substitute the
obvious examples from a correspondence example (letters on paper,
sent by Canada Post).  I'm aware that the issue is not settled.
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Illegal Satellite Pickups
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:41:21 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep30.192304.180@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164240.1@qis.dofasco.ca> hilbig_t@qis.dofasco.ca writes:
>>Also, why can't I receive a normal satellite signal and share it with my 
>>neighbours?  This too is apparently illegal.

>     You can't share a satellite signal if you charge money for the privilege
>of sharing.  Basically, only licensed operators are allowed to operate
>cable companies, and the term "cable company" is defined so loosely that
>it effectively precludes the arrangement you suggest.  (Someone is going
>to have to buy the dish, pay for maintenance, etc.  The other party in
>the relationship is presumably going to have to hand over some money or
>equivalent goods, unless the original purchaser is unusually generous.
>That's the point at which you would run afoul of the law.)

Actually, it's much simpler than this.  If I recall the legislation
correctly, it's actually illegal to have a dish for reception of anything
other than what is intended for end-user broadcast (ie: ANIK far north
CBC services).  However, the minister of the day announced/promised that
the government would not prosecute for dishes used for individual use no
matter what they received.  But they indicated that they would prosecute
shared access to a dish, whether by fee or for free (presumably excepting
public broadcasts, and/or requiring a license).

Descramblers are illegal in themselves, except where covered under license
with the signal originators.  If they're exempting individual use (which I sort
of doubt), it's more probably simply a matter of enforcability or difficulty
of prosecution.

Remember that much of the satillite signal is copyrighted commercial
transmission between providers and cable companies.  Both of these
have powerful lobbies, and evidently had enough clout to get the
government to legislatively enforce their copyrights.  Much like
the royalty tax on cassettes.

The airwaves aren't public, and certainly aren't public domain.  They're
allocated by the government, and theoretically only those segments
allocated as public (eg: CB, TV, AM) are public access.  Ie, for example,
it's theoretically illegal to listen in on police bands, but unenforcable.
If it's actually legal to listen into cellular radio, I think this is
more a matter of sloth on the part of the government rather than policy.

At least we're not like the British, where it's illegal (or was
until very recently) to operate a radio or TV without paying a license fee.
It's how they pay for the BBC.  On the other hand, I do have an old
(1930s?) radio that has a sticker on it demanding that the license fee be
paid to the Canadian government...   Radio still works great too ;-)
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From: wania@aurora ( development)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Looking for an apt/room in house
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:31:29 GMT
Distribution: ont
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

I am looking for an apartment or house
to share. I will be moving down to Mississauga
and need a place. I've changed jobs. Preferably
during Oct 10-12 (Thanksgiving weekend). 
Location- Mississauga, near Square One or near Hwy 403/Hwy 10.
Rent - < $500/-
Let me know through email or call me at 613-592-9601.

Thanx,
Xerxes.

PS. My last day at work is Sept 30.

-- 
Xerxes Wania              | Usenet: wania@icpd.mitel.com 
MITEL Corporation         |         
360 Legget Drive, Kanata, | "Transatlantic call from Mr. Floyd 
Ontario, Canada K2K 1X3.  | to Mrs. Floyd are we reaching..."
From: turtle@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Barry Hutsel)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: copyright
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:42:28 GMT
Reply-To: turtle@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
Distribution: ont
Organization: Vicuna Systems, Kingston, ON (613) 547-5066

Paul,

        With regard to your primary post - By gosh I think you got it 
right! :-)

        With regard to you seconday post (the one you'd rather not 
debate), I think you're half right (as you expected).  I disagree with 
your 1st paragraph:

        By posting to the NET I do not give up the right for anyone to 
make copies of my work for any and all purposes.  There is no question 
that by posting to the NET (knowing what type of media it is) I consent 
for you and many hundreds of other people to make copies of the material 
on their computers for the purpose of reading the material.  I may also 
be consenting to allow you to make a copy of the article on your own 
personal disk or perhaps to make a printed copy in order to facilitate 
reading.  I also consent for you to making additional copies in a follow 
up post.  These are normal activities on the NET and when I post my 
material I understand that they will quite likely occur.  Copy right 
would most likely be considered violated when additional copies of my 
material were made and distributed outside the net.  For example if I had 
written a very important article which I decided to post to the NET as a 
public service for the users and you made copies of that article and gave 
it to several of your friends, you might be considered to have violated 
my copyright (ie. it could not be reasonably expected that such copying
would be the result of my posting the article to the NET).  If I had also 
published the article in a magazine and I felt your distribution of my 
article had caused damages by reducing sales of that magazine, then I 
might sue you to collect damages.  So, I disagree with your first 
paragraph and agree with your second paragraph, although I think by 
posting to the NET the only rights I give up are those which represent 
the normal, expected activities which take place on the NET (ie copying 
from computer to computer and personal copying on individual machines by 
individual people).  I retain all other rights and you have no right to 
copy and distribute my material to other people.

        --Barry

----------------------------------------------------
turtle@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Barry Hutsel)
Vicuna Systems BBS - 613/547-5066 [9600 v.32/.42bis]
From: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca (Paul Landolt)
Subject: Re: Illegal Satellite Pickups
Organization: York University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:15:49 GMT

hilbig_t@qis.dofasco.ca writes:

>Could someone pleeeaaaassseee explain why the heck it is illegal to unscramble
>scrambled satellite signals, yet it is not illegal to eavesdrop on celular
>phone conversations (ie without a court order).

I thought it WAS illegal to listen to cellular conversations.  As far as I
know, certain bands are reserved for general listening (comonly referred to
as general broadcast channels, or GBCs. Really. I could be wrong, but I think
I'm close) You can get a list of frequencies you can legally listen to from
the boys at the DOC

(actually, as I write this, a colleague informed me of the court ruling. Man,
this country is nuts!)

>I always thought radio waves couldn't be owned by anyone and that they were
>public property.  So why is the CRTC (or DOC, I'm not sure) threatening to
>fine $10,000 for every day you unscramble satellite signals without
>authorization?

In Canada, all airwaves are property of the Crown. ie, Canada owns all rights
to radio signals that can be received within Canadian airspace.  The crown,
through the DOC grants license to use the airwaves.

-- 
J. Paul Landolt - Guest of:         | If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
York University - Toronto, Canaidia | ...unless you're a consultant  
+1 416 736 5257                     | ----------------------------------
InterNet: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca    | My opinions. All mine. So sue me.
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: alavigne@bmerh930.bnr.ca (Andrew Lavigne)
Subject: Re: Response To Take Back The Night	 
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:58:38


(Ken Lawrence writes):
>The Anti-Rape Movement and specifically the "Take Back The Night" protests
>cannot allow men to participate because every man is a potential rapist.

eh??? every man is a potential rapist?   Every human (I guess that would be 
'humyn' for you) is a potential something, whether it be murderer, thief, 
etc... Does that mean we condemn all of the race for it?  That's ridiculous.
You don't single out the people who are causing the problems, or the society
that causes the problems, you single out ALL MEN.  Even when you know that
they are not ALL causing the problems.

>While every man does not rape,  rape functions in the interest of all men.  
>It gives a man exclusive control over a womyn in exchange for protection from
>other men.  Every individual man does not necessarily exercise or even want 
>this kind of  control over a womyn;  but it is institutionalized in this 
>society.

And so they must all pay and suffer the burden for that which they have not 
promoted or contributed to.  Sounds like these men are in same boat many 
downtrodden groups are in; and yet you promote this kind of idea.

>Rape is a universal crime against womyn committed by men.

This generalization is very disturbing.  Is this any better than the things
anti-semites say about Jews???  NO!   It's racist!

>There is an increasing number of men who are afraid for their daughters,  
>their sisters,  their partners,  their mothers and their friends:  These men 
are taking responsibility for action to end violence against womyn.  The 
>Anti-Rape Movement encourages men to educate other men and to be supportive 
>onlookers to  womyn only protests.

Why?  Why can't they be supportive to women, period?  Why the need for a split,
a schism, a separation?  I thought we're supposed to be TOGETHER on this kind
of thing.  Geez.

Basically, I totally disagree with this line of reasoning.

Andrew Lavigne
Bell-Northern Research
alavigne@bnr.ca

Newsgroups: ont.events,uw.talks,uw.cs.grad
From: wlrush@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (wlrush)
Subject: MASTER'S THESIS PRESENTATION
Keywords: Cameron Shelley, grad student, Dept. Comp. Sci., Univ. Waterloo
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:56:51 GMT

MASTER'S THESIS PRESENTATION

                    -Thursday, October 8, 1992

Cameron  Shelley,  graduate  student, Dept. Comp. Sci.,
Univ.  of  Waterloo,  will  speak  on  "Speech acts and
Pragmatics in Sentence Generation"

TIME:                 3:00-4:00 p.m.

ROOM:                 DC 1331

ABSTRACT

A  fundamental advance in recent theories about natural
language   pragmatics  involves  the  realization  that
people  use language not just to describe propositions,
but also to perform actions.  This idea can be taken as
a given starting point for investigating the questions:
how  are  linguistic actions, or speech acts, performed
and understood? How far can descriptions, as locutions,
be  used as speech acts?  What role does inference play
in the performance and understanding of speech acts?

Many previous theories of speech acts have taken speech
acts   to   be   independent  and  primitive  units  of
communication,   implicit   in,   but   separate  from,
description and inference.  In this thesis, I argue for
an  alternative  model  of speech acts.  I propose that
speech  acts  can  be  explained  by  a  combination of
description  and  inference, without the requirement of
separate  conventions.  This explanation relies instead
on  an  account of explicit linguistic units, including
clausal  moods  and  performative verbs, in addition to
the   inferential   mechanism   provided   by   Gricean
conversational implicature.

In  addition  to  outlining a model for the description
and  comparison  of  speech  acts,  I  present  a small
sentence generator that partially implements the model,
and  discuss  how it can be enhanced in future. Also, I
illustrate  the  relevance  of this model for a current
computational  theory  of syntactic style.  My model of
speech  acts  suggests how this computational stylistic
theory can be extended into the areas of semantic style
and lexical style.
Newsgroups: ont.events,uw.talks,uw.cs.grad
From: wlrush@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (wlrush)
Subject: CS 494 Computers and the Law of Information Technology
Keywords: Det. Ser. B. Adkins, Anti-Rackets Branch - O.P.P.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:55:54 GMT

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
SEMINAR ACTIVITIES

CS 494 COMPUTERS AND THE LAW

OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                    -Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Detective  Sergeant  Brian  Adkins  of the Anti-Rackets
Branch  -  Ontario  Provincial  Police,  will  speak on
"Computer Crime in Canada".

TIME:                 5:00-6:00 p.m.

ROOM:                 DC 1302

ABSTRACT

Detective  Sergeant  Brian  Adkin  will present a short
film  presentation and lecture dealing with the role of
law  enforcement  agencies  in combating computer crime
and the recent changes to the Criminal Code.
Newsgroups: ont.events,ut.dcs.general,ut.dcs.seminars
From: veronica@cs.toronto.edu (Veronica Archibald)
Subject: Hausi A. Muller, Tuesday 13 October 1992: COLLOQUIM
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:25:39 GMT


           Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
         (SF = Sandford Fleming Building, 10 King's College Road)

       -------------------------------------------------------------

                                 COLLOQUIM
              SF1105, at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday 13 October 1992

                              Hausi A. Muller
          Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria

   "Understanding Software Systems Using Reverse Engineering Technology"

Reverse engineering is concerned with the  analysis of existing software
systems in order to make them more understandable for maintenance, re-
engineering, and evolution purposes.  Reverse engineering as a possible
solution to selected software evolution problems is introduced; the talk
then concentrates on reverse engineering technology developed under the
Rigi project which is based on layered subsystem structures.  The Rigi
approach involves the identification of software artifacts in a particular
subject system and the aggregation of these  artifacts to form  more
abstract system representations.  A reverse engineering methodology is
presented for building subsystem structures out of software building
blocks; then we show how the generated visual and spatial graph
representations of software structures are  displayed and manipulated using
an interactive graph editor.  Early experience has shown that software
engineers can quickly build mental models from the generated structures
which are compatible  with the mental models formed by maintainers of the
underlying software.

Hausi A. Muller From 1979 to 1982,  Hausi A. Muller worked as a software
engineer for Brown Boveri & Cie. in Baden, Switzerland (now called ASEA
Brown Boveri).  Since 1986 he has been at the University of Victoria,
British Columbia where he is an Associate Professor of Computer Science.
He is currently on sabbatical at the IBM Centre for Advanced Studies in
Toronto working with the program understanding group.
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: ont.events
Subject: Ukrainian Canadian Concert
Keywords: Ukrainian, concert
Date: 29 Sep 1992 21:48:51 GMT
Distribution: ont

Sunday, October 4, 2:30 p.m.
Chrysler Theater
Cleary International Center
Windsor, Ontario

Ukrainian Canadian Concert

Tickets: $8 (plus GST)   or $5 (for people 16 or under)
(subsidized by the Ukrainian Canadian Business and Professional
Association of Windsor)

Performers: 
Joy Brittan, singer (Las Vegas, originally from Manitoba)
 
Orest Sushko, tsymbala (dulcimer) player, (Toronto)
Ron Cahute, accordian (Toronto)

Troyanda, vocal duet with piano accompaniment (Toronto)

Sonyashnyk Dancers (Chatham/Windsor)