HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: History of the side of the road that cars travel on?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:20:55 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

What is the history behind the fact that in England cars are driven
on the left of the road and in America cars are driven on the 
right side of the road?


-- 
Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:7518 soc.culture.romanian:792 talk.politics.soviet:7132
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.romanian,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Russian intervention in Moldova?
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:34:47 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Alexander Bucur (bucur@pollux.usc.edu) writes:
>Secondly, the Transdniestra conflict started because of the Moldovians not
>wanting to give up territory that was swapped by Stalin between Moldova and
>Ukraine in 1950s.  Unless the Ukraine acknowledge that, and reverses what
>Stalin has done, I do not see this issue die.  It will just be hidden until
>it explodes again.  If Moldova is to go to Romania, then there will be more
>discussion about this territories.

I'm sorry, Stalin is dead and you cannot ask Ukraine to appear
as stand-in on the accused's bench for him.

Each of the areas has to be handled separately. And each of the land
has to be handled according to the will of the people who lives there.
If there is a strong will in northern Bukovina to join Roumania, this
should happen. The same applies to the sourthernmost Bessarabia. And 
the same should of course apply to Transdniestra and Gagauzia.

But the question is: does such an opinion have a majority support in
these areas? As far as I know, this is not the case in northern Bukovina
and not in Transdniestra, since Roumanians are in minority in these areas.
I don't know about southern Bessarabia. Gagauzia may eventually choose 
the Roumanian option, if this would be the least bad of several bad 
choices.

It is even more ridiculous to include Ukraine in the Transdniestrian
conflict. Ukraine doesn't claim the area, or any other Moldovan or
Roumanian land, and would probably prefer if Transdniestra followed
the rest of Moldova in case of a unification. Roumania on the other
hand has raised claims on Ukraine, and I'm sorry, but I find these
plain silly. And it's even more silly to link them to Transdniestra.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Life is wonderful when the wonderlife is full
From: l1z@ecl.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Protest! Protest! Protest!
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:16:14 EDT
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University

    The international students at PennState will be holding a protest against
the university's health insurance policy. The protest is dated August 17th,
Monday, in front of the HUB(hertzel Union Building) and the Old Main.
    PennState requires all international students came after fall,1990 to
buy insurance for themself and their dependents. The insurance should be the
MEGA plan provided by this school or other insurance that meet the waiver
standards. The waiver standards were set very strict so that international
students have no choice but to buy MEGA because any insurance that meet all
the waiver standards will be much more expensive than MEGA. The MEGA cost
about $500 a year for the student but $1778 for the student spouse and $800
for a child. If the  international student has assistantship, the school pays
%80 of the insurance for the student, but not for spouses and children.
MEGA doesn't provide good coverage for illnesses though it's so expensive.
    American students are not required to buy insurance for their dependents,
but they can choose to buy MEGA for their dependents if they want. So when
their wifes are going to have a baby. they may spend a few hundred dollars
to buy MEGA for their wifes for only one semester, and enjoy the maternity
coverage. The cost, certainly, will be imposed on international students who
are forced to buy MEGA even there's a lot of unwanted coverages like the
maternity coverages for their husbands and children!

Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: cza@prefect.uucp (Cengiz Akgun)
Subject: Re: Meggy and Yugoslavia
Reply-To: cza@prefect.UUCP (Cengiz Akgun)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Navesink, NJ,
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:28:06 GMT

>In article  ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis ) writes:
>
>cza@maestro.bellcore.com (Cengiz Akgun) writes:
>
>>...  Forget about Europeans and US for the ground assault, now 
>>Turkey is saying ready for this job underr UN flag.  They are willing 
>>to deal with these urban hoodlums.  They are offering NATO allies to 
>>sustain the air power and let them take care what the ground work 
>>requires to stop the bloodshed and exodos. They are ready to restore the
>>Bosnian borders.  They are also willing to shed their own blood for 
>>this job.
>
> Just willing? I thought they desparetly wanted to get involved like
> they've done in Cyprus.  And then, try to get them out of Bosnia.
> We've seen what Turks have done to Cyprus. WE DO NOT NEED SIMILAR
> INVOLVEMNT IN THE BALKANS.
>
> Keep your cries for yourself. WE NOW KNOW TURKS VERY WELL. 
>YOU'VE SHOWN YOUR REAL FACE IN CYPROUS. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bless you for making my point, Panos.  Since you opened the subject, I
should brush your memory.  Today's UN inability to answer Bosnians 
plight is the manifestation of how Turks were right acting without 
waiting any resolution from UN.  Besides why they should have waited 
for UN to act, they have the right to intervene to stop Greek Cypriots 
who were staging the exact play that Serbians are now able to enjoy 
(at least for now).  I can understand your frustration,
Panos.  You would probably enjoy the fruits of Grivas' Akritas plan 
today if Turkey became another bystander as Britain chose to do
at that time.  We know the rest.  Turkish Cypriots are safe and they
are at the table to negotiate for themselves.  They are jubilant and 
thankful more than before today after seeing what has happened in Bosnia
and the same fate that were waiting for them as being on the hands of 
Greek Cypriot zeolots.  It is too bad that Bosnian have no such a 
gurantee.   If they did, their pain most probably has answered by now.

As Turks showed the world how they can take care of the
hoodloms in Cyprous who were also very well equipped, armed and supplied
in the mountains and towns in 1974 just about a month or so,  they 
can repeat it again.  The situation is not that different.  Greek 
Cypriots did not have any air power.  Serbians in Bosnia has neither
too.  The game would be played on the ground with the support of NATO 
air power.  If the Serbian Airforce interferes, the NATO airpower
would be there to welcome them.   I think Cyprus is a good precedent
that Turks can do the job well.  By the way, I should thank Panos 
again making my point stronger than before by opening the Cyprus case.

C. Akgun
From: luciano@athos.Berkeley.EDU (Luciano Lavagno)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Hats off to Meggy
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:59:01 GMT
Reply-To: luciano@athos.Berkeley.EDU (Luciano Lavagno)
Organization: UC Berkeley IC CAD Group

In article <1992Aug11.114204.8179@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, ams@vax.oxford.ac.uk
writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.200736.5950@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
>luciano@athos.Berkeley.EDU (Luciano Lavagno) writes:
[...]
>> 
>> Indeed. The "allies" should feel rightly ashamed for not trying to stop the
>> Nazi death camps, after knowing about their existence from air photos and
>> intelligence reports. 
>> Actually the reason why the constantly refused to intervene, to stop the
>trains
>> carrying the prisoners, to bomb the camp themselves, or to deviate an army
>unit
>> to free a camp rather than concentrating on retrating German units, has
>always
>> been a mistery to me.
>> Well, not quite. The purpose of the military apparatus has always been to
>> inflict suffering, not to stop it. Regardless of what your leaders try to
>make
>> you believe.
>> 
>
>Hang on a moment. You can't have it both ways. Either soldiers should be sent
>in, or they shouldn't. You can argue that they shouldn't, because people get
>hurt and it doesn't solve the problem anyway (as in Northern Ireland), and
>you
>can argue that they should, because it is immoral to "refuse to intervene"
>when
>you have evidence of prison camps (as in World War II) but you can't argue
>both
>points of view simultaneously.

Sorry about the confusion. I was just trying to explain that the military
option of intervening to lessen suffering is rarely chosen. Back then there was
not even the question of becoming involved, since the Allies were already
involved. 
They just did not care enough, so it is hardly a surprise that generals are not
eager to intervene now.
I was just trying to eliminate the impression that the situation in Bosnia is
being handled different from usual.

[...]

>Has anyone any ideas that might "stop the bloodshed" which don't involve 
>sending soldiers in? 

Yes. Stop the flow of weapons (and gasoline ?) in the region. Have relief
supplies delivered directly by U.N. soldiers (I know they may become the target
of fire in order to get at their weapon, gas and food supplies, but it should
be less than if they get involved into full scale warfare anyway).
Ciao !
Luciano
-- 
Luciano Lavagno            luciano@ic.Berkeley.EDU            +1-510-642-5012
Dept. of EECS, 207-69 Cory Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
From: ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis )
Subject: Master Untrue Totally Lying Unit (MUTLU) answer this question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:20:30 GMT


Yo, creep, I have asked you one simple question. Can't you read asshole?

I repeat: You have given Greek, French, and German references in your
crapish postings. I'm asking you if you can speak Greek, French, and German.

Answer my question, or SHUT UP AND CLOSE YOUR MOUTH.


-- 
---> Panos Tamamidis
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: bucur@pollux.usc.edu (alexander bucur)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.romanian,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Russian intervention in Moldova?
Date: 17 Aug 1992 06:52:04 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug16.193637.22179@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>of its own. If Moldova decides to join Roumania, Transdniestra
>and Gagauzia would have the option to stay out and go whereever
>they want (and are accepted). Roumania could further help by stating
>that it has no claims on Transdniestra which it never had except
>for Bendery. Gagauzia is a slightly different matter, but if Moldova
>and Roumania plays their cards right, the Gagauzians will surely find 
>that Roumania is not a worse alternative than anything else which
>is possible.

There are few issues that you are overseeing.

But first of all is Romania that you are talking about.

Secondly, the Transdniestra conflict started because of the Moldovians not 
wanting to give up territory that was swapped by Stalin between Moldova and
Ukraine in 1950s.  Unless the Ukraine acknowledge that, and reverses what
Stalin has done, I do not see this issue die.  It will just be hidden until
it explodes again.  If Moldova is to go to Romania, then there will be more 
discussion about this territories.

Sasha Bucur
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: OMEDEI SUPPORTS MACEDONIA
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:14:58 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Cris Koutsougeras (ck@cs.tulane.edu) writes:
>The EEC was convinced that the claims of Greece were legitimate

Convinced because else there would be one country saying no to
Maastricht? I'm sorry my friend but that conviction is likely
to not be more than skin deep.

>Should Skopije be
>called Macedonia, 10 years from now Alexander and Fillip would be
>thought of as Skopije's great-grandfathers and then everyone would
>think that your claims of aqcuiring the lands of Fillips tomb are
>legitimate (of course in the mean while you will manage to cultivate
>the propaganda that there are "Macedonians" who live there).

Only if Greece would do a poor job of education.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Life is wonderful when the wonderlife is full
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
From: ptg2351@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Panos Tamamidis )
Subject: Re: Meggy and Yugoslavia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:40:25 GMT

cza@maestro.bellcore.com (Cengiz Akgun) writes:

>...  Forget about Europeans and US for the ground assault, now 
>Turkey is saying ready for this job underr UN flag.  They are willing 
>to deal with these urban hoodlums.  They are offering NATO allies to 
>sustain the air power and let them take care what the ground work 
>requires to stop the bloodshed and exodos. They are ready to restore the
>Bosnian borders.  They are also willing to shed their own blood for 
>this job.

 Just willing? I thought they desparetly wanted to get involved like
 they've done in Cyprus.  And then, try to get them out of Bosnia.
 We've seen what Turks have done to Cyprus. WE DO NOT NEED SIMILAR
 INVOLVEMNT IN THE BALKANS.

 Keep your cries for yourself. WE NOW KNOW TURKS VERY WELL. YOU'VE SHOWN
 YOUR REAL FACE IN CYPROUS. NOBADY CAN BELIEVE YOU ANYLONGER.

>C. Akgun

-- 
---> Panos Tamamidis
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.romanian,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Russian intervention in Moldova?
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:36:37 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Stephen D Murray (murraysd@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk) writes:
>What is needed in Yugoslavia is a full scale invasion by experienced
>troops similar to the Russian intervention in Moldavia last week.
>Strangely, this intervention was not reported in Britain in any paper 
>except the European (as far as I could tell), and hardly anyone reads 
>the European. I wonder if it would have been reported if it had been
>a disaster instead of the total success it was.

This seems incorrect to me. If Russian had outright intervened in
Moldavia, I would at least have seen it in the RFE/RL reports.
What may be the base for the story in The European is that some
time ago, there was an agreement of setting up a peace force in
Transdniestra, composed of Russian, Moldovan, Transdniestrian and
maybe also Ukrainian troops. A truce was declared on July 1st
and it seems to be holding. I'm quite foggy on the details, so
I appreciate any corrections. (Rather not from The European, they
seems to be even more foggier. :-)

So it seems that peace might prevail in Moldova, and it doesn't
seem unlikely. After all, that is quite a silly conflict. The
solution seems obvious: Transdniestra (and Gagauzia) stays with
Moldova, maybe in terms of a federation, as long as it is a state
of its own. If Moldova decides to join Roumania, Transdniestra
and Gagauzia would have the option to stay out and go whereever
they want (and are accepted). Roumania could further help by stating
that it has no claims on Transdniestra which it never had except
for Bendery. Gagauzia is a slightly different matter, but if Moldova
and Roumania plays their cards right, the Gagauzians will surely find 
that Roumania is not a worse alternative than anything else which
is possible.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Life is wonderful when the wonderlife is full
Xref: sparky soc.culture.europe:7595 soc.culture.romanian:802 talk.politics.soviet:7194
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.romanian,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Romania or Roumania ?
Date: 22 Aug 1992 18:31:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <BtD70C.70L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pmaggs@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter B. Maggs) writes:
>There is a theory, to which I subscribe, that countries that insist on
>foreigners using their native-language name are headed toward third
>world status.  Examples:  don't care what you call us countries:
>Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, England.  use our native name
>countries:  Kampuchea, Myanmar, . . . spell our capital in the native
>way - Beijing.
>
Careful here; I do not think the Chinese want you to spell Biejing
"in  the native way". Also I have a feeling that If I started calling
England "Anglia " and Switzerland "Elvetia" on this very net I'd be
getting lots of mail, not all of it entirely friendly. I do not know
what you have against accuracy in geo-vocabulary. I do not know 
where did you get that cretinesque theory of yours either but I should
probably learn to live according to Heisenberg...

Cheers!


-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
From: cza@maestro.bellcore.com (Cengiz Akgun)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Meggy and Yugoslavia
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:59:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: walter.1992Aug14.185954.20289
Organization: Bellcore (Red Bank, NJ)

In article <1992Aug14.023516.7268@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> luciano@athos.Berkeley.EDU (Luciano Lavagno) writes:
>
>Romania and Greece can be persuaded to support the sanctions, in my humble
>opinion, more easily than you can persuade the warring factions to stop killing
>each other. Moreover, it is not just a matter of expensive oil. Once you have
>shot your last bullet, you can use your gun as a club, but it becomes way less
>effective. And guns wear out fast (when used) and need replacement, spare
On the contrary, the Bosnian muslims are plenty.  They
can multiply very fast again from what were left behind
after those last bullet.   I know you don't mean this
Luciano. But you can end up with this type of horrible conclusions
also.  Forget about Europeans and US for the ground assault, now 
Turkey is saying ready for this job underr UN flag.  They are willing 
to deal with these urban hoodlums.  They are offering NATO allies to 
sustain the air power and let them take care what the ground work 
requires to stop the bloodshed and exodos. They are ready to restore the
Bosnian borders.  They are also willing to shed their own blood for 
this job.  After all, they've done it in Korea, the other end 
of the Globe.  This becomes more near and dear to their heart.   
This not a lip service.   I think UN owes this to Bosnians.  
Not approving this offer shows the true colors.  

C. Akgun
From: jl@CS.CMU.EDU (Juan Leon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: European language?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:18:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: SHELLEY.JL.92Aug19161804
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: jl@SHELLEY.SP.CS.CMU.EDU



  My desire for the short term:

   Three EEC official languages:  English, French, German.

   The other national languages, _as well_ as other major languages
(Catalan is in my mind) should be recognized.

   All EEC proceedings are in the official languages.  However, letters 
to the EEC bureaucracy can be written in an official or a recognized
language.  Possibly, documents can be submitted in all recognized
languages, but once translated into the official languages, the
trail they generate is not translated back.  Perhaps even speeches can
be done in any recognized language, but only translated into the three
official ones.

   I choose English and French because a large portion of the world
(and hence of worldly Europeans) understands those.  I choose German 
because a large portion of Eastern Europe understands that more than 
French or English.  Conveniently, France and Germany are powerful EEC 
members.  I don't think choosing a single official language is politically 
viable in the short term.  The current cost of translating 9 languages 
(with more to come) is not viable either.

  Something should be done at the same time to limit the loss of language 
differences, for the sake of cultural richness.  Encourage local languages
in human expression, discourage them in civil servant doublespeak.

  So does anyone know what "Brussels" is trying to do in this regard?

Juan
From: mb2p@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Marco  Bertamini)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Logic of war (was: Hats off to Maggy)
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:21:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Aug.12.22.57.58.1992.25259@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
>
>It all depends on the function you want to maximize.
>
>If you think it's better for x people to die on one side than for
>y > x people to all together then for sure it's a lot better for
>powerful neighbors to attack their weak neighbors and kill
>off x persons. However if evenly matched adversaries fought
>and the number of people dead were y (where y > x) then you
>claim that this is a worse scenario.

your logic does not strike me as very pertinent.
Which scenario is better does not depend on number of
dead people alone. I never said that.
All I said was that providing arms to one party will (IMHO)
make the confrontation worse and longer. Probably there
will be more dead people too. But the real point is that I was
looking for final solutions, and I think that these can only
come from negotiations. 

>Are you by chance a devotee of Clausewitz ?
>
>With this kind of reasoning, it would be possible to say that
>the best thing the world could have done during WWII would
>have been to allow the Nazis to kill 10 million Jews, 2 million
>Gypsies, 10 million Poles, 10 million Russians, 10 million
>of others (still less than 60 mil)  than to intervene and have 60 
>million people (total) die. 

history is pretty scary. It seems that there is no way out
from ethnic confrontation. It is not as much a matter of religion
or power as of human nature. However I am optimistic,
I believe that we will never get rid of the risk of war using
violence. But we could get rid of it by means of a more rational 
economic system and a world wide communication network. (yes,
I love Usenet).

Maybe this is not the place to start this kind of discussion, 
but I hope that the death of communism will not be taken as
the proof that the economy has to be left to its own rules.
In fact, this would imply that it is ok to sell arms to third
world country, just because there is market demand.

>With this kind of logic, you'll go really far, but I don't
>know in which direction.
>-- 
>	mark	

I'm not sure I understand what logic you're referring too.
Maybe it was only a misunderstanding. I'll like to know more
about your logic anyway.

ciao,   Marco