HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mo@gizmo.bellcore.com (Michael O'Dell)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY!!! 
Reply-To: mo@bellcore.com
Organization: Center for Chaotic Repeatabilty
 
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 02:54:40 GMT

Gentlefolk:

I tried asking nicely before, so I'll try once more, a bit more
directly, before resorting to rudeness.....

Please DO NOT post or crosspost comments on the usl/ucb/bsdi suit to
comp.org.usenix!!!!

This topic generates more then enough heat in the other newsgroups.
We'd like to keep the traffic on comp.org.usenix directly related
to Association functions.

PLEASE look at the  Newsgroups: header line and edit it when you post!!!!
If you're clever enough to post, you are clever enough to get this right.

	Thanks for your attention to this matter,

	-Mike O'Dell
	 Vice President, Usenix Association
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:38:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.164944.18130@csd.uwe.ac.uk> d_smith@chef.uwe.ac.uk (Dylan Smith) writes:
:|> I just got mail (following up from some other thread in this group) from
:|> someone in the UK who mentioned that there is a move afoot to see that
:|> Bulletin Boards in the UK are licenced.  He said the people behind it were
:
:Bad move. It's restrictive, and will help to destroy a hobby many of us
:enjoy. It will only go to erode our liberty further.

Also as someone just joked, but I don't think it's funny, if such a thing
became enshrined in law it would apply to every internet ftp site in the uk
too!

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
From: boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:42:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.230616.25164@igor.tamri.com>, jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes:
> 
> 
> It's time we get out of the herd mentality and view the USL vs BSDI
> lawsuit as it really is ... a botched attempt by BSDI & Joltz to
> plagiarize UNIX. Let's not make folk heros of them over their petty
> actions. Lets focus instead on the other teams that are bringing us
> our future.

The lawsuit is a classic ploy to turn money (ie. lawyer's time)
into power.  If you can bankrupt a competitor through legal action,
because it has less capital and can't survive `legal attrition'
then it is a tool at your disposal.  Whether it is `right' is
another question.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@prl.dec.com

I think you hear me knocking, and I think I'm coming in...
And you know what?  I'm already wearing the Bullet-Proof T-shirt.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix,gnu.misc.discuss,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:01:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.114703.24521@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.051825.20299@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>>Mike Godwin comments on another writer who attempts to use the biological
>>origin of fossil fuels as an analogy and describes it as a kludge.
>
>Just to clarify your syntax a little bit: the other writer called it
>kludge, not I.
>
Actually, the syntax is just fine. Had I wanted to attribute the appellation
of kludge to you, there would have been a comma after "analogy".

:-)

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:42:47 +0000

:Let's say a researcher gets a grant, and gets a "network voucher" good for
:$250/yr as part of it.  They could get a 20-hour-a-month account on World,
:they could give it to their campus network staff as their part of the
:cost-sharing on the $2000/mo high-speed connection, they could get a SLIP
:connection from PSI, et. al.

Is this EFF policy or did you just make this up on the hoof?  If this is
EFF policy, ... well, I just didn't realise how deep in right-wing politics
EFF was seated.  This is pure Thatcherism.  (Vouchers don't work; they're
inequitable and benefit the rich more than the poor.  They didn't work
in education and I doubt they'll work here).

Anyway, vouchers can only be spent on 'approved suppliers', and we know
what that means.  Inflated prices by a small cabal for Government contracts.
They have no incentive to generally drop prices (and thus benefit the
real masses who *aren't* university researchers) and the power remains
once more with the technological elite.

G

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
Subject: Re: Rantings of a clueless geek on the EFF reorganization.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 03:58:07 GMT

I believe it is horseshit, not bullshit, that they put on mushrooms.
But I dare say many managers don't know the difference.
-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:01:43 GMT

GT> == Graham Toal <gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk>

 GT> Is this EFF policy or did you just make this up on the hoof?

It's a suggestion that had been floated on com-priv.  I don't remember who
originally posted it.

 GT> If this is EFF policy, ... well, I just didn't realise how deep in
 GT> right-wing politics EFF was seated.  This is pure Thatcherism.
 GT> (Vouchers don't work; they're inequitable and benefit the rich more
 GT> than the poor.  They didn't work in education and I doubt they'll work
 GT> here).

The ranks of researchers are somewhat less divided than the ranks of, for
example, families with school-age children.

 GT> Anyway, vouchers can only be spent on 'approved suppliers', and we
 GT> know what that means.  Inflated prices by a small cabal for Government
 GT> contracts.  They have no incentive to generally drop prices (and thus
 GT> benefit the real masses who *aren't* university researchers) and the
 GT> power remains once more with the technological elite.

Why wouldn't they have an incentive to drop prices?  If the $250/yr voucher
buys UUCP from one supplier and supported flat-rate SLIP/PPP (to use one of
your particular biases :) from another, the UUCP supplier can cut the
price, add value, or lose out.
--
 * Christopher Davis * <ckd@eff.org> * <ckd@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C.  shuffle
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:30:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.142121.23481@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex (Steve Gardner) writes:
>	"Rodney Kings of the Internet"?!?  This is just too precious.
>	I love it when people confuse 1s and 0s with real life.
>	Really!  I'll gladly take on the entire LAPD armed only with 
>	my keyboard and lightning fast digits as long as any beatings
>	I get have to be delivered over the internet.  

Perhaps what is meant are cases where because of "suspicious"
net.activity (or a mistaken address and somebody else's net.activity)
the police come, kick down the door, enter with guns drawn and proceed
to shoot the person, mistaking the keyboard for a machine gun.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:56:44 GMT

In article <C1745F.932@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.203330.12188@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>:
>:Like allowing the money to go straight to the universities and other
>:institutions it's supposed to serve, so they can pick and choose among
>:access providers. This is far more likely to encourage the growth of
>:providers than simply dumping the money on a government-approved backbone
>:provider.
>
>Have you done any studies to show that this would be the case?

I confess not to be aware of any studies EFF has done that show that
markets work better than a government-built and -administered program.

>It isn't
>intuitively obvious to me yet.  It may well make cheaper the mega expensive
>links that big players like universities need, but how does it help drop
>the price for joe public and his dial in to something that he couldn't
>reasonably deny himself.

The idea is that by spending government money to create a market for
services rather than to pay a single government contractor, incentives are
created for even little guys to offer points of presence and value-added
connectivity.

Since the purpose of NREN is, in part, to provide connectivity for
universities, why not let the universities pick their own providers (like
PSI)? And once there's enough capital floating around to create competition,
market forces will tend to create better service offerings at lower prices
to little guys as well as big guys.

Something similar occurred in the computer industry (although the computer
industry did not arise in a market-failure condition, unlike telecom
and connectivity providers). Once big business started investing in PCs,
economies of scale and competition forced the prices of PCs down
dramatically, and also led to dramatic increases in quality.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: Software as Engineering
Organization: Netcom
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:49:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.210141.18612@ico.isc.com> timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu) writes:
>
>These are *not* "misconceptions". These are *observations*. I find that
>many of the good programmers come from non-CS disciplines (e.g.
>Chemistry Ph.Ds., Physics Ph.Ds., Elect. Engr. Ph.Ds).

Well, anyone with a PhD should be able to pick things up easily.
A PhD EE might be able to read up on anthropology, and then do
some useful anthropology work, but that does not mean anthropology
is not a legitimate field of work.

>Plain Software Engineers shouldn't call themselves "Engineers".
>They shouldn't forget to mention the "Software" part. They don't have
>the Engineering Methodology training.  Seasoned Physicists, etc. could
>call themselves "Engineers", if they have the experience. No, formal
>training in Engineering isn't required to be considered an Engineer,
>experience and knowledge (not what you do) are the more important criteria.

You just contradicted yourself (unless you really meant to say that
ANYONE can call themself an "Engineer" if they have the appropriate
experience and knowledge, unless they are a software person, in
which case, forget it).

>This thread has really wandered. I'll bring it back to the original
>thread by asking this: What's the difference between Software
>Engineering and Programming?

I answered this in <1993Jan5.222148.1164@netcom.com>.

Some people who are educated in the computer field (CS, CompE, etc.)
go into jobs that are more "engineering" while others find work that
is more "programming".  Either way, some become more competent than
others.  And I acknowledge that some of the more competent (and some
of the less competent) people in these lines of work were were not
educated in the computer field (EE's perhaps).  The problem for us
"software engineers" is when someone claims to be a software engineer
and is not exactly a competent engineer, or maybe isn't really in an
"engineering" line of work.  Nevertheless, some of us really are true
"software engineers".

When I was an engineering student I noticed that EE students liked to
believe that as long as they know how to program, they can do anything
a "software engineer" can do.  That's because they don't understand
the difference between software engineering and programming.  It is
a position of arrogance to claim that a concept is illegitimate just
because you don't know what it is.

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Steve Jackson Games trial.  Morning of Day 3
Summary: Judge scolds Agent Foley
Originator: fig@eff.org
Keywords: EFF civil liberties
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:09:08 GMT

From: ssteele (Shari Steele) (by way of fig@eff.org) (by way of fig@eff.org)
Subject: the most wonderful thing happened at the trial

Hi everybody.
I really don't have much time to write, but I just witnessed one of the
most dramatic courtroom events.  The judge in the Steve Jackson Games trial
just spent 15 minutes straight reprimanding Agent Timothy Foley of the
United States Secret Service for the behavior of the United States
regarding the raid and subsequent investigation of Steve Jackson Games.  He
asked Foley,  in random order (some of this is quotes, some is paraphrasing
because I couldn't write fast enough):

How long would it have taken you to find out what type of business Steve
Jackson Games does?  One hour?  In any investigation prior to March 1st
(the day of the raid) was there any evidence that implicated Steve Jackson
or Steve Jackson Games, other than Blankenship's presence?  You had a
request from the owner to give the computers and disks back.  You knew a
lawyer was called.  Why couldn't a copy of the information contained on the
disks be given within a matter of days?  How long would it have taken to
copy all disks?  24 hours?  Who indicated that Steve Jackson was running
some kind of illegal activity?  Since the equipment was not accessed at the
Secret Service office in Chicago after March 27, 1990, why wasn't the
equipment released on March 28th?  Did you or anyone else do any
investigation after March 1st into the nature of Mr. Jackson and his
business?  You say that Coutorie told you it was a game company.  You had
the owner standing right in front of you on March 2nd.  Is it your
testimony that the first time that you realized that he was a publisher and
had business records on the machine was when this suit was filed?

The government was so shaken, they rested their case, never even calling
Barbara Golden or any of their other witnesses to the stand.  Closing
arguments are set for this afternoon.  It truly was a day that every lawyer
dreams about.  The judge told the Secret Service that they had been very
wrong.  I'll try to give a full report later.
Shari






-- 
                    <<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>                         
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation                    (617)864-0665 (voice)
Online Communications                             (617)864-0866 (fax)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:20:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.172021.5930@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>The point has already been made that some non-university researchers get the
>benefits of the NREN, but if there were transfer payments to universities,
>they'd either be cut out or have to come hat in hand to a university that
>provided those facilities.

What, precisely, are you saying will prevent these researchers from
getting the benefits of the NREN if universities can bid for services
rather than being forced to rely on a single, government-run backbone
provider? Could you spell out the scenario under which this dire
event occurs?

>Alternatively, the subsidies would also have to
>go to many of such researchers, resulting in an even bigger and more
>confusing bureaucracy.

Huh?

>More importantly, some writers seem unaware of the "lighthouse" argument of
>basic economics. It is that there are certain goods which provide greater
>benefits to the public than their costs, but which the private sector
>unaided cannot fund because they cannot capture those benefits in order to
>justify their costs.

This is not the problem with the Internet backbone. The private sector can
indeed fund connectivity and capture its benefits.

>If the funds were given to individual institutions, they might not be used
>for the specific purposes which justified those funds in the first place,
>just as if "lighthouse money" were given to individual shipowners, they
>might not produce the "right" lighthouses in the "right" places, considering
>the public interest at large rather than the private interests of individual
>shipowners.

You may not have heard this, but the federal government doesn't just hand
out money saying "We hope you use this for the specific purposes which
justified those funds in the first place." Thus falls the lighthouse
argument. 

>Thus (for example) Mike Godwin's argument to give the money to individual
>universities fails.

I don't see how. You seem to think that the natural consequence of 
allowing a market to arise will be to cut off the people who share in the
free benefits of connectivity. But I haven't yet seen any scenario (much
less a convincing one) in which this occurs. 

The fact is, connectivity to the people who don't pay benefits the people
who do pay--in fact, it's part of what they're paying for with those
government dollars.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Consumption tax...Oh no!
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:01:50 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.235024.13664@ico.isc.com> timhu@ico.isc.com writes:

>>I was just listening to NPR ATC. I suppose that we're starting to look a lot
>> like Canada. Not
>>that Canada's bad or anything, but the VAT sure is.

>Actually, if you've got to have taxes, VAT is a far better tax than income 
>tax.

Maybe so, but if you noticed, nobody said anything about getting rid of the
income tax.  In fact, it's going to go up for everyone, and even get more
"progressive" (i.e., the more wealth you create and the more you contribute
to society in general, the more the government is going to take what you've
got).

-- 
Michael T. Palmer         |  "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov  |   other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server       |   from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes? 
Distribution: world
Organization: Not much.
Reply-To: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:35:49 +0000


In article <C1D84J.6AA@newcastle.ac.uk> S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk writes:

>
>This really needs to be stopped before it gets any further.  The limits on
> intellectual
>and personal freedom in this country are already so constraining that I feel
> like I should
>be referred to as Comrade or Citizen.  If FAST or ELSPA have their way it will
> set a very
>dangerous precedent for the government.

Amen to that. Regrettably, most people don't seem to be able to handle 
freedom and its associated responsibility. They _like_ to hand it over to the 
government.

>Why are so many so willing to be censored by the so righteous?

See above.

> controlling and
>licensing BBS's is a horrid idea.

I agree, write to your MP. You're preaching to the converted here.


Tony

+-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |`morgan' is an 8MB  486/33 Cat-| Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |Warmer with a 670 MB Hard Disk.| E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |It  resides at Morgan Towers in| tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |Beautiful  Down Town  Bromley. | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |Honda ST1100  ==*==  DoD# 0801 | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+=================+===============================+==========================+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson)
Subject: Re: New case for EFF, ACLU, and CPSR 
Distribution: world
Organization: Not much.
Reply-To: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:01:13 +0000


In article <59090@dime.cs.umass.edu> heller@cs.umass.edu writes:

>The magazine "2600" is on paper - because it is on actual paper, the SS and law
> enforcement are particularlyre protected by the 1st ers agree as to just what
> a BBS is exactly, and whether or not an eletronically published "magazine
>
>rotected or not...)



What? Could you repost this so that it's intelligible please.


Tony


+-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |`morgan' is an 8MB  486/33 Cat-| Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |Warmer with a 670 MB Hard Disk.| E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |It  resides at Morgan Towers in| tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |Beautiful  Down Town  Bromley. | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |Honda ST1100  ==*==  DoD# 0801 | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+=================+===============================+==========================+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New case for EFF, ACLU, and CPSR
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:06:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.155933.11079@eff.org> fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo) writes:
:kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409) writes:
:>It's just so that they can look like their still for Civil liberties
:>instead of for the big guy's who are paying them. If the big flap over
:>what they did when they got rid of various people had not occured, I 
:>doubt that they would have persued the matter. 
:
:>This is all my opinon, of course.
:
:And it's hogwash, Wes.  Get a grip, man.  We got involved well before the 
:meeting where the changes were decided.

Ah, that explains it.  Do let us know when you pick up on something from
after the policy changes...

G