HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:28:27 GMT

In article <21850@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.211741.3212@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>>Yeah, that was the tactic... they've threatened using it again for DWI
>>cases, but most states are enacting tougher DWI legislation on their
>>own.  I think that 55mph is a bit too prudish for some interstates, but
>>65 seems just about right me.  A limit of 65 typically means people are
>>travelling at speeds up to 75mph and aren't being pulled over.  I think
>>that's plenty fast enough.
>
>Many stetches of interstate are quite safe all the way past 130MPH (Twice
>the limit).  As for being plenty fast, the difference between driving from
>Houston to New Orleans at 130MPH in the swamps is quite a few hours.
>
>Shortening the trip by flying costs $$$.  Why not let me use the car I
>already paid $$$ for?
>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

What happens when a deer or a dog jumps out in front of you?  Or when
the Yugo (doing all it can at about 80) decides to change lanes without
looking?

Sure some highways are "safe" at high speeds, assuming a) you're the
only one on the road and b) you have a vehicle designed for those
speeds.

As far as driving time goes;  I was talking about traveling 75 - 80 mph
compared to 65, not 130 vs. 65.  You could shave a couple of hours by
doing 130... even more by doing 200.  Just let me know the next time you
decide to take a trip so I can be sure to be out of your way...

-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:34:08 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <1992Nov13.140820.24408@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <PETONIC.92Nov9161203@daisy.hal.com> petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
>>I still maintain that a road can be dangerous, especially when you factor
>>in how people drive.  People *don't* pay 100% attention, nor do they
>>drive entirely within their limits. 
>
>They should, AND the gov't shouldn't be making it easier for them to
>pay less attention.
>
>
>>Shit happens, Joe.  Look at the accident counts on 2222.  Look at the
>>numbers.  Do I have to hit you over the head with a tombstone and
>>statistics book to prove it?
>
>What's the deal with the accident numbers on 2222?  I mean, the road
>has been there for ages, it's not like it up added some curves in it
>some night to screw with unsuspecting drivers.
>
>If people are stupid enough to get themselves killed on a road as
>simple 2222, so be it.  If they do it before they procreate, natural
>selection kicks in and we have fewer stupid genes passed on.
>
>Brendan
>-- 
>Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
>Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
>Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

I think 2222s infamy comes more from the nature of the accidents than
the number... 2222 has long been a favorite road for racing.  Couple
that with the fact that it carries many drunken lake-goers on the
weekends and you have some pretty horrendous accidents.

I bet even they did spend millions to improve it the accidents would
continue.

-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:38:38 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: boogie.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Nov17.133423.11395@wixer.cactus.org>
reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>The only problem with that is that police presence around 2222 is
>practically nill -- despite its reputation and history.  I think 2222 is
>covered by Travis County jurisdiction.  In addition to being spread too
>thin, the sherrif's dept has never shown much interest in enforcing
>traffic laws.

Only stretch from Loop 360 to FM 620 is outside Austin city limits.
IMO, the really dangerous part is Mopac to 360 (tho' once you cross
620, the fun really begins, but it's no longer 2222).  Is there some
legality I don't about that says Loops are county-patrolled?  But in
any case, it's still true that police presence is minimal on any
stretch of the road.




-- 
Don't take life so serious ... it ain't *no how* permanent. -- Porkypine.
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: drunk driving (was Re: speed traps on 2222)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:26:58 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: boogie.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Nov17.152005.3082@lgc.com> ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew
Jackson) writes:
>If the traffic police is to have a priority, then it should be the
>drunks. If we want to be serious about reducing the slaughter, then
>we should adopt DWI laws like they do in various other nations
>(e.g. Norway). If you are DWI, then (especially if you harm another
>person) you license is gone - exclamation point!

Unfortunately, revoking someone's license in this country does not
keep them off the roads.  I recall a couple of months ago, one of the
local TV stations (they all run together in my mind) did a special
report on people whose licenses are revoked who continue driving as
usual.  They videotaped people being informed in traffic court that it
was illegal for them to drive, then walking out of the courthouse,
getting in their cars and driving away (and driving to work the next
day, etc.).  When the news crew showed their tape to one of the
traffic court judges, his response was, "It doesn't surprise me that
it happens.  I'm sure it happens all the time. It surprises me that
you actually went to the trouble of documenting it!"  The one small
change that the report produced was that the traffic court judges,
after giving their license-revoking spiel, now say, "Now, how are you
getting home?"

I think that a person who drives drunk should suffer just about as
severe a penalty as a person who drives drunk and kills somebody.
They both made the moral choice of driving drunk; the first one simply
had the *luck* of not encountering a traffic situation that resulted
in someone's death.

As things stand now, our culture seems to view drunk driving killers
as people who did something fairly innocent (driving drunk) and had
the bad luck of killing someone; they tend to get away with fairly
light penalties compared to other killers.  I think we should view all
drunk drivers as people who chose to do something with potentially
horrible consequences (driving drunk) and had the good luck of
avoiding killing someone.  The action is terribly negligent,
regardless of the outcome.

Of course, as with any crime, "getting tough" is not the sole solution
(and burdens the courts and the jails, etc.).  But it seems like we've
had public education on this issue out the wazoo, and people still do
it.  If a DWI conviction carried automatic jail time, I think people's
behavior would change in a hurry.

-- 
Don't take life so serious ... it ain't *no how* permanent. -- Porkypine. 
Newsgroups: austin.talk
From: ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew Jackson)
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Organization: Landmark/Zycor   Austin, Texas
Distribution: austin
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:20:05 GMT

All this talk leaves me curious for some data. Can anyone out there
provide any type of stats as to how many accidents and deaths are the
result of DWI on RR 2222?

There is all this talk about speeding. I am slightly amused by how
some people (not necessarily previous posters) think speeding is "the
only evil" on the road. I have been nearly clobbered by people going
too slow as well as by people going too fast. Granted, going 85 MPH
on IH 35 in downtown is way too fast. In fact, I have been nearly
nailed by such people as I was passing others. Yes, I did look before
changing lanes to pass. But a few second later, there is this blur
in my mirror closing very fast! I have also been nearly nailed by
people doing under the speed limit. I was about to pass them, but they
cut right in front of me in the passing lane and ambles along on their
joyride.

Speed traps are NOT the panacea. In fact, well over half the people
killed on the roads are due to DWI. Most deaths occur withing a few
miles of the victims home. What is needed is true driver's education.
People need to learn how to PAY ATTENTION to traffic and adjust to
the constantly changing circumstances. In my personal experience
(which could very well differ from others'), Austin drivers seem
particularly bad about this.

If the traffic police is to have a priority, then it should be the
drunks. If we want to be serious about reducing the slaughter, then
we should adopt DWI laws like they do in various other nations
(e.g. Norway). If you are DWI, then (especially if you harm another
person) you license is gone - exclamation point! BTW, I am very
keen on DWI laws because I saw a guy's knee get turned to hamburger
as a drunk collided into him. The human body has a lot of blood -
does it not?

Compared to some stretches of road in Ireland, central Pennsylvania,
and other places, RR 2222 is a cakewalk. It is the fact that we
(as a people) are incredibly selfish that is the problem.

Just MHO of course - and perhaps a cynical one.

Andrew Jackson
Landmark/Zycor Inc.
email: ajackson@zycor.lgc.com

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: terry_garyet@oakqm1.sps.mot.com (Terry)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: just testing
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:50:36 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Just Me -really!
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:51:04 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

just testing
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: States Rights
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:35:40 GMT
Organization: highly

In article <1992Nov18.171717.8070@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>
>>If the State of Texas chooses to violate my rights,
>>or if the US government does it, to me the interface is the same:
>>I lose.  The *only* advantage is theoretical:  by moving power
>>"down" the hierarchy, you move it closer to the people, and ostensibly
>
>That is not the only advantage.  The primary advantage is that if Texas
>has laws which you disagree with, you can still stay in the U.S, but in
>another state, to avoid them.
>
>In other words, a weak central government sets up states in competition
>with each other for who has the least oppression, the lowest taxes, and
>the highest standard of living.
>
>-- 
>--
>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
>My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
>- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Money's spent. It'll be gone when you need it.-


Good point, except that I don't necessarily *want* states competing
(read, "pandering", "restricting") when my rights are concerned.  General *laws*
are different -- say, interpretations of the UCC.  But not
when it comes to basic liberty.  

Competition among states does exist - a recent example is how other
states are slowly legalizing gambling, taking after Nevada's lead.
In this case increasing liberty is winning out.  In other cases,
liberty looses - and who wants to have their rights subject to
political whims?  Er, gee -- I guess we have that now!

-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!
From: bade@austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:35:30 GMT
Reply-To: bade@wombat.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin
Originator: bade@athena2.austin.ibm.com


My mistake.  By living in Germany I implied that I was also working in Germany.  Since
I earn income in Germany the german government levies taxes.  

You make an assumption that you get some benifit from your taxes.  As a non-working student
you are getting a free ride off of the tax dollars of the American tax payer.  You equate
the fact that you pay taxes to getting the right to vote, in otherwords you want to buy
the right to vote.  Taxation by the federal government was put into the constitution as
an Amendment.  Voting rights were granted in the original document (granted womens voting
rights were added as an amendment).

By earning money in a foreign country you are expected to pay part of that money back for
the government provided services you utilize.  As a non-working student, you are on a special
permit to be living in the country, you get most of those services (not that they are worth
anything) for free.  Think of your now paying taxes as paying for what you used.

Steve Bade
-- 
Regards,

        Steve
	   "A good programmer, as a function of what he does,
Newsgroups: austin.talk
From: paul@dvorak.amd.com (Paul Schnizlein)
Subject: Balls on the road?
Followup-To: <1992Nov19.155430.12060@novell.com>
Summary: Brendan makes Freudian slip
Keywords: humourous
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas
Distribution: austin
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:18:43 GMT


 bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>Sure, I flipped over the handlebars of my bike at UT, broke my
>collarbone and had a concussion.  I learned from that accident - I'm a
>lot more careful than I used to be.  If UT had covered the ground with
>Smurf balls so that I never got hurt, would that have taught me the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>same lesson?
> Brendan

Perhaps you mean Nerf(TM) balls? They are sqeezable foam rubber.
Smurfs are small blue cartoon characters, and although there seem
to enough males on that show to do as you suggest, I doubt it
would keep you from getting hurt. Maybe before we do that we
should consult Smurfette?  (I got a good chuckle.)
-Paul

-- 
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood"
paul@mozart.amd.com (Paul Schnizlein) (512)462-5215
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:48:44 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov18.144723.6177@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In article <STEVEC.92Nov12131721@orodruin.tivoli.com> stevec@orodruin.tivoli.com (steve the foolhardy) writes:
>>"The rights of conscience we never submitted,  we could not submit.  We
>>are answerable for them to our God.  The legitimate powers of government
>>extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
>>	-Thomas Jefferson,  "Notes on Virginia"
>
>This is the quote I was looking for to share with John Haugh II.
>
>And Curt, Jefferson was NOT a "states rights" advocate in the sense
>John C. Calhoun (S. Carolina) was.  He was a true decentralist --
>all the way down to the individual!  Having said that, Jefferson was
>also a Deist slaveholder wracked with a guilty conscience.  We all
>are imperfect.

I certainly agree 100% with Jefferson's statement, but disagree with your
interpretation of it.  You (and steve the foolhardy) think that "injury"
must be direct and patently obvious.  There are many behaviors whose
results are far more subtle that what you might be willing to accept and
which are no less "injurous."  The world is far to imprecise to accept
this concept - it would result in people saying "PROVE it is injurous"
and the victim being unable to because the relationship between the action
and the injury is somewhat indirect.

As for Jefferson being some radical decentralist, I am not aware of any
reliable writings by Jefferson (meaning, not some Libertarian wet-dream
analysis of Jeffersonian thinking) that would lead to the conclusions I
know you would like to draw.  Certainly at the most basic level, if he
had truly felt as you maintain, he would never have argued that slavery
be outlawed throughout the country.  He lived during the era that slavery
was abolished in the northern colonies (New York once being a major
agricultural state), certainly he was intelligent enough to draw the
conclusion that slavery would gradually be abolished in the remaining
colonies.  Yet he argued forcefully for its abolishion.  How do you
square this?  More Jeffersonian imperfection?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:16:14 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <6242@tivoli.UUCP> steveb@tivoli.UUCP (Steve Benz) writes:
>
>'Cause hardly anybody speeds on Mopac.  I used to commute down central
>MoPac every day, and could count on one hand the number of folks that passed
>me at >65mph in a year.  

We must live in separate universes.  I always ride in the left lane as
much as possible (I feel safer there...and before you flame, yes, I 
get out of the way if traffic behind me wants to pass) and usually I'm
going 65-75 -- the same speed as the traffic in front of and 
behind me.

This is MoPac between Enfield and 183, for reference.  And to date (since
August), I have seen exactly 2 people pulled over by motorcycle cops on
that stretch of road.


-- 
Ray Shea                               I woke up this morning,
UniSQL, Inc.                           all my shrimps was dead and gone...
unisql!ray@cs.utexas.edu       
DoD #0372 -- Team Twinkie -- '88 Hawk NT650
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:17:37 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: austin
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <4203@unisql.UUCP> ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
>I am amazed at what a small police presence there is here in general, compared
>to the People's Republic of California, which I just left.  In three months
>of commuting 10 miles each way on MoPac, I have seen maybe 8 cops, only two
>of which actually had pulled someone over.  I could see 8 CHP's every *day*
>commuting up I-280 in the Bay Area.

You might want to get your RADAR detector checked out.  I drive on MoPac
several times a week and usually spot them hiding under bridges and whatnot
when the RADAR detector goes off.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: terry_garyet@oakqm1.sps.mot.com (Terry)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: just testing
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:50:21 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Just Me -really!
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:50:53 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

just testing
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:56:22 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: austin
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <4205@unisql.UUCP> ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
>Don't even have one;  I suppose I should.  But if there are so many cops
>out there, why have I only seen two people pulled over on MoPac since August?

You must drive a different end of MoPac - I've seen two people pulled
over since last week.  Up in the 183 to Parmer stretch (which has a
few curves) the police hide out on the other side of the various over-
and underpasses.

On the other hand, you might not notice them since you don't get the
BEEP-BEEP-BEEP when you come up on a car with its RADAR on.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: drunk driving (was Re: speed traps on 2222)
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:49:11 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: Real/Time Communications

swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
>ajj@zycor.lgc.com (AndrewJackson) writes:
>>person) you license is gone - exclamation point!
>
>Unfortunately, revoking someone's license in this country does not
>keep them off the roads.  
[much deleted]
>after giving their license-revoking spiel, now say, "Now, how are you
>getting home?"
>

sigh...  the government is all gung-ho to seize the property of innocent
law-abiding folks simply because they "fit a profile", but they can't
get tough on this sort of thing.

"Hey, you just lost your license...  I guess you don't
need that car anymore, eh?"

cb
-- 
 Cyberspace Buddha { Why are you looking for more knowledge when you  } /(o\
cb@wixer.cactus.org } do not pay attention to what you already know? {  \o)/
 Is this thing on? { Just say no to war, Bush, NSA, CIA, IRS, etc...  } fnord
Newsgroups: austin.talk
From: petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Subject: Re: speed traps on 2222
Organization: Henry's Laughing Gas Co., Inc.
	<1992Nov16.233314.8400@novell.com>
	<1992Nov17.133423.11395@wixer.cactus.org> <4203@unisql.UUCP>
Distribution: austin
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:20:42 GMT

In article <4203@unisql.UUCP> ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
>I am amazed at what a small police presence there is here in general, compared
>to the People's Republic of California, which I just left.  In three months
>of commuting 10 miles each way on MoPac, I have seen maybe 8 cops, only two
>of which actually had pulled someone over.  I could see 8 CHP's every *day*
>commuting up I-280 in the Bay Area.

Hmmm.  I have the opposite impression.  I moved to Austin from L.A.
about 4 years ago and seem to remember being im[de]pressed by the number
of cops on the road in Austin.

This week, I'm doing some work up in Silicon Valley and I still haven't
seen that many cops.  Even zipping down on Hwy 17 to Santa Cruz, I didn't
see any.

-pet-
--
Michael A. Petonic	       petonic@hal.com		       +1-512-794-2855
        HaL Computer Systems International, Ltd. -- A Bermuda Corporation
                     Director of Dangerous Activities  [ACK to GeoffK@ism780c]
				 Austin, Texas
                          "No balls, no blue chip."