HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
	<1993Jan3.101307.5516@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au>
	<1993Jan5.015759.19549@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au>
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:24:52 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 93 01:57:59 GMT, guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter) said:
Guy> [...]  And since I suspect we are already past
Guy> the sustainable carrying capacity of the country (the world? dunno.)

Not hardly.

We export zillions of tons more food than we import, and we export
zillions of tons of wool that is grown on potential crop land.  And
there are HUGE tracts of land under (or not!) used because of poor
economics that are capable of supporting food production.

We could probably feed 10 times the current population (to Western
standards) with very little effort.  On sustainable third-world
standards, probably 1000 times.

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett, Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne 
That's *Mister* Chief Pointyhead to you.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:21:36 CST
From: <U22822@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: HELP ON PUBLISHER INFORMATION


COULD ANYBODY GIVE ME PUBLISHER INFORMATION OF THE BOOKS LISTING AUSTRALIAN
COMPANIES IN SYDNEY

THANKS
MATT
U22822@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Shared-house Accommodation Available
From: fong@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Simon Fong)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:37:12 GMT
Distribution: melb
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia



A Commonwealth Bank programmer is looking for someone to share a house with
him.  It is a lovely two-bedroom house located in Donvale, suitable for uni.
student who lives away from home (or from oversea).

  - can be either full-boarding or not boarding
  - furniture can be provided if needed
  - 20 mins walk to train station & shopping centre
  - 1 min walk to bus stop
  - free daily lift to RMIT (or city) can be arranged if needed
  - prefer tidy and non-smoker person (can be male/female, any color)

  RENT:  only $45 (+ shared bills) per week

please call Michael Cheung on 872-3168   (ans. machine)
			   or 018-310739 (mobile phone)


--
Simon Fong                               ! "Qui Cherche Trouve"  -  
Dept. of Computer Systems Engineering    !        Those who seek will find. 
La Trobe University, Bundoora            ! 
Australia                                !  email: fong@latcs1.lat.oz.au 
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (David Meiklejohn)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 11:49:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.090820.20873@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (Ian Staples) writes:
>
>On the issue of cannibalism, I discussed this with a colleague
>over a couple of beers last night.  Basically, the "ethics" of human
>inter-relations derive from self-interest:  we proscribe behaviour which
>we do not wish to be victims of (theft, murder, assault, rape, cannibalism).
>Frankly, the thought of being killed to be eaten doesn't appeal to me.
>But as my colleague pointed out - Why should that worry you specifically,
>when there are probably lots of people out there who would be happy kill you
>_without_ eating you :-)

As far as I can see, ethics and morals have been developed through evolution
operating at the level of societies (tribes, whatever), rather than
individuals.  In other words, societies in which it is acceptable to kill, 
then eat your neighbor have not proven successful.  Eating members of competing
societies is a different matter...  ;-)

>But I see very little evidence that we are capable of it.  Until humans
>can overcome the urge to reproduce at will, the concept of a sustainable
>world is a fool's paradise.

It's worth noting here that, where limiting population growth has been
"encouraged" by government (China, India), it's been less than successful.
Yet, (near) zero growth has been achieved in nations with the highest living
standards (Japan, the more prosperous parts of Europe) without any gov't
assistance.  In fact, some governments are concerned that increased prosperity
has meant the people there have lost the "urge", so are actively encouraging
reproduction (Singapore, for example).  So, it's not so much that we have
trouble overcoming an urge to reproduce - that urge only seems to take us
when more children is in our financial or economic interest.  In developed
economies, it tends not to be.  Unless you're a single mother, but I'll
leave that one...

>-- 
>Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au


-- 
David Meiklejohn (davidme@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au)
 - PC's, Unix, and networks by day, Amigas by night...
Currently residing in Mareeba, Far North Queensland, Australia
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: tomw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Tom Worthington)
Subject: Information on government services via IT
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:26:08 GMT

Readers of this newsgroup may be interested in the item about the item I
have just posted (with the same name), in the "aus.acs" newsgroup.

Tom Worthington
Director of the Community Affairs Board 
Australian Computer Society Incorporated
E-Mail: tomw@adfa.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: The great vegie debate
From: trathenac@brt.deakin.edu.au
Date: 8 Jan 93 09:33:14 EST
Followup-To: aus.followup
Distribution: aus
Organization: Deakin University, Melbourne

I've been following the vegie debate with amusement.

I'm not vegetarian myself but I do think that the vegies have it based
on the economic and environmental arguments presented.

Here's some more food for thought:

If we didn't have all those cows farting away and destroying the ozone
layer I'm sure we would be much better off.

Perhaps someone has data on the relative farting capacity of vegetarians
versus meat-eaters?

Chris
From: markd@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Delany)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Australian Products ?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:37:22 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

doucas@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au (Chris Doucas) writes:

>For those galupping Gourmets...
>how about Vegemite? (yecch!)

Er, Kraft is USA owned, so Vegemite is definitely *not* Australian.

Nor is Speedo, now.

Nor is Billy Tea.

Nor is Drizabone.

Nor is Bundaberg Rum, now.

Nor is Sidchrome, now.

Nor is King Gee.

And as for Arnotts, it'll go...


Feeling uncomfortable? As an exercise for the reader, how much of
BHP's ~8Billion debt is offshore?

Feeling really uncomfortable? As an extra exercise for the reader, how
much of the ~80Billion goverment debt is offshore?



[Flame retardant: Note that I have not said this is a bad or avoidable
thing for a capital starved country like Aus, but *I* feel
uncomfortable, nonetheless].


--
Mark Delany                                          markd@werple.apana.org.au
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: dnk@cs.mu.OZ.AU (David Kinny)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:24:39 GMT

fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:

>jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:

>>>>Trip a vegetarian today and eat him/her.

>>>Why bother being politically correct with such a stupid statement?

>>Ah yes, Politically Correct. Used to be all the rage under the Red,
>>Red Sun of the Thought of the Great Helmsman and Leader when I was
>>studying Chinese 25 years ago. The disease has caught on.

>No, I mean, really.  You made an utterly useless, pointless and
>basically crappy statement, but felt you needed to be PC about it.
>[Blathering deleted]

So why are you carrying on in such a stupid fashion about statements
you consider to be stupid, pointless, etc?  Got nothing better to do?
You own contributions to this thread have hardly been noticeable for
their insight and intelligence.  For example:

fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:

>wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:

>>comment: There is no disputing a moderate balanced diet is better by far
>>         than a diet with excess fat and not enough fibre and nutrients.
>>          Moderation, not extremism is the answer.

>Vegetarianism is extremism?  I'm afraid that that is, how best to put it,
>utter bullshit.

Utter bullshit, huh?  You write like a religious bigot whose personal
creed has been profaned.  Restricting your diet to plant matter only,
despite all the evidence that we are well-adapted to be omnivores, is
clearly a form of extremism.  Restricting your diet to fruit is even
more extreme.  But perhaps you use 'extremism' to mean something
different to what I do.

>Fraser.

David
Newsgroups: aus.general,rec.food.veg
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Fun with $5 note
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:45:49 GMT

Brilliant! It's even better with the first crease at 52mm
instead of 57mm, don't you think?
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:10:47 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Southern Queensland

jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:

>[a load of rubbish, ending with: ]
>hearts in a warm glow, in the assurance of their self-righteousness
>and a wrecking job well-done. Seeds of little Ceaucescus and Pol Pots.

Now let's see if I get this right: vegetarians (i.e. people who don't
believe in killing and eating animals) are somehow allied with the
opinions/philosophies of the likes of Ceaucescu and Pol Pot, who believe
in murdering humans.  Either Jacques is a raving loony, or there is some
deep reason for this connection.  Care to explain without ranting?

[BTW: please remember that the average vegetarian goes happily about his
business, bothering no-one, and yet gets demands to explain his
philosophies every time he orders a vegetarian meal.  At least that's my
experience.  I __NEVER__ comment on the subject __FIRST__ to __ANYONE__,
yet I seem to spend half my life explaining the stupidity or dishonesty
of all the silly arguments against vegetarianism that have been trotted
out lately in this forum.]

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: keir@basser.cs.su.oz.au (Keir Vaughan-Taylor)
Subject: Laser
Reply-To: keir@cs.su.oz.au (Keir Vaughan-Taylor)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:42:11 GMT

Photon Frenzy !

Large wattage scientific laser for sale at extraordinaryily low price $58,500

Laser Spectra Physics 2045 Argon laser
Rated at 25watts visible and 6watts ultraviolet.
Currently outputting 32watts
Purchased in 1989 for Aud 128827 + tax the unit
had a new tube fitted in 1990 under warranty.
Tube has had 150 hours use.
Comes with UV fibre optic and other accessories

Contact: Paul McCloskey
         Laservision
         50 Carters Road
         Dural NSW
         Australia
         Ph: (612) 651 1511
         Fax: (612) 651 3217

Newsgroups: aus.general
From: guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: CSIRO Tropical Forest Research Centre
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 03:40:31 GMT

dnk@cs.mu.OZ.AU (David Kinny) writes:

>Restricting your diet to plant matter only,
>despite all the evidence that we are well-adapted to be omnivores, is
>clearly a form of extremism.

Here's something I heard from a visiting scientist last year - I hope
it doesn't distrupt this flame-fest though!

This archaeologist who was visiting (name?  sorry.) has been working
in Africa for many many years.  I believe he is working with the son
of the Leakeys.  He mentioned that the point at which our ancestors
started eating meat was roughly the same time they started spreading
around the globe.

One hypothesis suggested was that people were not very successful at
colonising new areas while they depended upon plants for food, possibly
because the different plant communities required different specialised
knowledge.

But then came carno-man, who had an object-oriented gut.  While fruit/
herb types vary greatly in food-value, toxins, availability, meat is
pretty much meat. All you had to do was become an efficient and versatile
hunter of warm furry things, and hit the road.  Well no, there actually
was no road.

Anyway, I thought it was a neat idea.  It is a nice analogy to OOP
in some ways too - each region has interfaces (animals) converting
the veg into meat, relieving the main process "nomad()" of the
complexities of processing local veg.

Of course now if you travel by plane the food is neither veg nor meat,
but some form of processed tasteless stuff.  Perhaps this is
the next level of abstraction?  (it's not marzipan)

Guy.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CSIRO Tropical          P.O. Box 780             Work : (070) 91 1755
      Forest            Maunds Rd                Fax  : (070) 91 3245
      Research          Atherton Q 4883          Home : (070) 95 3309
From: s9000289@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au (Cameron Hooper)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:35:16 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales
Followup-To: aus.followup
Distribution: aus

In article <1993Jan3.101307.5516@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au>, ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (Ian Staples) writes:
> In article <9300319.8235@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:
> 
> [Stuff deleted]
> 
> 
> It's funny how people don't consider the poor bloody plants - they're
> alive too you know, until you boil them or, worse, eat them alive ;-)
> 
> I'm sure they don't consider themselves to be producing "food", however
> efficiently they may do it.  They are producing little plants.  A vegetarian's
> bowl of rice contains 100s of dead plants; my t-bone steak only required
> one life to be sacrificed, and many other folk fed from it too!

I had a friend who told me of an ethical dilemma he faced while picking
potatoes.  Was it permissible to apologize to the whole field or did
he have to apologize personally to each potato?  

I still stay awake nights.


-- 
************************************************************************
*  Cameron Hooper                        University of New South Wales *
*  s9000289@csdvax.csd.unsw.oz.au                                      *
************************************************************************
From: del@babel.DIALix.oz.au (D Elson)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Optus satellite goes up (in smoke) 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 01:47:17 GMT
Organization: 


In article <1992Dec27.104532.7201@rp.CSIRO.AU> mhomsey@rp.CSIRO.AU writes:

  > >[ For the uninitiated, there was a story that the recent spate of Telecom's
  > >  optical-fibre breakages was due to Optus digging their own trenches. ]

Actually, I heard that it was because there is a certain species of
wombat that thinks fibre optic cable is the yummiest stuff ever :)

  >
  > Perhaps their dearest wish has come true!
  > (Optus that is :-))
  > 

Trained wombats?

Del
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
D Elson                            |  del@DIALix.oz.au del@adied.oz.au
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: CSIRO Tropical Forest Research Centre
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 01:57:59 GMT

ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (Ian Staples) writes:

>I'm sure they don't consider themselves to be producing "food", however
>efficiently they may do it.  They are producing little plants.  A vegetarian's
>bowl of rice contains 100s of dead plants; my t-bone steak only required
>one life to be sacrificed, and many other folk fed from it too!

>Humans are simply part of the food chain.  If we are to live, other life
>forms must die.

I agree with this - but I would add that almost everyone draws a line
somewhere about what they are and are not prepared to eat.  Personally
I would find it distasteful to fatten up people and eat them.  I think
other people find it distasteful to farm apes or horses or even
dogs.  Some people who are ostensibly vegetarian draw the line somewhere
between cows and fishes.  Not very many people boycott beer because
yeast died in the fermentation.  So I see vegetarianism in the common (vs
literal) sense as a continum.

I personally draw the line like this: I dont eat those things which
I would not be perpared to personally go out and knock on the head,
chop up and gobble down.  But I don't expect anyone else to draw the
line in the same place.  And I've learned not to even expect others to
admit the line exists for them.

This basic guildline, however, is supplemented by a desire to achieve
a sustainable lifestyle, which gets harder with every new mouth to feed
on our limited resources.  You can view this from a `selfish gene'
perspective if you wish.  For me it just means I try to drop that line
a little lower.  Despite the really rigourous arguements presented in this
thread :-) I'm pretty much convinced that vegetarians make more efficient
use of Australia's resources.  And since I suspect we are already past
the sustainable carrying capacity of the country (the world? dunno.)
it makes sense to reduce.

(If I were just living by the 2nd guideline, I think eating humans would
be the best thing for the long term sustainability of the race.  Seems
like it would rapidly reduce the population pressure.  Of course we
should switch back to other food sources when the population is back
in check.  Just be careful to eat people *before* breeding age, and 
focus on those who you'd expect to consume the most resources for the
least return.)

>Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
>MAREEBA  Queensland  4880         | Voice    : +61 (0)70 921 555

Guy.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CSIRO Tropical          P.O. Box 780             Work : (070) 91 1755
      Forest            Maunds Rd                Fax  : (070) 91 3245
      Research          Atherton Q 4883          Home : (070) 95 3309
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (Ian Staples)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:42:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.234747.10400@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au> guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter) writes:

[Stuff deleted]
>
>As far as what we eat, do you think this sort of guideline is more or less
>silly than say "we eat cows, don't eat horses, dogs and cats are out, shark
>is okay, dolphin is out, insects no way, reptiles probably not..."
>Or how about not eating things with cloven hooves?
>Come on, how do you decide?  Or does the corner deli decide for you?
>
I suspect that most of us make our decisions based on cultural prejudices.
Some of these may have a grain of logic or ancient wisdom behind them.
E.g. I suspect the prejudice against pork in some cultures may derive
from the potential to transfer diseases & parasites from pigs to people.
Others derive from the concept of "sacred animals".  E.g. the Hindus do
not eat beef, and this probably arose from the fact that the ox is an
essential beast of burden in their society.  If you eat all the "tractors"
during hard times you will have nothing to till the fields with when the
drought breaks, so the hard times will continue until *you* are extinct.
In other cultures, water buffalo are sacred for a similar reason.

As far as I'm concerned, people are free to eat whatever they damned
well like, as long as they don't become cannibals.  (Somehow it just
doesn't seem quite right to eat your own - but maybe that has more
to do with concepts of religion and justice than biology?  Then again,
see the argument re pork above.)



-- 
Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054,                | Fax      : +61 (0)70 923 593
MAREEBA  Queensland  4880         | Voice    : +61 (0)70 921 555
Australia.                        | Home     : +61 (0)70 924 847
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: nharvey@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au (Nicole Harvey)
Subject: Assessing a language
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:54:10 GMT


hi,
   I am involved in assessing a language. Does anyone know of a standard
set of problems that I could use to judge the languages compabilities?
   Can anyone think of a problem that represents a real need in a language?
For example, we have tested it for the eight queens problem to show that 
it can do state space searches. We have also made sure it can generate the 
Fibonacci numbers. Can you think of any other well known problems?
   What things do you expect to be able to write relatively simply using any
language? I would like to here from people working in all areas. 

Nicole
nharvey@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au

Newsgroups: aus.general
From: inas@cs.uow.edu.au (Ian Geoffrey Sergeant)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Ethics?????????????????
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:40:18 GMT

brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>I don't see why I should apologise for being a carnivore, when all other
>carnivorous animals in the food chain don't apologise for it.

man is at most omnivorous.  you couldn't survive on _just_ meat, where
you can survive (quite easily) without it.

>in article <1993Jan5.015759.19549@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au>, guy@trofis.tfrc.csiro.au (Guy Carpenter) says:
>> I personally draw the line like this: I dont eat those things which
>> I would not be perpared to personally go out and knock on the head,
>> chop up and gobble down.

>So I take it you don't use things you couldn't build yourself either, like
>trains, ball point pens, and computers?  What a ridiculous metric.

you can't ridicule the point with an incredibly bad analogy.  analogies
seldom prove or disprove anything.

in our society it is hard to distinguish the plastic wrapped steak from
the frozen peas in the adjacent freezer section.  there is a difference 
though.  if you couldn't go and kill the animal responsible for the tv
dinner then at least you should have second thoughts about what you are
doing.

ian.
-- 
inas:*:208:208:Ian Sergeant, University of Wollongong:/post/inas
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Fun with $5 note
From: pears@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Arnold N Pears)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:43:35 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <jamesp.726722247@bison> jamesp@cs.uwa.oz.au (James Pinakis) writes:
>Here's a fun, non-destructive trick you can play with the new $5 note.
>from the left hand side of the note.  The right-hand side of the queen's
>head should now be visible, with about one quarter of her right eye
>showing.  Now fold the bottom of the note upwards forming a crease around
>25mm from the bottom of the note.  Now turn the resulting rectangle clockwise
>90 degress and place your thumb over the crease at the top edge, but not
>so much that it obscures the "pearls".  Now look at the area to the left
>of your thumb to see the aforementioned coital activity.

Why the HELL couldn't you post this when I had a $5 note in my pocket.

DAMN, now I have to go out and get one...


Mutter, mutter, ........


Arnold Pears.

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Arnold Pears.  Computer Sci Dept		ACSNET : pears@latcs1.oz
La Trobe Uni, Bundoora 3083.			"Well here we all are then."
    Ph (03) 479-1144						-ME