HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activsm.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bias? What Bias?
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 12:29:38 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug21.144350.11157@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> > 
> >That is life. No point moaning about it. It isn't going to change.
> >
> What you say is very true, and if it was as simple as that it wouldn't be 
> worth the space or time I have devoted to it.
> 
> The problem is that, especially in an election year, the media is our
> eyes and ears on the world, and they filter everything both candidates 
> have to present to us.  If one of the candidates is consistently getting
> "good" coverage and the other is being panned, those honest biases do
> the country a grave misjustice.  That is precisely why the Republicans
> and to some extent the Democrats, live for the convention.  It's one of
> the *only* times where they can present exactly what they what to the 
> public--directly to the public. 

It is a passive way of going about it......for sure. Not the only way, though.
What happens if you call the local campaign office and say:
 
"Hi, I've been watching this Clinton guy on TV. Please send me his
manifesto/platform/what-he-stands-for. Thanks!"
 
That way you can read - directly - for yourself what these candidates stand
for. If no such information exists, then that should tell you a lot about
these people and the parties they represent. They - in effect - "stand" for
nothing and aren't worth voting for.......

A multi-party, proportional voting system - like those used in most democratic
countries - would more clearly define for voters what the various parties
stand for. The two-party systems based on the first-past-the-post voting
system mean that the two main parties stand for everything and nothing. Voters
have no choice......so they don't vote.
 
The chances that the US will ever adopt a more democratic voting system are
pretty remote, so you had best stick with calling the local party apparatchiks
and asking for the *real* story - as they see it.....biased, of course.
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Right only has 20% support in the US......
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:06:06 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

Further to my post on the subjective nature of reality, I am also interested
in the assertion that 80% of journalists are lefties and don't represent the
general population.
 
Though I'm posting from NZ, I grew up in North America, so don't discount my
views out of hand.
 
Look at it this way: Less than 50% of Americans vote. Most Americans don't
support the Democrats or Republicans could be the conclusion drawn from this.
 
The Democrats usually get more votes than the Republicans - hence the Congress
is ually controlled by the Democrats. 
 
Put the two together. 50% of Americans don't actively support anyone. Another
25%-30% (those who vote democrat) don't support the republicans, either. One
can then draw the conclusion that 70%-80% of Americans either don't care - or
oppose the policies of right-wingers. 
 
In this light, the percentage of supposedly "biased" journos takes on a new
significance. Most people do not - in fact - have right-wing views. If they
do, they do not act on them electorally. The same is true of the left-wingers.
 
But the fact that 80% of the media do not support the ring wing explicitly is
consistent with the fact that a similar porportion of Americans don't either.
 
Any comments?
 
Steve
   

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.tv.uk,rec.video.production,misc.misc,misc.entrepreneurs,rec.video,rec.arts.animation
From: muhamk@microsoft.com (Muhammad Karim)
Subject: Advertising
Date: 11 Aug 92 10:37:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: TV Advertising

I am not sure is this the right group for this. And
if it si not then i am sorry

I would like some idea regarding advertising through TV (in Pakistan)

I am interested in starting some kind of business activity (seeling 
product, idea or information through Television Media.  Advertising 
wont be any problem in Pakistan.

Basically, I am looking for product idea or information. Hiring 
someone in Pakistan can be taken care of easily.  I would appreciate
if someone can guide me what to do.

i would really appreciate any reponses.
Thanks.
muhammad
muhamk@microsoft.com

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Newsgroups: alt.news-media


   I'm not sure what the criticism's are about.  Yes, NBC showed mostly
U.S. athletes.  And yes, they showed the "major" events such as basketball,
gymnastics, track, so forth.  However, what would you *expect* them to show?

   NBC has only 'x' amount of time to show the Olympic games.  They
still have their regular shows that they put on; they can't just become
the "24-hour" Olympic station for the duration of the games because
not everyone wants to see the Olympics, and they'd lose a large share
of their marketplace.  They also have to dedicate a lot of time to
commercials, because they have to pay the bills, and, not surprisingly,
they may even want to make a *profit* on this entire venture.  So, in
the limited time they have, it's only logical that they show what the
median viewer wants to see.  In the U.S., the average viewer wants to
see U.S. athletes in the "big" events.  So, the emphasis is on that.
NBC is filling a market need, and economics don't permit them to fill
it completely, so the ends of the spectrum get left out.

   No, it's not ideal, and those who would like to see more focus on
other countries are largely left out of the mix.  Those who would want
to see more "esoteric" events don't get as much share as they'd like.
But doesn't NBC have reason to cater to the average, in the hope to
satisfy as many U.S. viewers as possible as fully as possible?  It's
no news-flash the the U.S. public is pretty much "meat & potato's,"
and any food besides a Big Mac or any TV outside of RCA is considered 
"exotic," and is relegated to "nitch" markets.  To say that NBC reflects
the "arrogance" of the U.S. public isn't fair; it's not arrogance, it's
more the limited scope of the average viewer.

Dean Cashen
-- Boise

--------<disclaimer>----------
HP and I share some views, but
the ones above are all mine...
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:853 alt.politics.elections:11050 alt.activism:15146
From: U58396@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.misc
Subject: Any 'Tomorrow People' Fans?
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

Help!


I am trying to locate information, tidbits, fan info, etc. for a friend of
mine regarding a British Sci-Fi t.v. series called, "The Tomorrow People".
I don't know much about it myself but my friend is avid about it, and
would appreciate any items I could gather.  If anyone has anything to share
or knows another news group that might be a gook place to look I would
appreciate knowing about it.

Thanks huge!


                         ------------------------
                         | U58396@UICVM.UIC.EDU |
                         ------------------------
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Why C? Why Ask Why?
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:00:33 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <mcirvin.713660259@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes...
> 
>>Second, is there an explanation for why photons are the fastest moving
>>objects?  What makes it so fast?  Is it small mass? 
> 
>Yes-- it's the photon's *zero* rest mass that makes it travel
>at c.

Just to be picky - we don't really know that the photon is massless - although 
the whole world believes it.  The best experimental measurement, which I 
believe is an inference based on some astrophysical observation, is that
the photon has a mass less than 10^-31 grams. (I think I got the number
right,  but I'm doing it off the top of my head, so don't quote me.)

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: wavelets
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:55:51 -0500
Summary: I need info
Keywords: wavelets
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I am seeking help on a speech for competition.  I'm going to attempt to explain
wavelets to a general audience, but I am not altogether clear on some of the
info myself.  Anyone who can help (especially with some of the math), please
contact me.

Thanks in advance!

Todd Prins
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A thought(less) experiment
Date: 13 Aug 1992 17:41:23 -0700
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

kbk@netcom.com (Ken Krovchuck) writes:
>Now if you calculate how much you aged, it would come out to zero.
>In other words, you make the trip instantaneously. You get the same
>result no matter how far you travel, you always get there in zero time. 

Except that the photon also calculates that the distance it travels is
zero.  Your speed, zero over zero, is undefined in this "reference frame".
The problem is that a Lorentz-like frame moving at the speed of light is
not a valid reference frame.  Two of its basis vectors point in the same
direction.  The remaining three independent basis vectors don't span
the 4 dimensional space.  Some points in space-time are described by
an infinite number of different combinations of coordinate values while
others cannot be described by the coordinate system at all.  Any attempt
to describe the universe in such a bogus coordinate system is bound to
fail.

Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
Internet:   richard@locus.com		 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
UUCP:	    ...!uunet!lcc!richard	  I ndependence and
MIL/BITNET: richard%lcc@UUNET.UU.NET	   F reedom!
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Spacetime and a preferred frame of reference
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:23:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: dirac.8050
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

If you replyed to this post, please do so again... my news server was 
down... sniff,sniff

-Jay
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: A thought(less) experiment
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:22:49 GMT

kbk@netcom.com (Ken Krovchuck) writes:

[about the immediate fate of flying photons]

>If the universe collapses back on itself due to gravity, you gotta hit
>something eventually. If the expansion of the universe slows to less than
>the speed of light, you will travel in a loop over the same path until
>you hit something, or, (and also the case if the universe expands faster 
>than the speed of light) I really don't know what.

Interestingly, for a matter-dominated closed universe with no
cosmological constant, the time from big bang to big crunch is
exactly the same as the time required for a light beam to 
circumnavigate the universe.  So if you were a photon in 
this case, you wouldn't even get to finish one loop!

>The big hole is claiming that a photon has any concept of
>time. The thoery of relativity applies to matter traveling near the
>speed of light, not to light traveling at the speed of light.

Well, it *does* apply to light... it doesn't say much about
observers traveling at the speed of light, though.  Rather
than a photon knowing the future, I'd say it has a rather
lengthy present!  (Smiley goes here.)
 
>   But when I here about the experiments done in quantum physics,
>(try looking in Scientific American, July 1992), where photons are
>doing just what I descibed - seeming to know their path and destination
>the instant they are created - 

That sort of thing happens for massive particles, too, if what
you mean is that making a delayed choice of measurement can seem
to affect what they did before.  The experiments are just easier
to do with photons.

>I wonder every time I point a flashlight
>up into the sky whether or not I just forced a bunch of photons to
>figure out how the universe is going to end.    

Nice image.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, professional gradgrind, amateur Usenet drifter
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Spacetime and a preferred frame of reference
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:19:37 GMT

hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:

>In a way, this is a "can spacetime = ether" question. However, could it be
>possible that spacetime has a property that allows relativity?
>For example, say that EM waves actually do propagate through this spacetime.
>However, when you view an EM wave, insted of its speed depending on your
>speed through spacetime (as is true for other waves & mediums), it 
>would be a property of this spacetime that the speed of EM waves is
>independent of the viewer's speed. 

>So the question is, is there theoretical or experimental "proof" that this
>explination is impossible.

Hmmm... this is a more detailed description than the one you posted
in sci.physics.  No matter how you construct it, you'd be violating
the postulate of relativity that states that all laws of physics
are the same in all inertial frames.  But it is possible to construct
a theory with a preferred frame of reference that is consistent with
all existing experimental data.  All you have to do is to state that
the preferred frame of reference only applies to a special, as yet
undiscovered interaction, which you can then make nonlocal and
instantaneous without ruining either causality or any existing
physics.  It's just that you inevitably have to reject relativity
in such a case as a *universal* property of physics.

Such a situation is certainly possible, though no data exist
to support it.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: buell@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell)
Subject: Re: Solar Sailing
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:03:18 GMT

chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:


>Hi, I remember hearing on the CBC radio show a year or two back about a race that
>the major countries were going to attempt to mark Columbus' discovery of North
>America by Europeans.  The race was going to involve unmanned solar sail space
>craft which would race to Mars and then disappear after that.  Has anyone else
>heard about this?  Is such a thing being developed right now?  Or maybe I was
>dreaming?   `:-|
>-- 
>==========================================================================

I don't know of anything like what you are describing. I have heard about
the possibility of using solar sails to move around the solar system. I've
read a book on the subject, whose value I don't know. I would guess from the
book that theoretical studies of the concept have been carried out.

>  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
>  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
>==========================================================================

Jim Buell
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Spacetime and a preferred frame of reference
Date: 10 Aug 92 14:33:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

OK, I have a question.  Could spacetime actually have only one particular
frame of reference without violating relativity?
(I know, having a preffered frame of reference AND relativity sounds like
I contradiction, but read on.)

In a way, this is a "can spacetime = ether" question. However, could it be
possible that spacetime has a property that allows relativity?
For example, say that EM waves actually do propagate through this spacetime.
However, when you view an EM wave, insted of its speed depending on your
speed through spacetime (as is true for other waves & mediums), it 
would be a property of this spacetime that the speed of EM waves is
independent of the viewer's speed. 

So the question is, is there theoretical or experimental "proof" that this
explination is impossible.

If not, then this allows for a preferred frame of reference through which
perhaps a "science fictional" warping could be used for FTL travel/communi-
cations.

OK, so what's wrong with this idea?

-Jay
From: gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu (Mike Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Good Things come in Big Bangs
Date: 19 Aug 1992 04:23:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxwell.ucsc.edu

In <92231.182704A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:


> Concerning what a frame of reference travelling at c with respect to another
>frame, an earlier post answers it using more SR than I know yet.

> Concerning photons as marbles, I'm not sure that they can be sufficiently
>localized like that. A photon is an energy level of a quantized harmonic
>oscillator, which by mathematical analogy, can be related to a radiation field
>but it is not a chunk of light spatially localizable -- from what I can glean
>from the incomplete and contradictory utterances of many professors and books.
>-------
>CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
>BUSH IN 92: ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION, AND NO NEW TAXES.

You are correct that it is not possible to model a photon as a marble, but
your reason is not quite right (it's close). One can understand a photon as
an energy level of a quantized harmonic oscillator--this is in fact the 
standard interpretation. This is equivalent to knowing the photon's frequency
(and therefore its momentum) exactly. By the Uncertainty Principle, your
uncertainty in position is therefore infinite. But you can play the opposite
game. You can _measure_ the position of the photon, but then you have no
idea what it's frequency is. One of the cutest demonstrations of this is a
picture of a femtosecond laser, if you can get ahold of it. Light travels at
about a foot per nanosecond, so the length of a femtosecond pulse is about
1/100 inch. This localization is enough to make the laser appear far from
monochromatic.

A more standard explanation is that if you consider a double slit experiment,
and you try to determine which slit a photon passes through, you destroy the
interference pattern (recall that the pattern is determined by the wavelength).


Mike Gross
Physics Board
Univ of California                   GO SLUGS!!!!!
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Good Things
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:32:49 GMT

<A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

> If all photons travel at c, how can two photons, each going c, interfere and
>produce a slower photon? 

This doesn't happen.  In vacuum, at least, there are no slower photons.
And no interference phenomenon will change the number of photons
(see below).

>Not to mention that Dr. is all washed up if you
>believe Dirac when he said two photons can't interfere; a single photon can
>only interfere with itself.

I'm not sure quite what you're saying here, but you might want
to keep in mind that interference and interaction are two
very different things.  Light waves can interfere, but
(if we discount certain feeble effects) they don't interact.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, professional gradgrind, amateur Usenet drifter
From: A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Good Things come in Big Bangs
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:07:00 GMT
 <FRANL.92Aug18140710@draco.centerline.com> <92231.182704A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
 <16sicfINNss@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

All the physics books I've read claim that a ping-pong ball does indeed
 interfere like a photon does, only on a much shorter wavelength. This is the
 DeBroglie hypothesis.

Actually I personally disagree with all the books on this issue, because I see
a ping-pong ball as not one but many particles.

Mr. Taylor only used the ping-pong ball = photon analogy as far as they both
 bounce off walls the same way.

I'm afraid I understand photons no better than I did before.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 18:27:04 EDT
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Good Things come in Big Bangs
Distribution: na
 <FRANL.92Aug18140710@draco.centerline.com>

 Concerning what a frame of reference travelling at c with respect to another
frame, an earlier post answers it using more SR than I know yet.

 Concerning photons as marbles, I'm not sure that they can be sufficiently
localized like that. A photon is an energy level of a quantized harmonic
oscillator, which by mathematical analogy, can be related to a radiation field
but it is not a chunk of light spatially localizable -- from what I can glean
from the incomplete and contradictory utterances of many professors and books.
-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
BUSH IN 92: ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION, AND NO NEW TAXES.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.postmodern
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: GRAVITY IS TIME ITSELF.
Organization: Between a rock and a type specimen sheet, Boston.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:14:18 GMT

This is the most postmodern article ever seen in alt.sci.physics.new-theories.

In article <1992Aug19.053042.29135@odin.corp.sgi.com> news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News) writes:
>
>-- 
>
>			^[
>

Now if only someone would prove that the solar neutrino flux equals bandwidth.

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: silverstein@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Solar Sailing
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:29:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.210616.14280@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:
> 
> Hi, I remember hearing on the CBC radio show a year or two back about a race that
> the major countries were going to attempt to mark Columbus' discovery of North
> America by Europeans.  The race was going to involve unmanned solar sail space
> craft which would race to Mars and then disappear after that.  Has anyone else
> heard about this?  Is such a thing being developed right now?  Or maybe I was
> dreaming?   `:-|
> -- 

As far as I heard, this race was not going to be to Mars, but to the radius of
the Moon's orbit. The ground rules were that the sails can only be launched
as high as a geostationary orbit, and that the first sail that makes it past
the Moon's orbit wins. I heard that several groups were working on this, but
I don't know what's become of the whole thing...

Cheers,
Sam Silverstein
UW-Madison Department of Physics

> ==========================================================================
>   Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
>   is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
> ==========================================================================

Yeah, what he said! :-)


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories