HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: SuperCollider "For" or "Against"
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:08:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.110151.7363@dscomsf.desy.de>,
hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
In article <01GMRRB8AWJK001E2U@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
|>(Stephen Tice) writes:
|>
|>|>{ talk.politics.misc, Re: SuperCollider: "For" or "Against" }
|>|>
|>|>(hallam@zeus02.desy.de on 7-24), Phillip M. Hallam-Baker doubted...
|>|>}
|>|>}In article, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
|>|>}
|>|>} |>What they aren't saying in the Dallas Morning News is that it
|>|>} |>cost about $8 billion to construct the SSC over 8 years, that
|>|>} |>it has about a 25 year projected lifespan and that it will
|>|>} |>take about a billion dollars a year to run.
|>|>}
|>|>}Thats because it's not true.
|>|>
|>|>If not then the folks who are trying to sell it as a great boon to
|>|>Texas sure have misfigured.
|>|>
|>|>The estimates cited are those which come from projections by the
|>|>business school at the University of Texas at Arlington. In a
|>seminar
|>|>I attended they also cited a 2.8 times multiplier to give a 70
|>billion
|>|>dollar economic stimulus to the North Texas economy, during the
|>SSC's
|>|>projected 25 year lifespan.
|>
|>To my knowlege there have been no contacts from the Business school
|>with
|>either major collider in Europe. I am fairly infamous for going round
|>telling the Physicists that they need to get other groups involved
|>from
|>other disciplines. There are a lot of people who would love to
|>demonstrate an area where they are having such consultations.

It has just struck me what the disparity between the two numbers is due
to. They are considering the lifetime of the project. I was stating that
25 years of running was far too long, ten years is more realistic. These
numbers do not in fact conflict since it will take at least ten years to
build the machine.

As far as the business school is concerned there is no real difference
between running and not running. I suspect that Mr Tice has been
misrepresenting the Business school case.

Certainly there is nothing here to substantiate Mr Tice's claim that to
the already huge cost of the SSC - enough to pay for two or three
stealth bombers, that a further 25 times $1 billion needs to be added
on.


Perhaps Mr Tice might admit defeat in his attempts to inflate the price
of the SSC so that we might start a sensible discussion on the basis for
which such a seeminlg ludicrous sum as $5 to $10 billion should be
spent? 


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: SuperCollider: "For" or "Against" -- Tell the Committee  @ tele...
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:22:00 GMT

You can register your opinion for or against funding for the
SuperConducting Super Collider, with the Senate Appropriations
Committee at tele. (202) 224-3471. I just did mine.

You should be aware that it'll cost 1/2 a billion dollars more
in the FY '93 taxes if you're for it.

From the Dallas Morning News OpEd page (7-22-92):

	... the Appropriations committee is scheduled to
	consider funding for the Superconducting Super
	Collider project, which [a subcommittee] decided
	on Tuesday to increase slightly.

	  If the Appropriations Committee OKs the funding
	increase to $550 million for fiscal year 1993, as
	proposed by Bennett Johnston, D-La., then the full
	Senate will take up the appropriations request 
	next week....  

Also from the DMN p. 19A "SSC funds get boost from panel" :

	  The projects total cost is $8.25 billion in current
	dollars, not accounting for inflation. Of that, the
	federal government is expected to pay about $5.5 billion,
	with foreign countries and the state of Texas contri-
	buting the rest....

	  The $550 million recommended by the subcommittee is 
	$100 million less than requested by President Bush for
	the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1....

	  So far, about $1 billion in federal money and $227 
	million from the state of Texas has been spent on the 
	project. 

What they aren't saying in the Dallas Morning News is that it
cost about $8 billion to construct the SSC over 8 years, that
it has about a 25 year projected lifespan and that it will
take about a billion dollars a year to run.

-- Stephen D. Tice   "You've got a project just like this in
                      your own back yard." 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36018 talk.politics.theory:3032 alt.discrimination:3727
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:30:19 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Jul24.144132.27936@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gf:
>[ discrimination also distributed by market; jobs as well as housing ]

>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>| Mind justifying that?  After all, why won't the 60% who don't mind
>| Tasmanians try to take advantage of the Tasmanian labor pool that the
>| bigots won't hire?  Either the Tasmanian wage rises to the national
>| average or the bigots lose money evey day they don't hire Tasmanians.

>It's a similar process.  A substantial number of non-Tasmanian
>bigots won't work with Tasmanians or will take lower wages to
>not work with Tasmanians.  Unbigoted managers will either 
>take advantage of their desires, or compete at a disadvantage.
>Other bigots won't do business with company that hires
>Tasmanians.  A free market constantly distributes utility;
>that's its great advantage.  But some of that utility can
>be undesirable from other points of view.  Bigotry is one
>example.

Gordon, if we play this out with real numbers will you accept the
results?  I'll even let you set up the initial conditions.

>| >However, since we can
>| >see results in history which the theory would predict, we
>| >can assume the theory at least approximates the behavior of
>| >real communities.

>| You mean in places where discrimmination was not mandated by the
>| government?  Where?

>Suburbs of New York City, most of my adult life, which is
>most of the last thirty years.

You mean you lived in an NYC suburb without restrictive zoning laws
where blockbusting was legal?  Bull.  Which one?

>| If you look at real life it doesn't work that way.  For example, the
>| government prevents block-busting.  Who gets screwed by block-busting?
>| Bigots.  Who benefits?  Minorities who get good houses cheap and the
>| real estate brokers who sell to them.  Who stops it?  The government.

>A well-run blockbusting campaign does not result in
>cheap housing for minorities.  The point is to get the
>bigots and those non-bigots who fear for their real-
>estate values to sell cheap, and then jack up the prices
>for the minorities.

Gordon, use your head.

Who do they sell cheap to?  Hint.  It isn't the real estate brokers.
It's the minorities themselves.

You seem to have some really weird ideas about how block busting
works.  Want to explain them to us?  Do you think that the real estate
agencies involved warehouse the buildings? 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35291 alt.politics.elections:8899 alt.politics.perot:1025 alt.mcdonalds.smut:3 alt.fan.dan-quayle:1999 alt.politics.marrou:124
From: TCWS@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU (TCWS000)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.mcdonalds.smut,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Farewell Perot
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:14:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-16042]: music.tcs.tulane.edu

In article <BrM35E.G2p@news.udel.edu> bew@brahms.udel.edu (Ben Williams) writes:
>
>This reminds me of when recently Bush vetoed a bill that would have
>automatically registered people to vote when they got their driver's license
>renewed.  I heard that one of the complaints was that this would put the
>republicans at a disadvantage... haha, is that funny or what...
>

Well, I for one believe this to be true... Bush knows very well
that nobody that watches MTV or any other stations with people
trying to get you registered easier by 'rocking the vote' is going
to vote for him... nope... we all have brains and are going to make
a change... a change for the better... vote for Clinton/Gore in '92!

by the way, did you also read n USA today that even Dominos Pizza
is trying to register voters? Yes, they will let you register with
the driver when he/she delivers the pizza to your door (in 30 minutes
or less of course). You get a free topping on your pizza when you
register... I am not making this up....

Bill Sirinek (Tulane University, New Orleans, LA)

-Saddam still has his job, do you?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:58:27 GMT

In article <lzfmyk.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> Others like me consider homosexuality to be immoral, illegal and 
> disgusting. I believe the majority of Americans agree with me.

As usual, you believe incorrectly.  A CNN poll several months
ago found that 60% of the Americans polled believed that
sexual orientation should not be the basis for discrimination.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Nilges and Law and Economics
Followup-To: misc.legal,sci.econ
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:10:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.052221.10769@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.040940.2856@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Law 'n economics quite simply limits the benefits of the law to those
>>able to pay for it, when stripped of its pretentious language.
>
>Ah, truth by blatant assertion.  Please, Ed, strip law and economics of
>its pretentious language for us.  For that matter, show us where the
>pretentious language is.  

Still waiting for Ed to justify this statement, twelve days later...
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:28:31 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>So you can't concieve of a case where you would rather not have someone
>pressing alcohol or drugs on your children before you have developed them
>to the point where the can be responsible.

Not at all.  I would rather not have someone pressing alcohol or drugs
on my children, obviously.  However, I know I can't stop it, and I
need to work within that limitation.


>|> instill your values.  Alcohol and drugs are both illegal for children,
>|> but that hasn't stopped it. 

>But it has slowed it down.

Well, I guess we can leave that up for dispute.


>|>                              What shouldn't be illegal is for me to
>|> follow the euopean model here and introduce them to responsible
>|> drinking.  Not that I care about the law in that regard, but it is
>|> potential trouble that shouldn't be there. 

>In some states it is not illegal for you to introduce you children
>to responsible drinking.  In texas it is legal, and your chlidren will
>even be served wine in a restraunt at dinner if you ask them to.
>Unfortunately, the number of deaths caused by underage drunk drivers
>does not show this to be a cure.  Other parents are introducing their
>children to irresponsible drinking.

There's always the problem of irresponsible parents.  Actually, I note
that I somewhat dodged your question of how to instill values.  I
don't have any pat solution for that.

-- 
Lonesome?  Like to meet people?  Like a change?  Like excitement? Like a new
job?  Just screw up one more time.
From: rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:46:46 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>Which name calling was that?  Whom did I call a name?  What was that
>name?  I described some of the concepts promoted by Libertarians as
>being goofy.  Some of them as scarey.  And some of them are downright
>dangerous.  I would put the ideas you put forth above in all three of
>these categories.  The idea that the government or a society has no
>business protecting children from a pedophilic father is not acceptable
>to any rational, adult thinking person.  A pedophile does not produce a
>"properly raised" child.  That's the problem.  Frankly, you can go ahead
>now and put me in your .kill file - I will not restrain my criticism of
>anyone who promotes rescinding laws against pedophilia.

  Jim is not only a liar, but also a colossal idiot! If you can
point out any net libertarian or Libertarian who supports rescinding
laws against pedophilia please tell me. Libertarians have always claimed
that one of the valid functions of government is protection from force
and fraud.  We support government protection against rape, murder,
theft, property violation, etc, etc.  
   Every so often some ignoramus comes along and says "libertarians are
racists" "libertarians are polluters" "libertarians support murder, rape, etc"
while totally ignoring what our platform says. Our platform is
only scary if you cannot comprehend it. 
   So if like Jim, you interpret "small government" = "supporters of
murder and rape" you will continue to be scared. Jim, your fears are
based on ignorance and hate.

  Nevertheless, you have earned a spot in my kill file for lying and
misrepresenting our position.  Please, get some help, and kick the strawman
habit.

-Ray
don't bother with private email, I've got a kill file on that too.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bring Bush Down
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:08:24 GMT
 <NEERI.92Jul20011644@iis.ethz.ch> <1992Jul20.162039.19603@anasazi.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>I consider this a good reason to vote for Bush. Quayle at least has an agenda,
>and an idea of what we should be doing in this country. Furthermore, as
>a former Senator, he understands congress (does Bill Clinton?).

>I think that of the four candidates (2 Pres, 2 VP), the ones most likely
>to represent change are:
>  -Quayle - restore the Reagan revolution
>  -Gore - cripple us entirely with looney left economics and extreme
>          environmental regulations.

But, you have to counter Quayle with the following:

-Bush - likely to slowly strangle economy throuhg inaction, hand-wringing,
        blown-in-the-wind policies.

Additionally, how can ANYONE take any promise of George Bush as having any
value??  He'll break any promise if he breaks the 'Read my lips' promise.
Remember, Mr. Pro-Life was pro-choice, pro-population control when he was a
Congressman...if he's reelected and no longer needs the conservatives, then
what happens?? Hmm??

   Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on ME.

-Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35690 alt.individualism:4523 sci.econ:6520
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Summary: The natural resources myth
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:49:09 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <BrFur0.5K@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>>In fact, limited government worked quite well in its constitutional form
>>taking the U.S. from a two-bit colony to a preemininent world power. Limited
>>government was discarded in the 1930's, not coincidintally, the time when
>>socialism was at the apex of its popularity, at the hands of the New Dealers.
>
>In fact, having unclaimed natural resources easily available worked
>quite well in taking the US from a two-bit colony to a pre-eminent
>world power.  

The Soviet Union occupied one-sixth of the land mass
of the world and went from being a pre-eminent world power
to being a two-bit colony.  

I also note that Hong Kong is invading southern China economically
thereby becoming something of a world power instead of a two-bit 
colony, and doing so with virtually NO natural resources.

Could it be that the form of economic organization is far more 
significant to economic development than the easy availability
of raw materials?
  

--Al Date
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dole attack backfires
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:44:11 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Jul25.174605.23258@cbnews.cb.att.com>, 
jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) said:

> And the good Senator estimates that the lead is really only about
> 10%. Where he gets this, who knows. Maybe he's figuring the 20%
> undecideds are all Bush voters.

For what it's worth, most political observers, including Clinton and
his people, seem to pretty much accept that some fraction of Clinton's
current lead in the polls is a "souffle" which will collapse of its
own accord, probably sometime soon.  Clinton's currently enjoying the
"bounce" that just about every presidential candidate gets during and
immediately after his nominating convention, while Bush has to wait
until August for his party's party.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: More Nilges obfuscation (was:Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court)
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:12:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul21.135455.10286@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.043442.12608@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul18.223150.20604@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>	Yes, Ed, some Americans of all skin hues are racist.  People are 
>>flawed.  So what?
>
>This is the essential mistake.  You want to make racism into Yet Another
>flaw of individual character (like farting in elevators) whereas in
>actuality it is a property of societal structures (systems.)  This
>question has already been extensively discussed, and , to my mind,
>resolved.  Racism isn't just a defect of character that can as readily
>be ascribed to the black person's resentment of white mistreatment, for
>then it is an empty concept (as well as convenient to white racists who
>wish to reverse black gains.)  Racism is what society does to people not
>of the approved race, which is white.  Racism is a historical artifact
>of European domination.  

WRONG ED. I quote Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

"racism, n. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits
and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race"

Therefore, racism is a defect of character. Therefore, the teachings of
Elijah Mohammed, that white people were bred by an evil scientist to torment
darker skinned people is a RACIST belief. In fact, Malcom X himself said so
after visiting Mecca and worshipping with Moslems of all colors. YES, IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR BLACKS TO BE RACIST. Black racism does NOT mean "black resentment
of white mistreatment", it means a beleif that non-blacks are inherently
inferior.

Now lets look at Webster's second definition of racism: "racial prejudice
or discimination". Now this definition is more like the one you espouse, Ed.
However, this is not the only definition of racism, and those who (like
you) claim that blacks cannot be racist are playing semantic games--games
which, according to the first definition ("produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race") are racist in and of themselves, as they imply
a superiority of blacks.

I used a well-used and respected dictionary to define 'racism', Ed.
What's your source?

-Rob
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36433 ca.politics:6105
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 05:39:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Jul21.131936.6196@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Your "race" or skin color is not relevant.  Black men can be racists,
>and I DON'T mean "reverse racists."  Clarence Thomas, for example, is a
>nonreverse racist of the first water in that he has chosen to be a
>lackey of a racist administration. 

Say what? Given that the judge can't be fired, and the administration, like
all before it, will likely be long gone while the judge remains on the SC,
how do you justify the "lackey" label? (I had thought to see the end of the
revolutionary claptrap with the collapse of the SU, but clearly I was
naive...)


-- 
| "I can inform you, however, that San Quentin has not contracted with Fred
| A. Leuchter, Jr. for the installation of a heart monitoring system or for
| any other work."  Signed: DANIEL B. Vasquez, Warden