HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Hearing aids
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:55:46 GMT

I know, I know... these may not be appropriate newsgroups, but they
are the best I could find.  After reading this, if you can suggest
others groups, PLEASE do so!

Here's the story: My SO is hard of hearing and has been for most of
her life.  Recently, she went to two different practitioners, the
first, a salesman for Miracle Ear and the second, a doctor who
dispenses hearing aids as needed.

They both agree on her problem: She has nerve damage that makes it
difficult for her to hear high frequency sounds.  This is a very
common pattern for hearing loss.  The damage is nerver damage only,
ther appears to be no conductive loss.

This is where they disagree: The Miracle ear guy told her that his
product can selectively amplify different frequencies.  That is, in
her case, the low frequencies would not be altered, but the high
frequencies would be amplified.  This would help compensate for her
problem.  He "rigged" up his testing machine to simulate how the aids
would work and my SO reported that the results were amazing.  

The second doctor told her that in her case, she needed a hearing aid,
such as the one described above, but that they don't exist!  He said
that the only type on the market were straight amplifiers, and in her
case, they'd be useless.  Now, as an engineer, I know that the
technology for a selectively amplified hearing aid is not difficult.  

So the question is this: Who's telling the truth?  Do Miracle Ear
hearing aids work as advertised?  Is the second practitioner correct,
or is he "jealous" of a technology not available to him?  Any
information, including personal anecdotes, are welcomed.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The study of theology, as it stands in the
Field Robotics Center,          | Christian churches, is the study of
Carnegie Mellon University      | nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | on no principles; it proceeds by no
(412) 268-3856                  | authority; it has no data; it can
                                | demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no
The opinions expressed are mine | conclusion.  Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:09:47 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec16.004108.6953@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
=>Is it possible that homeopathic remedies cause the body to react to protect
=>itself against the remedy, and in doing so actually attack the problem
=>being remedied? Sounds plausible to me. I'm not saying I'm totally sold
=>on the idea. I'm just saying I'm willing to give it a try.
=>
=
=	Not very.  For one thing, the immune system generally recognizes
=protein, not inorganic substances, so that would throw any of the inorganic
=homeopathic remedies (e.g lead) out the window.  No matter how many 
=homeopathic potions of say, arsenic, you take, it will not remedy arsenic
=poisoning.  As for some of the other, organic, remedies, the concentrations
=used in homeopathic remedies would be far below that required to elicit
=an immune response.  I'm also not aware that homeopathic potions are
=injected.  A drunk potion would be highly unlikely to reach the immune
=system, any more than a drunk vaccine would.

Hmmm.  Never heard of the oral polio vaccine, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hollow Earth
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:44:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1g8sl0INNi60@pith.uoregon.edu>, adams@bright.uoregon.edu (Jeff Adams) writes:
>2. We all know that the center of gravity of a hollow earth would
>still be the center of the sphere.  How does he think people stay on
>the inside of the shell?

The net force of gravity from a sperical shell on anything inside it is zero.
The location of the center of gravity of such a shell is irrelevent.  The
earth, does, of course, rotate, which means that someone standing inside a
hollow earth at the equator would experience a centripetal force of (if I
haven't screwed up the arithmetic) ~ .0028 ft/sec^2 or about .00009g.  Looks
like it's time for the velcro boots.

>3. Is there light inside the earth, according to the claims?
>
>4. Does he try to explain away things like satellite photos, research
>stations in Antarctica, the weight of the earth, seismic waves, etc.,
>or does he claim they are all governmental misinformation, or what?

If the book was published in the (early) '60s, it's unlikely that he'd try to
explain away satellite photos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21512 sci.med:22835
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med
Subject: Re: Hearing aids
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:38:18 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <GERRY.92Dec16125546@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: 
|> 
|> So the question is this: Who's telling the truth?  Do Miracle Ear
|> hearing aids work as advertised?  Is the second practitioner correct,
|> or is he "jealous" of a technology not available to him?  Any
|> information, including personal anecdotes, are welcomed.
|> 

I've just recently gone through what you're SO is experiencing.  My hearing
drops off to 80 db above 2Khz.  I went to several dispensers and was told that
canal-type aids would work, or would not work, depending on what type of aid
that particular dispenser was pushing.  I narrowed my options down to Miracle
Ear and NuEar (the Roy Rogers one!).  They both seemed to work fine in their
simulation and I bought Miracle Ear because they were cheaper ($2400 for both
ears! OUCH!!!).  I can attest that they do work!  I am now hearing things that
I never even knew I was missing!  Imagine turning on your stereo and then turning
the treble down all the way and the bass up all the way; that's what I hear
without the aids.  They do indeed amplify the high frequencies without touching
the lows.

I'm not a rep for Miracle Ear; just a mighty happy customer; I say give them a
try!


-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pepke@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: Ball lightning? (is there such a thing?)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:44:14 GMT

I have seen speculation that "ball lightning" is made of little balls of 
plasma that bounce around until they run out of heat.  It seems plausible. 
Plasma is certainly made by ordinary lightning.  It glows.  It stays hot 
for a while.  Such a ball could certainly propel itself around randomly by 
heating the air around it, not entirely unlike the way a bit of sodium 
propels itself around the surface of water.  If whatever holds it in a 
ball were to stop holding it in a ball suddenly, it would go "pow!"

It isn't an entirely satisfactory speculation, because it doesn't well 
explain why the stuff stays in a ball at all.  There would have 
to be some energy relationship at the bondary which is minimized, much 
like surface tension between water and air.  It's also just a speculation, 
because ball lightning, if it exists at all, doesn't happen often enough 
to be tested regularly, and I don't think anybody has figured out a 
reliable way of making it happen by controlling the environment.  Until 
this happens, it can't really advance to the hypothesis stage, because 
hypotheses must be testable.

Often there are people who claim to have seen ball lightning who express 
exasperation with scientists for not having figured it out already.  Such 
people might do well to report the exact atmospheric conditions when the 
ball lightning was observed, including air temperature, humidity, and 
barometric pressure.  If they have these numbers, I'm sure they would be 
useful in investigating it.  If they don't have these numbers, maybe this 
fact can give them an idea how difficult it is to investigate things which 
happen only infrequently.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Testability
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:08:10 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Dec11.151155.9476@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

|> Theories would only seem to lend support to one another if there is
|> reproducible supporting independent evidence supporting each one.  The

Not necessarily.  The relation could be more of a logical (even deductive)
nature.  Examples elude me at the moment -- it's been a long time.  Inter-
theoretic support also can take place because of a (perhaps partly) shared
empirical domain of theories (similar phenomena being explained/predicted)
or a shared theoretical domain (some theoretical terms appear in both
theories).

|> "inter-theoretic support" if you will, requires that the theories "fit"
|> together.  Is consistency evidence?  No.  But it seems to make two theories

Consistency is not *evidence*.  You could, for example, have a perfectly
*consistent* theory that was not *testable*.  But consistency is a criterion
of adequacy for a theory.

|> become parts of one larger theory.

You can look at it in this way, but at times mere consistency would yield
an uninteresting sense of "part of" for this larger theory.  Two theories
can be consistent if their sets of terms and predicates are completely
disjoint, for example.  Evolutionary theory is consistent with the theory
that the metric of physical space is effected by mass.  So you can say,
"Well, put those puppies together and you've got one big theory."  But
this is more akin to a mixture than a compound, if you'll pardon the chemical
analogy.








-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:24:57 GMT

In article <NICHAEL.92Dec18095658@kariba.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>   If an author "copies" one account from another changing a few
>   particulars as you characterize the Gospels (I think this is an
>   unfair characterization, it is more accurate to say that they were
>   based off of a common source) ...
>
>Then it's safe to say that you don't understand the issue at hand.

No problem...where is my understanding off?

>
>The authors of the various synoptic Gospels _aren't_ simply telling
>the same the story.  They are by and large, in detail, using the _same
>words_.  Moreover, where they vary from each other --including the
>introduction and exclusion of specific materials-- it is done in a
>consistent and clear manner.

1) I never said that they were independent sources.  I only
disputed if they were copying from each other, or a common source
(ever hear of Q?)

2) I think you exagerate a bit.  Yes, the passages are similar but
I don't think a "diff" of the synoptic gospels will be very kind
as you seem to imply.  As I said, IMO it is more accurate to think
of them based off of a common source or working document.

>
>There is _no_ sign that these Gospels are the result of random,
>independent creation.

Did I ever say they were?  Please reread my texts again...

>
>One is, of course, free not to accept the standard model of how the
>Synoptic Gospels achieved there current state.  However, one is _not_
>free to completely ignore the data.

>
>The current state of the text of these Gospels has certain specific
>and well-defined characteristics.  And claiming that the Gospels were
>written by seperate authors working in complete independence and
>isolation doesn't come close to explaining those characteristics.
>
>N

Again, please read posts more carefully before jumping in with a
reply.  I know in the rush of reading many xcns, that sometimes we
miss certain items or think that the author is saying one thing
when they really mean another. Heck, I've done that myself a few
times...but I'm trying to avoid that.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Arnica: Homeopathic
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:44:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec8.161944.7386@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>Arnica Montana is indeed homeopathic and is used externally diluted
>to an 8% mixture.

Hell, that's not dilute by homeopathic standards.  For homeopathy, a reasonable
dilution is on the order of .00000000000000008%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Robert Monroe/hemi-sync
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:36:24 GMT

In <1992Dec10.185945.3885@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
  Maybe we should test this by seeing if it makes it easier to pull
  down the subject's arm.

or leg.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     Now that I have my ``APPLE,'' I comprehend COST ACCOUNTING!!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Hoagland? What's the deal?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:59:29 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

NASA and honest, cynical skeptics are screwed either way.
If MO does not happen to image the Face at high res, that's
proof of the Conspiracy. If MO does image the Face at high 
res, it will obviously be a pile of rocks, and that's proof 
that (a) the Conspiracy tampered with the image, or (b) 
They are still there, dismantling the Face.

Maybe I should write Hoagland and offer him the following
bet: my $100 to his $1 that he will not admit that the
"Face" and the Cydonian "city" are natural formations,
before 1 Jan 2001. It might almost be worth it to see him 
eat his own nonsense.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,alt.atheism,alt.feminism
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:48:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.000907.11845@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <2933430839.2.p00168@psilink.com> p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>>
>>The (Great, Amazing, Fantastic?) Kreskin once claimed that hypnosis
>             ^^^^^^^
>>doesn't even exist.  Does Dr. Baker reach a similar conclusion?
>>
>
>    Yes; more precisely, that hypnosis is *not* a unique mental state,
>    but more an excercise in "social compliance".


I'd provisionally agree that hypnosis is not a *unique* mental state, 
being very close in my experience to lucid dreaming.  I've experienced 
hypnosis once, and though sceptical, even hilarious about it at the time, 
realized even when I was in a light hypnotic state that I was indeed in a 
trance.  It has nothing to do with "social compliance" as I understand it. 

It was because of this convincing experience of hypnosis that I hired 
a hypnotist to help my 80-year-old mother deal with her excruciating 
pain when she was dying of cancer.  It worked.  And I'll be happy to 
explain to anyone exactly how I knew it worked if you want to contact 
me via e-mail. 

I found the hypnotist through the national association that corresponds 
to the AMA.  He was a Congregationalist minister who discovered a 
talent for using hypnotism when he helped his 18-year-old daughter 
through her death from a brain tumor.  He had then for the past 20 
years worked with the local VA hospital with patients either terminally 
ill or those who experienced chronic pain. 

Several hypnotists I contacted said they would not work with the 
dying because these people were beyond consciously dealing with 
suggestion..  

Hypnotism is an effective means of dealing with certain conditions, 
and has absolutely nothing to do with moronic credulism or an 
eagerness to be "socially compliant." 

--Barbara
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: What did Judas betray?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:24:02

Friday December 11 1992, bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au writes to All:

avi>> Jesus could not be the Messiah simply because he achieved NOTHING
avi>> that the Messiah is supposed to achieve, such as World Peace,
avi>> Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, etc.

bdga> You're ignoring that the time for those prophecies is not yet up.  He
bdga> has not fulfilled all prophecies about him YET.

Neither has Ben Kosiba! Bar Kokhba for Messiah! Bar Kokhba for Messiah!

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Goodbyes
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:11 GMT

Several people have posted indicating they will not be reading
this group any more.

Why are these announcements posted?  Do we really care who
says they don't want to read this junk anymore?  They seem to
think we do.

Personally I think this is spreading Perot-itis.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: tenkasir@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Ram Tenkasir)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Date: 13 Dec 1992 07:14:27 GMT
Organization: WSOM CSG, CWRU, Cleve., OH, 44106, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: universe.som.cwru.edu


Any statistics on jobs for management/business Ph.ds?
From: slim@anduin.ocf.llnl.gov (Scott R Whitman)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Academia - advantages/disadvantages - thoughts?
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:55:49 GMT
Organization: LLNL




Ok folks, instead of discussing how difficult it is to get a job in
academia, how about if we discuss how difficult it is to *work* in
academia.  Any thoughts?

Disadvantages:

It is probably harder than industry since you typically get paid less,
have to right proposals to get funding (even for the summer), have
overworked/underpaid grad students doing research with/for you.
Funding is very tight lately with more and more people in academia and
budget cuts across the board in funding organizations.

I'd be particularly interested in those who have gone from industrial
experience to academia or vice versa and why.

My thoughts:

Advantages:

Your own work schedule.
No "real" boss.
Do your own research when you want/on what you want.
Teach (and learn) from your students.
Flexibility in your job.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott R. Whitman, Ph.D.		slim@llnl.gov
LLNL, L-301, P.O. Box 808	(510) 294-4109
Livermore, CA 94550		
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers