waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2: > >    Male sex survey: Gay activity low > >    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough >    examination of American men's sexual practices published since >    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2 >    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and >    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. > >    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday >    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than >    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional >    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.  1) So what?  2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...  >The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners. >The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.  Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....  >Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson, >and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that >homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general >male population.    And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for you....  >It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for >straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically >how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.  Fuck off
In article <1993Apr16.030703.23005@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes: >Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready  >immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one  >frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health  >care service. > >(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are  >slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't  >deserve my tax help).  Hmmmmm......what about their kids?  cpk --  It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
In article <1993Apr20.131452.23310@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:     >Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`. Are you using     >a legal term or a proper dictionary term? Molest, as far as I     >can remember, means `to do damage to person(s)`. My mate,     >Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour when he was 14. Is     >that molestation? A number of my friends (straight) lost     >their virginity before that. Were they 'molested'? They told     >me that they thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I see no     >damage.     >     >Please stop pushing your objective morality on others. If you     >push, people won't fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're     >right!', they'll just push back.     >     >Have you signed up for that logic course yet?  Yep -- and the child that "Tree Frog Johnson" adbucted for 6 months reportedly "enjoyed" her experiences as well. They trained her using food. As an FBI agent reported (on his disciplinary action for beating up "Tree Frog") "when you see a 2&1/2 year old baby cheerfully tell you she wants a peanut butter sandwich and she'll suck your pee-pee, you lose control".  You are quite sick.   --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
In article <C5rusq.M6M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> azoghlin@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Very Old Freshman (VOF)) writes: >Critisism is too easy. What solutions do people have that  would have been >better than what the FBI had been doing for the last few months?  First of all, I wouldn't have gone after the Davidians for a firearms violation which I object to in the first place.  Second, I wouldn't have executed a search warrant via an armed assault when all the Davidians were sure to have been there.  Third of all, I wouldn't have cut off all outside communication to Koresh.  And I certainly wouldn't have gone in with a tank-- time was on the FBIs side.  Since they had outside resupply, they could wait indefinitely.
In article <1qp5juINNgu5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes: > In article <1993Apr14.135948.3024@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>,  > tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) said: >  >> A good case? A F**KING GOOD CASE? The defense lawyer asked the victim >> questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate >> in?"  and you think he made a good case????? >  > Speaking as someone who's only about six weeks and a $6,900 tuition bill > away from becoming an unemployed slob with a law degree, I'd really like > to see a transcript of this trial.  I'd especially like to know what > happened immediately after the defense attorney asked that question > (assuming that the reports that he did so are accurate... I'm not > accusing Tom Farrell of making anything up, but this _is_ the sort of > case that spawns garbled misquotes, false rumors and urban legends like > tribbles).  It'd be nice to think that the prosecutor objected > (irrelevant, prejudicial, inflammatory... take your pick) and that the > judge upheld the objection. > I did hear this question asked during a radio news update of the case.  (They were talking about the ongoing trial and had some audio clips).  Immediately after the defense attorney asked the question, there was an "Objection!" heard in the background.  The clip ended at that point so I don't know if the objection was upheld.  I can't imagine NC is *that* bad.   >> The arresting officer said the bastards told him they did it on >> purpose and hoped the victim would die, and you think the defense made >> a good case????? No wonder we're losing!  We're aparently not trying >> to win! >  > Again, I'd like to see the transcript... I'd read the latter bit of that > in the news media (the arresting officer testifying that one of the > defendants calmly asked him about the condition of the "homo" and said > that he hoped he'd die) but this is the first I've heard of the officer > testifying that one of the defendants actually said that he did anything > at all, let alone that he did it on purpose. > This I didn't hear as an audio clip but heard it reported a number of times on news stories both during and after the trial.  Now the "we did it on purpose" thing is stretching, I think it was something more like--he had it coming.  If somebody else remebers better than I on this second point, feel free to clarify.            Frank  --------------------------------------------------------------------------  Frank R. Chloupek  CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu  Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University (Not just any Ohio State University)
In article <15450@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >In article <pdb059-160493111229@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:  $># Item number 1:  in a previous posting, you stated that you had found $># "overwhelming support for child molestation" in soc.motss:  $># You have (finally) responded to this one.  I have read your complete file $># of postings to soc.motss and to put it bluntly, it does not support your $># assertion.  In short, this claim is bogus.  Thank you for confirming this.  >All those postings in defense of adults having sex with children, and >you just choose to claim that they don't say anything of the sort. >There's no point in discussing this any further, then.  You are clearly >a liar, without morals of any sort, prepared to justify child molestation.  Clayton, are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on USENET?  You claimed you had postings from a dozen (i.e. 12) soc.motss posters that "supported child molestation". (Point aside that they were really defending abolishing or modifying the age of consent laws, or the right to be ATTRACTED but don't act upon desires for children).  so 12 out of thousands is an "overwhelming majority".  You never cease to amaze me.  And you still haven't told me why my relationship with my partner is immoral.  Brian D. Kane
In article <04.17.93b@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu> writes: >So ... the Jury will be making its announcement at 7:00 AM Saturday >morning Pacific Time .... 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Why such an ungodly >hour? > >I guess its because the news is not what the government wanted to hear; >Either the police officers have been found innocent - or - after a week,  >the jury is hung ... neither good news from the government's point of  >view, as they desparately needed some scapegoats in Los Angeles.  Wrong on both accounts.  >Maybe by making the announcement at 7:00 AM on the west coast, they >figure all the rioters will be asleep, giving the troops time to move >into place.   No one is a "rioter" until they participate in a "riot", which is  unlikely to happen, now.  Most of the *people* in L.A. are likely to have gotten up early to  listen to the court announcement.  >I guess we can look forward to a weekend of rioting, eh?   Sorry to disappoint you, but this seems unlikely.  >The Mayor of >Los Angeles, in a press conference about 3:00 AM Saturday morning, in >announcing that the jury would give its verdict later this morning >(just an hour away as I write this) would not say what that verdict >is, but I think he was told ... in his press conference he said >"anyone rioting will be stopped dead in their tracks ..."  I don't think he was told. However, his statement was still appropriate.  >Meanwhile, following the announcement of the jury's verdict, the >judge, jury and assorted court personnel will be evacuated from the >building via helicopters landing on the roof of the courthouse. They >can't  even walk out through the front door with their heads held >high.   Jury duty is a solemn duty to be taken seriously.  It is not meant  to be a source of pride or instant fame.  >Won't the rioters have a surprise waiting for them when they wake up >later today!  Well, the many *people* who got up early to go to the court to hear  the verdict found that justice was served.  Given your dire and  cynical predictions, I imagine that it is you who will be surprised.  :-)  > > >Patrick Townson
Joe,       As usual, this issue of dysfunction, of bad values, of messed up culture  is easily embraced by non african americans when it comes to explaining problems in our community. From your post, you apparently find the idea that something is wrong with African Americans, value-wise, culture wise or something, very appealing. I never cease to be amazed at how eager non african americans are to embrace theories about our problems which basically assert that something is wrong with us. The socio-economic factors which we know help  to produce high crime levels, like poverty, which exists among us in large  proportion, I mean when it comes to discussion of african american problems, we somehow become exempt from all these types of factors, and the problem is  laid at the doorstep of some neboulous dysfunction we supposedly have. But  nobody attributes crime amongst white americans to dysfunction. No, that has  socioeconomic factors to it, but for africa americans, its gotta be a  dysfunction.  Basically, I think this tendency for non african americans to believe that something is wrong with us exists because non african americans don't want to deal with the possiblility that the society is deeply biased against african americans, and that this is about 80% of the problem. It could not possible be that the society is so deeply racist and structured against us, that this has a very effective negative effect on us. No, something is wrong with us. Non african americans are quick to disregard what we have to say, because they  are so busy trying to find something wrong with us, instead of taking a good  hard look at the thing we say are doing us damage. I would get angry if it  werent' so damn typical.
In article <16APR199317110543@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... > >>  >:This is a strawman argument and fails on several grounds.  In this case, >:"limited" and "big" government are not defined.  I would point out that >:Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia are by some definitions nations >:with "limited" government, while the US, Canada, and nations in Western  >:Europe (where "people would rather live") are often pointed out as  >:nations with "big government" from a libertarian point of view.   > >Well, let me help by explaining the difference between a linited government >and a failed government.  A limited government has its powers clearly >circumscribed,  but is fully capable of enforcing its decisions within >those circumscribed areas.  A failed government is incapable of >enforcing its decisions except sporadicly.  Two completely different beasts.  Of course, one again faces the question of how one circumscribes government power (and keeps it circumscribed) in a complex society when it is in the  interest of neither capitalists nor consumers to refrain from using  government power for their own ends.  But apart from that little  conundrum...  It would seem that a society with a "failed" government would be an ideal setting for libertarian ideals to be implemented.  Now why do you suppose that never seems to occur?... > >>  >:The argument is not between those who want "limited" government and those >:who want "unlimited" government.  It is between those who believe >:government regulation in a capitalist economy serves worthwhile ends and >:those who believe such regulation is neither desirable on empirical  >:grounds nor justifiable on ideological grounds. > > >..."regulation" is such a vauge word...    I wouldn't call it "vague."  I'd call it elastic.  All "regulation" is  not necessarily the same.  By opposing all government regulation, some  libertarians treat every system from a command economy to those that regulate relatively free markets as identical.  That's one reason many of the rest of us find their analysis to be simplistic.   jsh >Mr. Grinch
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:  > There was once the following joke:  > How many supply-siders does it take to screw in a light bulb?  > None.  They let the free market do it.  If the free market places an attractive price on the screwing in of a light bulb, you can bet your bottom dollar that the light bulb will most certainly get screwed in -- and most promptly at that, too.
Haston, Donald Wayne (haston@utkvx.utk.edu) wrote: : Currently, I use a shareware program called Graphics Workshop. : What kinds of things will Hijaak do that these shareware programs : will not do?  I also use Graphic Workshop and the only differences that I know of are that Hijaak has screen capture capabilities and acn convert to/from a couple of more file formats (don't know specifically which one).  In the April 13 issue of PC Magazine they test the twelve best selling image capture/convert utilities, including Hijaak.
Cyberspace Buddha (cb@wixer.bga.com) wrote: : renew@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Rene Walter) writes: : >over where it places its temp files: it just places them in its : >"current directory".  : I have to beg to differ on this point, as the batch file I use : to launch cview cd's to the dir where cview resides and then : invokes it.  every time I crash cview, the 0-byte temp file : is found in the root dir of the drive cview is on.  This is what I posted that cview uses the root directory of the drive cview is on.  However, since It has so much trouble reading large files from floppy, I suspect that it uses the root directory of the drive the image files are on.
In article <1993Apr15.164940.11632@mercury.unt.edu> Sean McMains <mcmains@unt.edu> writes: >Wow! A 68070! I'd be very interested to get my hands on one of these, >especially considering the fact that Motorola has not yet released the >68060, which is supposedly the next in the 680x0 lineup. 8-D  The 68070 is a variation of the 68010 that was done a few years ago by the European partners of Motorola. It has some integrated I/O controllers and half a MMU, but otherwise it's a 68010. Think of it the same as the 8086 and 80186 were.  		Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz
In <1pscti$aqe@travis.csd.harris.com> srp@travis.csd.harris.com (Stephen Pietrowicz) writes: >How do you go about orienting all normals in the same direction, given a  >set of points, edges and faces?  This algorithm works well for me:  Algorithm to attempt to find outward-facing normals: --------------------------------------------------- First, mark all faces as UNKNOWN.  Then create an edge dictionary that allows you to find all of the faces sharing a given edge (where an edge is two integers representing the two shared vertices).  Pick an arbitrary face and mark it COUNTER_CLOCKWISE.  Using the edge dictionary, orient all surrounding faces based on the orientation of this face.  And recurse for all surrounding faces, consistently orienting the entire surface.  Find the average of the vertices in this surface.  Using that point, calculate a volume measurement, taking into account the face's orientation.  If the volume turns out to be positive, assume the faces are oriented correctly.  If it is negative, reverse their orientations (mark them CLOCKWISE).  If any faces are still UNKNOWN after this, choose another face and go through the algorithm again.  At the end, faces marked CLOCKWISE must have their indices reversed before facet normals are found.  (Note: if you are running on Silicon Graphics machines and buy the IRIS Inventor 3D toolkit developers package you have the source to this algorithm-- see /usr/src/Inventor/tools/ivnorm/.  If you're not... sorry, I can't give out the source, and even if I could it relies heavily on Inventor).
In <1993Apr8.122037.19260@sun1x.res.utc.com> mark@sun1x.res.utc.com (MARK STUCKY) writes:  >In <1pr9qnINNiag@tahko.lpr.carel.fi>,  >   Ari Suutari (ari@tahko.lpr.carel.fi) wrote:  >   > Does anybody know if there are any good 2d-graphics packages >   > available for IBM RS/6000 & AIX ? I'm looking for something >   > like DEC's GKS or Hewlett-Packards Starbase, both of which >   > have reasonably good support for different output devices >   > like plotters, terminals, X etc.     Try graPHIGS from IBM... It is an excellent package! :^)  Doug
Hi Netters,  I'm building a CAD package and need a 3D graphics library that can handle some rudimentry tasks, such as hidden line removal, shading, animation, etc.  Can you please offer some recommendations?  I'll also need contact info (name, address, email...) if you can find it.  Thanks  (Please Post Your Responses, in case others have same need)
hi netters,  	I'm doing a project which is about image analysis.  Firstly, I have to find out any restrictions or limitations on the colour display on various kind of workstations, they are DECstation, HP, Amiga, Apollo.  	Secondly, I read from some graphic texts that image is displayed in 24 bites(please point out to me if I got it wrong).  But, the images which I will deal with are displayed in 16 bites by the software they are using currently.  So, will there be any problems to display them under X-windows in the future? Because we are thinking to implement the GUI by X-windows for our project   	Is there any person here can help me to solve the problem or query above?  Or, give me some advice or suggestion where I can find them out.   	Please send me an e-mail if there are any.  Thanks in advance.    						Yours 			 						Christine Chan
I am in the market for a 24-bit graphics card for a PC (ISA bus), and was wondering if anyone had any comments (good? bad? otherwise?) regarding the Diamond Stealth 24?
srnelson@speedsail.Eng.Sun.COM (Scott R. Nelson) writes:  > dave.mikelson@almac.co.uk (Dave Mikelson) writes: > ... > >Does anyone know if there is an 'open day' for the public at any time? > >That is, not to attend conferences, but just browse around the  > >exhibits.  Or are the exhibits etc just for fully registered attendees? > was free as long as you got it to Siggraph on or before July 7. > For 1991, it was similar: $20.00 or free before July 9.  It is safe > to assume that the same kind of deal will be available this year.  	I just got my advance program and the "card in the back" is for the 	Exhibits Plus program -- the exhibits plus admission to a number of 	conference venues, including a special general session, "Behind the 	Scenes: Computer Graphics in Film."  Admission is not free, but is a 	nominal $30 (exhibits are open August 3 -- 5).  	To get a copy of the advance program, you can call 312-321-6830; the 	advance program itself is a good indication of the excitement of the 	conference!  >  > Register early and get in for free.  	Sorry -- doesn't work this year!
I plan to post a summary of responses to this as soon as I have working code, which I will also include.  The intersection of 3 planes method looks best, but my implementation based on a short article in  Graphics Gems I doesn't work.  I may be misinterpreting, of course.  I had avoided the simultaneous solution of the plane equations in favor of dot and cross products, but the former may actually be better.  In either case a matrix determinant needs to be computed (implicitly in the solution of linear equations).  To get the planes, I was taking the midpoint of the line from, say, P1 to P2, and setting the normal as the "normalized" vector from P1 to P2. These just plugged into the formula in Graphics Gems.  HOwever, the resulting center point is only occasionally equidistant from all 4 of my test points (for different tests).  My matrix/vector math is very rusty, but it looks like I need to verify the formula, or use the simultaneous equation solution, which will require bringing in another routine I don't have (but should be easy to find).  Another method is to first find the center of the circle defined by 2 sets of 3 points, and intersecting the normals from there.  This would also define the circle center.  However, small numerical imprecisions would make the lines not intersect.  Supposedly 3 planes HAVE to intersect in a unique point if they are not parallel.  Ed  Thanks to all who answered so far.