waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two >new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not >from the fire. > >	Thoughts? > >	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start >denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led >to the previous ruling appear.  On the other hand, it would be kind of scary if there were *never* a final verdict, because a party to litigation could keep saying "Oops!  I forgot to bring up this evidence," and demand a new trial.  You get one bite at the apple.  >	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?  >Shouldn't that be up to a jury?  It's up to General Motors to find those witnesses in the first litigation. You'd be up in arms if a plaintiff suing General Motors pulled the same stunt and made them relitigate an issue that they already lost.  It's not as if General Motors couldn't file enough discovery motions to delay the trial until they found all the witnesses they wanted.  >	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk >shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?    Define "obvious bias."  >Shouldn't that be enough for >a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?  Did GM move for a new trial on those grounds?  No?  Perhaps they had a  reason?
In article <1993Apr16.010908.22897@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)         writes... >In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes: >>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: >[...] >>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any >>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams. >  >You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE >opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own >agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen. >While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that >if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become >a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area. >I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is >more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many >instances. >  Pardon me for interrupting, but why doesn't anyone ever bring up other possibilities besides more government, less government, or no government and stop there? It seems to me that the problems with society go MUCH deeper than government. Democracies seem to reflective of the majority of society, both the good and the bad. If you take away the government, you still have the structural flaws in society, except this time, with no restraints. Yes? No? 	Why doesn't anybody ever discuss communal society, like a kibbutz? I never studied it on depth, but from what I've heard, the kibbutz in Isreal was very successful. It is also very close to what Aristotle and Socrates believed was the best. 	Sorry to detract from the discussion.  >>Just >>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and >>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how >>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human >>condition. >  >I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as >you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not >be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of >libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of >government coercion except in a very limited cases.  But what good is change if there is no tracable improvement in the human condition? Who would ever support the change if you tell them it won't  improve their lives? I know that there are, and will be, libertarians  who will jump in now and say that it WILL improve our lives. I can deal with that. All I'm saying is that improving the human condition must be the PRIMARY goal of any organization.  >Ian Sutherland >ian@eecs.nwu.edu  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson "This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com settled into the situation and found my bearings. THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk) writes: > 	A few weeks ago I found out about some of the politics that > is going on with the Texas bullet train, and was appalled at some > of the apparent underhanded tactics to push this thing through > without any public say whatsoever.  So, I wrote up a short  > editorial thing and posted it, hoping to get some discussion. >  > I suppose editorials don't do it here.  So now I am asking for  > the general opinion of the net about the proposed high speed  > train. >  > What do you think?  I personally think it is a stupid idea, and > that there are a few people somewhere who are going to get very > rich from this deal. >   My opinion is this:  In a society whose economy is primarily based on  capitalism, the role of government should be to provide those goods and  services that need providing for the general public's good.  BUT government  should supply those necessary goods and services only when it is impossible  for a private enterprise (or individual) to make money from providing them. I agree with some of the other posts that this train probably can not make  money and will rely heavily on State tax dollars.    The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?  I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think people in Dallas or Houston need it either.
Oh.. just a note, my usually poor typing is made even more dificult by the  small keyboard and mutiple connections I am piped through in order to access news while here in DC.  I'm really not trying to irritate the spelling mavens :-)  LUX ./. owen
In article <5APR199313494915@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:    In article <1993Apr4.105514.11664@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...    >	No, the definition of "resident" is very specific. It is the    >same thing as "alien". Look it up. Remember that the common usage of    >the words ARE NOT always their legal meaning.     This I gotta see some authority for.  from Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Ed., page 1473:  RESIDENCE.  A factual place of abode.  Living in a particular locality.  Reese v. Reese, 179 Misc. 665, 40 N.Y.S.2d 468, 472; Zimmerman, 175 Or. 585, 155 P.2d 293, 295.  It requires only bodily presence as an inhabitant of a place.  In re Campbell's Guardianship, 216 Minn. 113, 11 N.W.2d 786, 789.       As ``domicile'' and ``residence'' are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile.  Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.  Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile.  In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.  ``Residence'' demands less intimate local ties than ``domicile,'' but ``domicile'' allows absence for indefinite period if intent to return remains.  Immigration Act 1917, sec. 3, 8 U.S.C.A. sec. 136 (e, p).  Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting, C.C.A.N.Y., 74 F.2d 732, 733.  But see, Ward v. Ward, 115, W.Va 429, 176 S.E. 708, 709; Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Craig, 182 Okl. 610, 80 P 2d 221, 224; holding that residence and domicile are synonymous terms.  ``Residence'' has a meaning dependent on context and purpose of statute.  In re Jones, 341 Pa. 329, 19 A.2d 280, 282. Words ``residence'' and ``domicile'' may have an identical or variable meaning depending on subject-matter and context of statute.  Kemp v. Kemp, 16 N.Y.S.2d 26, 34, 172 Misc. 738.       Legal residence.  See Legal.  RESIDENT.  One who has his residence in a place.  See Residence.       Also a tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not to depart from the same; called, also, ``homme levant et couchant,'' and in Normandy, ``resseant du fief.''
In article AJv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, mrynders@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Maurice Rynders) writes: >In article <1993Apr12.143224.23273@alleg.edu> meyerj (Jon Meyer) writes: >>In article <1993Apr5.073813.5246@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter   >>D. Hampe) writes: >>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes: >>>  >>> >pps: Why is there Still NO CALL to end Clinton's Illegal >>> >war in Somalia?????  >>>  >>> Hold on there tex - it's not his war.  Everybody knows that >>> its Part of the ReaganBushLegacy. >                   ^^^^^^? >> >>Yeah, sure.  They created the starvation there.  They put the warlords   >>there.  Yep.  Sure.  Been brainwashed by the media, haven't you? > >He probably is. By the way: what has Reagan to do with this any way? I >bet most people had never even heard of Somalia, during the Reagan >administration!  Ok boys and girls,  "What was the 'Ogadan War'????"  The Money Raised in Band-Aid covered How Much of the Cost of Which Soviet Client State to replace what catagory of weapon system lost in the aforementioned war?  Why was the Joke: "We arm the World." Really Not that funny?  Gonzo Station is the designation for WHICH USN Op Area? and the primary threat targets in the Area Were:.....  ciao drieux
In article <C50FnH.Cvo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >  [With a tip of the hat to David Letterman for making the Top Ten format  >   so popular] > >Top Ten Reasons that Conservatives don't want to aid Russia:  <looking around>  Who?  Where? Don't look at me.  I want to send aid to Russia.  Many other conservatives do as well.
Do all those who are saying the government is responsible for the death of those in the compound also say that the Isrealis are responsible for the death of the Isreali athletes at the Olympics? Hey, the Palestinians and the Dividians COULD have given up peacefully ('yeah, and monkey could fly out my butt' - Wayne).
In article <1ppi1gINNg19@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:     >>>Does the greatly increased rates of incarceration amongst     >>>blacks show that they are dysfunctional or that the majority     >>>of them support criminal activity?     >>>     >Isn't this a matter of demographics? Doesn't this simply show     >that since criminal behaviour is common (or apt to be common)     >in the 18-34 (insert your favorite correct numbers here) year     >old range and since the percentage of blacks in this range is     >higher than in other groups, then it follows statistically     >that more blacks in prison is an expected result?     >     >Note that I haven't said anything about blacks being given     >stiffer or longer sentences than other groups. I'm sure this     >has to have an effect on the issue of over-representation of     >blacks in prison...  Blacks have the same (+- 2%) crime report rate, arrest rate, and incarceration rate for violent crimes.  So I doubt that for violent crimes, that there is any inherent bias mechanism present.  There is a wider discrepancy for all crimes for blacks wrt to 3 categories.  Interestingly enough, the discrepancy is the largest in the Southern United States -- where blacks are incarcerated well BELOW the average in the rest of the United States! Which points to an anti-bias-against wrt blacks.  In any case, for violent crimes and burglary and drug selling, blacks are reported 53%, arrested 44%, and are present in jails/prisons 47% (1988).  Considering that 12% of the population is black, 6% are black males, and some percentage of that is out of the high/low age groups, we do have a situation where (if I remember my old calculations right) 4% of the population commits almost half of the really nasty crimes.  Blacks with similar histories (crime) to whites get the same sentences, except in the South, where they receive around 20% less on paper!!    --  There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of environmental disaster. Weird, eh?
In article <1993Apr20.215539.346@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michae writes... >In article <1993Apr19.221331.26203@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >>In article <philC5n67A.MBF@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes... >>>In article <1993Apr17.013559.17391@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >>Well it really doesn't matter anyway because I really don't care what liars >>think of me anyway. What? Did I call you liars? You want proof? I'd be >>glad to provide it. I'm really sure which ones of you said these things  >>since you all sound the same anyway.  >  >>	One of you said "Nixon didn't start ANY secret wars." >  >>This is a lie. Nixon had full knowledge of the invasions of Laos and >>Cambodia, and then lied to the American public about it. >  >Note, however, that these were military actions but not wars.  What a JOKE! You can't actually believe what you just said. Can you? We  bombed and invaded these countries.  Notice the definition of war (from the American Heritage Dictionary): 	1) A state or period of armed conflict between nations or states. This qualifies the invasions of Cambodia and Laos as wars. >  >>	One of you said "Nixon didn't use the office of the presidency >>  for personal gain." >  >>This is a lie. The Senate committee issued an indictment that listed >>Nixon's crimes. The relevant ones were:  >>1) Violating his oath of office. >>2) ABUSING HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS >  >Excuse me, but neither of these refer to personal gain.  Then let me explain this to you REALLY slowly. Why did he abuse the  powers of his position? Could it have been to gain personal political  power? Naw, that would be too obvious. >  >>	So now, you're BIG thing that you have been flogging me with >>is that I mistook PRC for People's Republic of Cambodia. Since I knew >>that Cambodia was socialist at the time, and since your comment was >>right in middle of a conversation about Cambodia, I made the wrong >>assumption that we were talking about the same thing. >  >Ah, but Garrett, anyone who has to make assumptions about the meaning >of the initials PRC in a discussion about Asia is breathtakingly >ignorant.    And anyone who can only call names because his position is defensless is breathtakingly ignorant and desperate. I noticed that you edited out the other points were I proved you and Phil to be completely wrong.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Death to all modifiers, he declared one day, and out of       Garrett Johnson  every letter that passed through his hands went every      Garrett@Ingres.com  adverb and adjective. The next day he made war on articles.  The following day he blacked out everything in the letters  but "a", "an", and "the".  - Joseph Heller's Catch-22
In a previous article, helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) says:  >In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes: >> >>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be  >>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative >                     ^^^^^^^^^ >>	for our computer networks and telephone systems. >> >>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least >>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping" >        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>	bill. > >What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be        What kind of brainless clod doesn't understand the difference       between a "PROPOSED BILL, BLOCKED IN CONGRESS" and an "EXECUTIVE      ORDER, ISSUED BY CLINTON, AND CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS".          Here, let me give a remedial course in thinking:       In order to create the appearance of low interest rates, Uncle Sam      has shifted his debt from long-term to short-term securities.       In effect, Uncle Sam has transformed the Federal Goverment into      one giant S&L, waiting to blow.       Short-term rates rise --->  Interest payments on Deficit rise --->      Uncle Sammy has to borrow more ---->  Causing Short-term rates to rise.       Uncle Sammy gets caught in a positive feedback loop.  His options:         i) Raise taxes a truly unimaginable amount        ii)  Make truly unimaginable spending cuts      Results of i):  large numbers of pissed-off citizens     Results of ii): large numbers of pissed-off citizens
In article <C5uDn9.Gr@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) says:  >|>Many environmentalists attributed the 1988 drought in the U.S. to global  >|>warming, but researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in  > >|Educated and open minded environmentalists do not. > >One of the most effective come backs I have seen in a long time. > >Everybody who disagrees with me is stupid and closed minded.  No, what it means is that I, like a majority of environmental scientists/researchers, agree that El Nino/La Nina and the Southern Oscillations are the systems involoved in that climatic phenomena categorized by humans as a drought(1988).  Furthermore, in response to an earlier message, the 1992 U.S. est. output of sulfur dioxide (20 mill. tons) was equivalent to the entire output by the recent eruption of Mt. Pinautubo(Sp.).  Currently world carbon dioxide levels set at approx. 360 ppm, in the past 120,000 years it has never gone above 280 (this info was found using ice core samples from the joint French/Russian/U.S. Vostok project).  Furthermore,  the background emmisions of chlorine compounds into the atmoshpere is about 0.6 ppb annually, it now sits at 3.5.  This OVERWHELMING data/info is found in the World Resources doc. published by Oxford University.  The ozone hole in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres keeps getting bigger and stickin' around longer whilst skeptics ponder how wrong or corrupt all this data from government and international scientific institutions is.  It is a pity, that, if the skeptics are wrong and we base our complacency on their Limbaugh psycho babble, then we will find ourselves strapped by limited options with which to rectify the primal engineering of our industrial age.
In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes: >In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...  >>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that >>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d >>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.  >I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking >and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill >hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal >gain like Nixon did. NOT!  Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.  Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.  I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole, rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers of his office for personal gain.  You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these events occurred.  >>Along with normalized relations with the PRC.  >"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored >the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts >of course.
In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes... >	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be  >	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative >	for our computer networks and telephone systems. >  >	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least >	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping" >	bill.  I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for 6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative. >  >	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future. >	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport >	in the mail soon. >  >	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you  >	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while  >	you are still able. >  Have you? >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson "This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com settled into the situation and found my bearings. THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:  > Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits > if the oppertunity presented itself?  > I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a > huge variety of willing partners.  If true, and if gays were the same as straights except for sexual preference, I would imagine that gays would have much less sex than straights because the available pool for dates is less than one-tenth what it is for straights.  Somebody correct (flame) me please!
demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes: >	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two >new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not >from the fire. > >	Thoughts?  How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than unconscious?  >	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start >denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led >to the previous ruling appear. > >	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?  >Shouldn't that be up to a jury?  What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics, emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and forgot to call all of your witnesses.  If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new expert witnesses).
In article <h3lnrb8@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes: >vengeance.  That's all.  It's no deterrent.  It serves no  It seems to deter those who are executed from future criminal activity.  >Yeah yeah yeah... and sure would be nice if we didn't apply the >death penalty disproportionately to minorities.  I'll revisit my >opinion on the death penalty when there are more whites up for >it than blacks.  I.e., when hell freezes over.  Why don't you compare the rates at which blacks and whites commit crimes? Blacks commit crimes disproportionately, so in a perfectly fair penal system, blacks would be disproportionately represented.  (Note: black vs. white crime rates is not a racial thing.  It's probably an economic thing: poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and blacks are more likely to be poor.  The way to reduce the proportion of minorities in prison is to increase the wealth of minorities.)