The following partial summary of a Theory of the Universe includes a
little-known description of the CREATION of our Solar System:

                      LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics

               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years!

               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of
          space and time:

               (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME."

               (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN."

               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL
          DATUM").

               At each step in the development, Larson was able to
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY
          BURSTS).

               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom,
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility
          and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of
          matter.

               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy
          complex mathematics, in his books.

          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson

               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early
          books are out of print now, but still available through
          inter-library loan.

               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959)

               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)

               "Beyond Newton" (1964)

               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965)

               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971)

               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979)
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super
                                                            Collider".]
                    [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]

               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982)

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.]

               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)

               All but the last of these books were published by North
          Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and
          should be available via inter-library loan if your local
          university or public library doesn't have each of them.

               Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available
          from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS),
          1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the
          organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.
          They have other related publications, including the quarterly
          journal "RECIPROCITY".

          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background

               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he
          died in May 1989.  He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in
          Engineering Science from Oregon State University.  He
          developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE
          chemical properties based only on the elements used.

               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer,
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC..

               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER.

               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now!

               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres",
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG.

               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior,
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to
          Minneapolis after retiring.

          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!

               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific"
          value.

               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.)
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab,
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible
          with their environment.

               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW!

               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for
          this WASTED money?!

               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
          the "Supercollider"?!

               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST.

          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter

               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light,
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum".

               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet,
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each
          other.

               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our
          MATERIAL half.

          LARSONIAN Relativity

               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter,
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".

               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury.

               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.).

               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low
          relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR.
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing
          about this.]

               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory,
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL
          FANTASY).

          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION

               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456
          pages, indexed, hardcover.

               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago.

               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc..

               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with
          OPEN MINDS!

               The following is an example of his Theory's success:
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he
          had an immediate related explanation for them also.

          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of
          directional coincidence).

               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all
          directions uniformly.)

               I wonder how close to us in space a source location
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to
          stop it!

               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS!

          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation

               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them.

               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey
          B. Larson.

               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION"
          and in some of his other books.

               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and
          lighter elements.

               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some
          of his books [better than I can].

               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while.

               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R
          Diagram.

               The chances of the two masses falling back into the
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY
          system, orbiting each other.

               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron
          stars", "black holes", etc..

          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS!

               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive
          his own version of Bode's Law.

          "Black Hole" FANTASY!

               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than
          the sum of the two original "black holes".

               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black
          holes", etc.!

               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want
          to "prove" their theory.

               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT!

               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of
          Unified Science).

          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.

               I found a possible clue about why they might work on
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe.  I quote one paragraph:

               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."

               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and
          "below" labels mixed up.]

               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
          light!

               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge
          is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the
          rotation of the particle.)

               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
          confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is
          generated in clouds.

          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics

               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE".

               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan,
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have.

               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars.

               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals,
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed.

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS).

               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED.


Hi All.

 I am working on a project in visual basic ver. 2.0 and I need to show
 PostCript files I am getting from another aplication.
 So, because i can't show PostScript directly form Visual Basic (at least I
 don't know how), i need a utility to convert them to BMP, WMF.

 Any help will be appreshieated.

 kobi elimelech
---------------------------------------------------------------
 messges can be sent to me at kobi@asimov.hacktic.nl


[ Deletia; in case anybody hadn't noticed, Frank and I are debating
  "objective morality", and seemingly hitting semantics. ]

      It may be that, being a non-native English-speaker, I've
misunderstood your usage of "objective", and tried to debate something
you don't assert; my apologies. I'm at a loss to imagine what you really
do mean, though.

      Wrong point. The age of the universe has no direct effect on
humanity's sticking power, in the way the moral system of a society can
have.

      I'm saying the Universe has a "real age", because I see evidence
for it; cosmology, astronomy and so on. I say this age is independent of
people's opinions of it, because I know different people have a lot of
different opinions in the matter, yet empirical tests consistently seem
to give roughly the same results.

      I can't see how it does that. Put a creationist to the task of
performing the tests and calculations, see to it (s)he makes no blatant
errors in measuring or calculating, and the result of the test will be
the same.

      Because logically consistent empirical tests contradict their
opinion. If those tests were just my opinion, then their own tests
(which would then be their opinion) would contradict mine, even if we
conducted said tests in identical manner, no? They don't, which I take
as showing these tests have some validity beyond our opinion of them.

      Map the activity of nerves and neural activity, if you mean
physical pain. You have a sharp point, I'll give you that; but you still
haven't given me a way to quantify morality.

      We agree. Hypotheses, however, can change; I hold that there is no
"ultimate hypothesis of morality" towards which these changes could
gravitate, but that they could be changed in any way imaginable,
producing different results suitable for different tasks or purposes.

      "Better" and "worse" are (almost?) always defined in the context
of a moral system. Your prediction will _always_ be correct, *within*
*that* *moral* *system*. What you need now is an objective definition of
"good" and "bad"; I wish you luck.

      Isn't that what _you're_ doing, when assuming an "objectively
real" morality? Besides, what _exactly_ is provably wrong with my
statement?

      Claiming there is no objective morality is suddenly a positive
claim? Besides, I think I _can_ lend some credence to my claim; ponder
different individuals, both fully functional as human beings and members
of society, but yet with wildly different moral codes. If morality was
"objective", at least one should be way off base, but yet hir
'incorrect' morality seems to function fine. How come?

      As for producing these individuals, it might be easiest to pick
them from different societies; say, an islamic one and some polynesian
matrilineal system, for example (if such still exist).

[ deletia - testing for footballs on desks ]

      One thing is "good" under some circumstances, because we wish to
achieve some goal, for some reason. Other times we wish to do something
else, and that thing is no longer so clearly "good" at all.

      Some things are hard to make "good", because we'd seldom if ever
wish to achieve the sort of goal mass murder would lead one into. Still,
the Aztecs were doing fine until the Spaniards wiped them out.

      I almost always know what "good" means; sometimes I even know why.
I never claim this "good" is thereby fixed in stone, immutable.

[...]

      Yes, me too, and I've tried a thing or two down that line; it
doesn't look good for objective values to me at all.


I suppose after Waco, it's only prudent to leave the "to the death" part out.


[heats of formation deleted]

The major problem with this is that the reaction takes place in an ACID solution.
PbSO4 is soluble in an acid solution and will not precipitate out.  Also, H2SO4
is in a water solution as 2H30+ and SO4--.  Thus the heats of formation of
PbSO4 and H2SO4 are for the most part irrelevant.

As it turns out the reaction is indeed exothermic (heat producing).
(More about this later.)

What actually happens to make the battery completely useless is this:
(we're talking lead-acid batteries of course)
The battery slowly self discharges.  As this discharge takes place two things
happen. -The level of Pb++ ions in the acid solution increases (i.e. the lead
           and lead oxide plates are dissolved).
        -The level of H30+ ions in the acid solution decreases (i.e. the solution
           becomes less acidic, or more like water if you like).
Now, as the post to which I am responding correctly stated, PbSO4 will precipitate
in a WATER (non-acid) solution.  When the battery dies (i.e. is fully discharged)
we end up with a high concentration of Pb++ and SO4-- in water.  So PbSO4
forms in the solution and FALLS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BATTERY (of course this
happens in varying degrees, the more discharged, the more precipitate forms).

The precipitate forms a conductive layer on the bottom of the battery.  If
there is enough of the lead and lead oxide plates left to touch the precipitate
(more common in a newer battery) a dead short results.

I have seen products in automotive shops to correct this condition, but they
are for the most part useless.  They can dissolve the PbSO4 but cannot restore
the lead and lead oxide plates properly.  You may have some success with
these products for a newer battery.

[stuff deleted]
[stuff deleted]

This stuff is just made up by the author and is completely invalid.
In fact the discharge reaction takes place at a higher rate at higher
temperatures.  A logical consequence of the above argument is this:
"If you really want your car to start, lower the battery temperature to
 -50 to 'pull' the reaction along."  We all know from experience (at
 least those of us in Canada do (it gets cold up here)) that this is
not true.  If we want to start our car on a really cold day we warm
the battery.

(Besides which, there is not enough energy released through self discharge
 to appreciably raise the temperature.  The air would amply dissipate any
 such heat, whether the bottom of the battery was insulated or not.  This
 is of course irrelevant, since you would WANT the battery to be cool
 during storage.)


	I'm also interested in Mac based BBS, but not in Chicago.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could post a list of BBSs
in the LA area. Preferably (818) but also (213). Thanks.  Dan


It's not the temperature, it's the karma.  You see, dirt has good karma,
since it's all organic and full of living things, but cement is all squared
off and artificial looking, and has lost its karma in the process.  Being
a karma sink, it sucks all of the good karma out of the battery which is no
longer able to keep a charge.  Because wood is also good and organic, putting
a board between the battery and the cement will fix the problems.


it's
with
cars;

I wonder if you could focus the RFI "gun" so the cops wouldn't have this
problem???


Could someone please post a list of good three-D modelers that will
run on SPARC stations; preferably cheap.  Thanks


To put it bluntly, they are full of it.

Paying a tape is playing a tape.  There is no difference whether the
output goes to a second VCR or to a TV.  (How the VCR or TV reacts to
this signal is a different story - see messages pertaining to macrovision
copy protection.)

In order for the tape to self-destruct, it would have to have circuitry
of its own within the tape case.  The circuit would have to somehow
magically determine what the output of the VCR is connected to.  The
circuit would then have to have an erasing head to actually do anything.

It is a pretty lame scare tactic.  (I've seen something similar on a BBS.
When the SYSOP wanted to, he could have a message sent to the user's end
saying that it is sending the code to format your HD.)


In Space Digest V16 #487,

...about the protests over proposals to put a giant billboard into orbit,

Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short,
an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on
the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there
are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution
complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against
orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain
on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.

Regular orbiting spacecraft are not the same in this respect, since they are
more like abstract entities, but a billboard in space would be like a beer
can somebody had thrown on the side of the road: just trash.


Yeah, but I hate to follow them with the exhaust at ground level. Not all
diesels are well maintained, either, it seems they run for so long that
people keep them going long after the top end is worn out.


jfc> If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
jfc> galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
jfc> rays?

and later...

JB> So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
JB> some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
JB> could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
JB> events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
JB> be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays
JB> being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.

 0.

 Well, maybe not zero, but very little.  At the typical energies for
 gamma rays, the Galaxy is effectively transparent.

 Hans Bloemen had a review article in Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. a few
 years back in which he discusses this in more depth.


What's the best way to archive GIF's?  I zip them and they only shrink 1%.  I
have most compression programs except stacker which I heard was good for GIF's.

Thanx
-Brando


Of course,

	How many government projects after Using PERT, GANT, C.P.M.s
Process flow diagrams,  Level 5 software projects....  actually
come in on schedule and under Cost.  I know the GAO determined
that 80% of all NASA projects  miss their budgets due to failing
to adequately measure  engineering developement costs.

Me, I am allin favor of Government R&D.  I thought Bell Labs was one of the best
to do research.   I don't think the government should pour money
into any one sector,  but should engage in projects which naturally
push the state of the art.

THings like  High tech  construction projects,  apollo  was worth it for the doing.  Running hte national labs.  The SSC is grossly overweight,  but
is a reasonable project at a lower cost.

Unfortunately support for solo investigators is direly neglected.

Maybe what they should do, is throw out much of the process and just tell
new PH'ds,  you get a 1 time grant of $50,000.00   If you produce, you
can  qualify for other grants.  If you don't  you never get in again.

THis way  young people get a shot at  reserach,  and older  stale
scientists don't dominate the process.


Not to inject a non-automotive note to this thread, but the BMW opposed
twin used in motorcycles for a *long* time is and always has been known as
a "boxer".


Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
more persuasive than having devotions with him.


Brian Kendig first states:

I ask:

Brian Kendig states:

Make up your mind.

And we do not end perfect either.  We are never perfect.  Can you name
one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect?
Good luck.

Then you lie to yourself.  You do not know your shortcomings.  I have clearly
shown one of your shortcomings, if not two.  That is, ignorance of the Bible
and the arrogance you demonstrate butchering it without even knowing its
contents.

Because you have been too prideful to examine the record of him for yourself.
And to demonstate your lack of support for your conclusion, I bet you do not
even know what the word "Christ" means.  Or which prophet used "Christ" to
describe the "Son of Man".

Yes.  I agree with that.  So we must learn first.  Read the Bible.  Come
up with our own interpretation.   Evaluate what is being said
and by whom.  Check the history books as well.  Compare someone else's
interpretation with your own.  Then make a judgment.  But I tell you the
truth, 99% of what is being said in the Bible needs interpretation as
much as a coffee cup needs interpretation.

And remember, the Bible isn't a Guru's Esoteric Guide to Metaphysics.
It doesn't take a theologian to understand what is being said.    The
Bible is a bunch of testimonies from people like you and I addressed
to people like you and I.  These guys wrote down what they saw and heard.  Is it
their open diary--and they want to tell you something.  And because they
want you to know something, they make it very clear what they want you to
know.   They didn't encouch their ideas in esoteric rhetoric, but in simple
straight-forward language.

You have chosen the road that avoids the Bible.  You have chosen the
road that avoids a confrontation with the living God because that
road doesn't look appealing to you.  You rather build your own road.  One
that goes far away from that confrontation.   But be assured of this,
you will have to confront him one day willingly or unwillingly.

I see what you mean.  I hear what your saying.  I am not degrading your
life.  But I have heard the same irrational excuses for years.  There is nothing
new in what you are saying.  And by your own words, you are "spouting off"
contradictions.   If contradictions give you meaning, then your life must
be sad.

Bingo.  For God so loved the world, he GAVE his only begotton to son
so that whososever belives in him will have ever lasting life.   I look
what God *did*.  He has given his Son, even to his death, so that I can have
hope in his resurrection and know that life isn't for nothing, but has
glorious purpose.

Because you turn your eyes away from testimony and history.  You choose to
lie to yourself that he doesn't exist, for you ignore what has been said for
thousands of years.  You sound exactly, almost verbatim, like the Lazarus of
Jesus's story starting in Luke 16:19.  And the conclusion of that story is a
bleak one.  Lazarus wound up in hell.  The story ends like this:

      "For if Lazarus doesn't even listen to Moses and the Prophets,
       he won't even believe if a man rose from the dead."

Arrogance at its best.   The fact is, you are not rational.  Several specific
cases  have already been cited.   And again with this new statement, you show more irrationality with regards to heaven.  Jesus does tell you something of what to expect
in heaven.  Jesus expects you to use your brain to believe in him.  Jesus does
not expect you to placate either.  Jesus wants you to willingly come to him, but not
as his grovelling slave, but rather as his brother who will share in his
glorious riches.  Why do you not pick up the Bible and read it for yourself.
You maintain you have an open mind.  See whether you are lying to yourself for
yourself.

I do understand what you said.   But that's is not what I feel went amiss here.

You missed the point.  Living a "good life" has no eternal consequences.
Once they close the amusement park of life, to you that is the end.  To you, it
is over.  To you, therefore, your time spent in the amusement park is meaningless.
It has no eternal consequences to you nor to anyone left on earth.

But then you contradict yourself.  From a previous post, you said doing evil things
is bad.  To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things.  It is
all meaningless in the end anyway.  So go rob a bank.  Go tell someone
you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag.  What's restraining you?
Life after all, has no eternal consequences and accountability is irrelevant.

At which time, you are truly not the master of yourself.

So you (and your holy book) say.  By the same token, therefore, Santa
Claus delivers toys every xmas.  Don't you see?  I have NO REASON to
believe that what you say is true.  Please give me some reason that I
can't similarly apply to Santa Claus.

You have EVERY reason to believe that what Jesus says and the witnesses
of Jesus say are true.  But you choose to be unreasonable and "ignore" the
reasons.  By definition, "ignorance".

Santa Claus is said to live at the North Pole and have a squad of elves
and flying reindeer.   Ever see a flying reindeer?  Has anyone in human
history seen a flying reindeer?  Has anyone seen a reindeer whose nose
blinks red?

On the other hand, are people born in Bethlehem?  Was Nebuchandezzar really
a king?  Was Daniel really one of his court officials?  Were David and Solomon
really kings of Israel and Judah?  Was their really a king called Jehoachin?
Did Sennecherib really attack Jerusalem 600 years before Christ?  Did
Sennacherib really lose his battle--and badly?   Was there really a
Caiaphas who interrogated Jesus?   Yes, yes, yes . . . history verifies
it.  It is NONFICTION.

Do you have a problem discerning truth from fiction?  Perhaps you
can't evaluate the context of Grimm's Fairy Tales apart from
that of the Scientific American.  I suppose you treat both with equal
truthfulness or equal falsity.  Is this what you are telling me?  Or
is it that just do want to read the Scientific American and find out
that it's not a fairy tale?

Get real.  Have you ever been to Zaire?  Do you have to go there
to be  assured that there really is such a place?  Given your
irrationality, I take it you have never used a map in your life.


:   Why does a lead acid battery discharge and become dead (totally unuseable)
: when stored on a concrete floor?

It could be that you stored it somewhere that it could become covered
by moisture or damp air, which would short out the terminals.

The same thing happens to my car (Citroen 2CV) -- damp gets under the
bonnet (US: "hood") and shorts the spark-plugs to earth so it won't start.

The solution (for the car) is to clean the plug leads and spray with
WD-40 (moisture repellant).  If damp *is* the problem, then storing the
battery off the ground may help.  I'm not sure if spraying with WD-40
would be safe since it is very flammable (high percentage petroleum).

Just a thought...

Chris


    .. blah blah .. talking about hackers.. you know ..

Wow!  A new proof for an NP-Complete problem, you guys in Eurpoe
really got your stuff together!

Base Step:  [deleted too bad]

Inductive Step:

Inductive Hypothesis:

Fodder Step:

Like my mother always said, if you can't say something nice...
  or was that can't say something right?

					- kxh


:
: Speaking of Paddock--what's he doing slagging Sandlak?  If Sandlak puts
: his mind to it, he can be a physical presence and waking him up might be a
: real mistake.

	Isn't Sandbag out with an injury now anyways?  Perhaps Paddock
meant to say that Momesso was the cheap short artist.  After all, that
would make more sense.


I think it very unlikely there are back doors in clipper, for two reasons:

1. The government doesn't need them if it can get the key (and yes, I assume
that the "official" government obeys court orders, etc.--and that the design
of the chip and its approval were "official");

2. It would defeat the whole purpose of providing secure crypto for American
business that couldn't be read by our economic adversaries. If this were not
a legitimate and genuine purpose, and as many think, the NSA can read DES,
why bother otherwise?

Rational responses preferred to conspiracy theories, thanks.

David


Wait a second, you're ignoring major facts here.

There was NO attempt to simply serve a warrant. The BATF had a
no-knock warrant. The initial firefight began when the BATF threw
concussion grenades at the building. (BATF admits this!)

Let's be realistic here, shall we?

You're a member of a rather paranoid religious organization. Someone
comes to your building, dressed in black suits, carrying firearms.
They throw a concussion grenade at the place, and try to break in.
What, exactly, are you going to do?

I would not allow anyone to enter my home without first identifying
themselves. If someone attacks my home by firing weapons or throwing
explosive, I think I'd be entirely justified in defending myself.

Regardless of what I think of the BDs, and regardless of whether or
not they were guilty of firearms violations, this is NOT the way you
treat people in a supposedly free society.

	<MC>


satire \'sa-tir\ n [MF or L; MF, fr. L _satura_, _satira_, fr. (lanx)
satura full plate, medley, fr. fem. of _satur_ sated; akin to L
_satis_ enough - more at SAD](1509) 1: a literary work holding up
human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.  2: trenchent wit,
irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.  syn see
WIT.

							spl


Actually in D&C 68:25-28 the parents are being held accountable for
their own sins.  Specifically they are accountable for their failure
to teach their children properly.  If I fail to teach my children
that stealing is wrong then I am responsible for their theft if they
later indulge in such behavior.


He is God.

He is God.

God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.

The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and
learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For
example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks
free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist
would not hesitate in killing it.

God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in
our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him.
God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God,
one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is
worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out
such duties because we are not worthy.

God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing
in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you
be playing the role of God?


I think I found what your looking for on ftp.apple.com in the
/dts/mac/sys.soft/video directory and is called "Virtual Monitor Switch
1.0".  Hope this helps.


It's always a two-way street.  God gave her the grace to avoid sin,
thus when she was visited by Gabriel, she gave her fiat, her total
acceptance of God's will.  This fiat summarizes why Catholics regard
her as the highest of all humans, that God chose her and that she
accepted.  Knowing this in advance, we extrapolate that she was
neither stained by nor subject to original sin.

God did create us all miraculously free to choose or not choose to sin.
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof and the grace of God to
command it."  This amount of grace was precisely determined by God
to be the amount required to do what God asked of her.  The grace
given to each of us is also enough, but we do not always choose
to accept it.  We also believe Jesus was fully human and never
sinned.

God could have created a much better person than myself, one who
always chose the right thing, yet he created me instead, despite
my flaws.  He proves he loves me as I am, continually drawing me
towards perfection.  For whatever purpose he has for me, he has
confidence that I will accomplish it.  If I ask God to repeat his
miraculous creation of the mother of his son, where will that leave me?


<
<
<>> I wonder if anybody know of a X-window-based postscript file
<>> viewer that runs under SunOS (prefered), HPUX, or IBM AIX.
<
<>If you are running Sun OpenWindows, you can use "pageview".  This is an
<>X Window PostScript previewer like "ghostview", but displays much nicer
<
<Yes, but it's broken on OW 2.0.  It does not handle multiple pages
<well.  If you don't have the proper PostScript commands it will
<draw the entire document on the same page instead of pausing after
<each page.  I haven't tried OW 3.0 yet, though.

OW 3.0 is the same.  But, the definition of broken is relative.  Pageview
requires DSC compliant PostScript files, in order to stop at page breaks.
I don't consider that broken.  I say that any program that puts out a
PostScript file that isn't DSC compliant is broken.


being gay and Christianity are not compatible should

I would absolutly love to have the time and energy to do so. The
problem is to be totally fair I would have to go throught this type of
search on every issue I belive in.  I don't have the time, resources,
or ability to do what you ask.  Maybe you should pray that God gives
me the opportunity instead of simply discrediting me because I have
not been able to talk to every gay christian.


Hi Xperts!

Where can I get a good example in which XGCValues.plane_mask is used, or
who can explain how is it for and how to use it.

Any hints welcome.

Thanks.


The following cassette tapes are for sale.  $3.00 each... $2.50 each
for multiple orders, shipping included. Trades can be arranged.
Some of the cases are somewhat worn, with a few cracks, but the tapes
are all in good condition and sound fine.

E-mail to the posting account. Thanks.

The Who
	-Who's Greatest Hits
Bachman Turner Overdrive
	-Best of BTO (so far)
Van Halen
	-5150
	-OU812
The Doors
	-The Best of the Doors
The Cars
	-Door to Door
	-The Cars Greatest Hits
Phil Collins
	-Face Value
	-No Jacket Required
Tears for Fears
	-Songs From the Big Chair


Well, I have a different story to recount.  I attempted to low-level format a
WD 43MB disk about a year ago.  When I understood my error, I contacted WD.
They told me that I hadn't hurt the drive and that I should just run FDISK and
FORMAT/S on it.  It was fine.  Also, I understand that Western Digital's BBS
may have some low-level formatting routines specifically available for IDE
drives.  You probably need to talk to them and get the straight scoop.


	Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave because the
university is making rules about sex.

	Doesn't UVA also have a hate crimes rule on the books?

Adam

Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu


A circut court judge in Illinois once said "When dealing with a government
that seeks continually new and more creative ways to spy on its' citizenry,
one cannot discourage the move to empower the common citizen with the means
to parry this attack on personal privacy."

(Unfortunately the comment was with regard to the banning of radar
detectors....)

The point remains.  More and more I see the government slowly washing
away privacy.  Even unwittingly.  Do you think I will ever live in a
soceity that issues smart cards to citizens at birth?  Do you think I
will live in a soceity that insists I register my crypto keys so they
can keep track of what I'm saying?  Even if there is no evidence of my
guilt?  Do you think I will ever live in a soceity that seeks to meddle
in the affairs of its' citizenry without recourse of any kind?  I'm tired
of it.  There is (IMHO) no compromise with an administration that seeks
to implement these proposals under the guise of enhancing privacy.

More than the proposals themselves, I read the language of the press
releases, the obvious deception involved in presenting these pieces to
the public, and I am sickened.  I am revolted.  I am repulsed.

90%, perhaps even 95% of this country could care less about the
clipper chip, the wiretap bill, the smart card, because they are so
entrapped in the rhetoric of the Clinton Administration.

This saddens and frightens me.

I am a conserveative believe it or not.  A law and order conserveative.
But the move to a centralized authoratarian regime really scares me,
mostly because I know you cant go far wrong underestimating the
intelligence of the American people.  Tell them it's going to keep
them safe from drug dealers and terrorists, and they will let you
put cameras in their home.

Even in the wake of Waco, you find those who support the increasingly
totalatarian moves.

To be quite honest, the way things are going, I'd call it self defense.

And I dont want mine growning up in the eyes of a security camera
24 hours a day.

uni


Not bad. We had a similar situation. Slowpitch softball, bases loaded,
weakest hitter at the plate. He hits a line drive over the third
baseman's head that hooked and hooked and finally landed ten feet in
foul ground, almost hitting the fence down that side of the field.
But the umpire called fair ball! I was coaching third, yelling at evrybody
to move up a base. The ump's position: "it was still fair when it
passed third base".
Why the other team didn't immediately protest I'll never know; we
certainly weren't going to argue about it, since every body did manage
to advance one base safely.

There was also the time when a batted ball ricocheted off my (runner
from second base) leg, fielded by the SS, steps on second to force the
runner from first, and throw to first in time for what the umpire
called a triple play; protest removed when we won the game anyway.


Not to Sutter bash or anything since I idolized them as players....
you sure would think the Sutters would learn something about burning out their
teams in the regular season.....just too much intensity during the regular
season.  I earlier posted a note about Brian and got to thinking after I read
this item.....gee both Sutters won their divisions and now both have lost
home ice advantage and are getting smoked in their opening series in the
playoffs.  Kind of makes you wonder.......

Bottom line....man it is great to be smoking the WartHawks!!!!!
Agreed Jim.....this has been damn sweet, so far.  About the only thing
that comes close to this is shutting up all the Maple Laugh fans....Detroit
has completely kicked their asses so far.  But, I will stick with the
Blues for providing the best playoff tonic so far.


Okay, I'm curious. Why? Are you expectin the Commissioner to fly in and
stand on the pitchers mound to yell at the fans to sit down, or what?


Better yet: act.

John


:So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce
:third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples
:where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two
:primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?

Of course it helps,  but only if the decision to involve third parties
is the primary partis' to make.  A corrupt and ignorant third party
isn't going to say,  "we're corrupt and ignorant,  we'll stay out of this".
Pointing out that they are corrupt and ignorant won't help,  they either
won't believe you or won't care.

:>  It's impossible (or at least beyond my abilities) to formulate a rule
:>that will always tell whether the involvement of a third party would be
:>good or bad,  but there's one that seems better than any other I've ever
:>heard suggested:  voluntary good,  mandatory bad.  That is,  a third
:>party should involve itself in a transaction ONLY at the request of
:>the primary participants.
:So we *don't* formulate a rule that will always tell; we try to use
:knowledge about other properties of situations.  To some of us, it
:appears that trying always to apply "voluntary good, mandatory bad"
:is not only less than optimal, it is in some circumstances seriously
:damaging.  The interesting question is to characterize those
:circumstances as best we can.

Look,  somebody has to have the power to decide whether a third party
will regulate your transactions or not.  That somebody is going to
be either you or the third party.  You can argue until you are
blue in the face that regulators shouldn't get involved (in fact,  people
have tried this),  they won't listen.    The fundamental question you
have to ask is,  whose decision is it whether or not to involve regulators,
ours or theirs?  After you've answered thed first question,  you can
try to move on to such questions as "should regulators be involved" and,  if
so,  "what regulations are appropriate?"  Although with your answer to
the first question,  the second and third are taken out of your hands.


Great slogan!  I'm ready to sign up with a crypto-lobbying effort (though
I wouldn't want to do it through an NRA offshoot).  Shall we also push
for the CRA  -- Cryptographic Rights Amendment ??


I understand fire trucks had been at the site for several weeks but were
sent home three or four days before the assault.  Can anyone confirm this?


I'm new to this group and this may have been discussed already, in which case
my apologies, but...

I have a '92 Integra with an auto box. According to the manual the car has
a lock up torque converter, or something similar.

What is it, what does it do and how does it work?

(Excuse my ignorance).

Does anybody know?

--Parms.


Total Baseball, which also tries to evaluate a player's total offensive
and defensive contributions, gives Barry Bonds a Total Player rating of
9.0 for 1992. Only one other player since Ruth attained that mark: Cal
Ripken for his 1984 season. Rounding out the top five offensive players
in the NL last season: Sheffield, 5.9; Sandberg, 5.8; Van Slyke, 5.3; and
Larkin, 4.7.

The top 5 offensive players in the AL in 1992 were: E. Martinez, 4.8;
Ventura, 4.8; Anderson, 4.5; R. Henderson, 4.4; and Thomas, 4.4

In short, Total Baseball says Bonds enjoyed one of the best seasons
ever in the game's history -- better than any year had by Mantle,
Mays, Williams, etc. (If you disagree, don't flame me; flame the
writers of Total Baseball.) Also, Martinez and Ventura are neck and
neck, so given the shortcomings of any statistical analysis, which one
had the better year can be considered a toss-up. Thus, Total Baseball
supports your choices of Bonds and Ventura as the MVPs of 1992.

--
--------------------------
Phil Brown                |
aka pb6755@csc.albany.edu |


Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
such scenes.

As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists.


Easy vs. Hard .....Easy on who?

I had a rare very personal talk with my mother last year.  She said
that when she and my father were raising we four children, they
did not try to raise us in this world as strictly as they were raised
in their Norwegian Lutheran community. They felt that we would be
alienated from them and it would create problems.
  In other words, my parent did the very tolerant, loving thing. They
raised us without conflict, without what we saw as unreasonable
demands and were always accepting, no matter what the circumstances.
  What happened was that I grew up believing in situation ethics and
never absolutes. I believed in a loving God, and my concept of God
never involved justice or punishment, nor was there any concept that
I may someday be held responsible for the things that offended
Him...sins that the "world" told me were OK.
  My parents are very good, honest and moral people. They raised
four extremely honest children. Yet, before coming to a more
complete knowledge of God (which includes the knowledge of justice
and punishment)I committed what I now believe to be many, many
grave sins. I lived with a partner outside of marriage, was married
and divorced ( only after physical abuse and no apparent hope for
change...but I shouldn't have married to person in the first place )
and more....
  My parents felt they were doing the loving,kind thing by allowing
us to be who we were, by not imposing their standards on us, and by
accepting unquestioningly everything we did without judgement or
counsel.
  Today, it is absolutely appalling for me to look back on what they
*did* accept without a word. It takes courages to dare to help souls
because you must speak up and say what is unpopular and
difficult and what people do not want to hear. You must be able
to say what is hard, and say it as Christ would, with love and
compassion. It involves risk....perhaps someone you love may not
want to hear and will stay away from you.
  This life is "but dust". As long as the comfort of this life
is our highest priority, we will fail God and fail those
with whom we come in contact.
  I wonder how many who engage in sex outside of marriage, who
support the "right" to abortion, who engage in homosexuality,
or who commit any of the range of sins that are plentiful in
this time have ever heard from a quiet, thoughtful, loving
friend that these things are *wrong*. No one ever told me that
what I was doing was wrong, and I saw multitudes around me
living the same way I was and they seemed like good, decent
people. (wouldn't kick dogs or beat the elderly or babies..)
It is more difficult for sinners without a genuine prayer
life to hear the Holy Spirit than it is to hear a loving friend.
Think about this the next time the Holy Spirit tells you that
a friend is in error, but you don't want to "cause trouble".
Righteous prayers is great power, but don't forget that we are
we are Christ's lips and hands on earth. Don't be afraid to
simply voice Truth when the situation calls for it. Say a
fervent prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for Love and guidance.
In more ways than we may realize, we *are* our brother's
keeper.


In <C601ED.CD6@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com sez:

This is all terribly interesting, but it doesn't belong in misc.legal.
Take it elsewhere, please.

--
        Have you hugged your common nucleus of operative fact today?


[writing to someone else]

Can we get back to using the terms "strong Atheist" and "weak Atheist"
rather than this "hard Atheist" and "soft Atheist".  I can imagine
future discussions with Newbies where there is confusion because of the
multiplication of descriptions.

[rest deleted]


...

	Oh they'll get it back, with exposed film. :(

	Shortly after the Rodney King episode, a woman here in Dayton used a
camcorder to tape the police arresting several youths.

	Upon noticing her, the police arrested her (for jaywalking!) and
"accidently" erased the tape while they had it.

	Yep, they'll get their film back allright....


	Quit keeping us in suspense:  who sells this remarkable bag?

Later,


: In article <1993Apr29.121501@is.morgan.com>, jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson) writes...
: > I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is
: >there a constant sensation of falling?

Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) replied:
: Yes, weightlessness does feel like falling.  It may feel strange at first,
: but the body does adjust.  The feeling is not too different from that
: of sky diving.

I'm no astronaut, but I've flown in the KC-135 several times.  I'll
tell you about my first flight.

At the on-set of weightlessness, my shoulders lifted and my spine
straightened.  I felt a momentary panic, and my hands tried to grab
onto something (like the strap keeping me firmly against the floor)
to prevent me from falling; I remember conciously over-ruling my
involuntary motions.  My ears felt (not heard) a rush and I could
feel fluid moving in my head (like when you get up from bed while
you have a cold).

At that point, I ceased to concentrate on my physiological response,
since I had some science to do.  I was busy keeping my experiment
going and keeping track of all the parts during the "return" of
gravity and subsequent 1.8-G pull-out, so I didn't really pay
attention to physiology at that time.

After about 5 parabolas, I discovered that I was performing one
of the tricks I've discovered to keep myself from getting motion
sickness; I was keeping my head very still and moving very slowly
-- all except my hands and arms, which needed to be in rapid,
concious motion for my experiment.  During the pull-out to
parabola 5, my queasiness finally started to get to me, and I
had to use one of those air-sickness bags.  I was basically
useless for the rest of that flight, so I went to the seats in
the back of the plane while my partner (whom I drafted for just
this purpose) kept working on the experiment while I was ill.
(He was a vetran Vomit Comet rider, one of those anomalous
people who don't get sick on the thing.)

I didn't think of it as a "constant sensation of falling" so
much as like swimming in air.  It's very close to the sensations
I feel when I'm scuba diving and I turn my head down and fins up.

Jerry:
: >And what is the motion sickness
: >that some astronauts occasionally experience?

Ron:
: It is the body's reaction to a strange environment.  It appears to be
: induced partly to physical discomfort and part to mental distress.
: Some people are more prone to it than others, like some people are more
: prone to get sick on a roller coaster ride than others.  The mental
: part is usually induced by a lack of clear indication of which way is
: up or down, ie: the Shuttle is normally oriented with its cargo bay
: pointed towards Earth, so the Earth (or ground) is "above" the head of
: the astronauts.  About 50% of the astronauts experience some form of
: motion sickness, and NASA has done numerous tests in space to try to
: see how to keep the number of occurances down.

I'm a volunteer in JSC's Space Biomedical Laboratory where they do,
among other things, some of the tests Ron mentions.  I was in one
called the Pre-flight Adaptation Trainer, which consisted of a chair on
a several-degree-of-freedom motion base with moving geometric visual
aids.  The goal was to measure the victim's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subject's
responses and subjective physiological descriptions and see if repeated
exposure to this environment could reduce future motion sickness
symptoms.

Jerry --

I don't know of any former or active-duty astronauts who personally
read this group.  I know that Bruce McCandless's office had been
waiting anxiously for the Space Station Redesign option I posted
last week, but I don't think Bruce reads the group himself.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368


:

[ a whole lot of completely ignorant stuff about Pitt. ]

Give this guy a drug test, and some Ridalin whale you are at it.


I've never heard of the Bob Dylan Baseball Abstract, but I am curious.
Could someone clue me in?

--
--------------------------
Phil Brown                |
aka pb6755@csc.albany.edu |


     I have recently used the 4066 to switch a bipolar signal.  I simply
ran the 4066 off a bipolar supply, +/- 8V in this case.   As long as your
analog input signal stays between the supply rails, the 4066 will work fine.
Of course, your control (logic) input must use -8V as the logic LOW and
+8V as the logic HIGH reference, so that either (1) all your driving logic
must be 4000 CMOS with the same bipolar supply or (2) you must provide
some kind of voltage level shifting circuit between the 4066 and the
control logic.  In my case, I was able to use the bipolar supply all the
way.


I've been playing with a program called PICLAB to modify some .gif files. The
problem is it keeps displaying only 50% of the image. Starting from the top, it
displays20%, leaves 20% blank, then down another 20% etc. ANyone know what I'm
doing wrong, or is there another piece of software I should use instead?


After the initial gun battle was over, they had 50 days to come out
peacefully. They had their high priced lawyer, and judging by the
posts here they had some public support. Can anyone come up
with a rational explanation why the didn't come out (even after
they negotiated coming out after the radio sermon) that doesn't
include the Davidians wanting to commit suicide/murder/general mayhem?


Hey folks,

Saw the Giants play ball at the 'Stick Saturday, April 17.  It was the game
where Pendelton broke up the scoreless tie in the ninth with a two-out,
two-run homer to right to win it.  (It wasn't the game where the fans
threw the give-away "fotoballs" onto the field in response to the homer --
too bad, huh?)

Well, the 'Stick is still cold.  The Saturday game ended at 5:45pm, and it
was cold then.  I can't imagine night games in April at the 'Stick.  The
wind kicked up a little, too, and I got this idea.

At most games, there's a pile of hot dog wrappers and cups and trash on
the field a lot of the time.  I propose a Kid's Clean-up Corps composed
mainly of 10-12 year old kids who would love nothing better than to run
out on the field in the fifth inning (when the guy in the Toro smooths
the infield) and grab the trash.

It might not be glamorous, but at that age I probably would have given
anything to be on the field with the ballplayers.  Everybody wins here!

Whaddaya think?


You just don't get it, do you?

I think the discussion is more like this...

Me: [ happily picking daisies by the side of the road ]
BC: [ dancing on the double yellow broken line ]
    "Come on out and play on the highway!"
Me: "Why?"
BC: "The highway was put here for people to be on.  We must work towards
     fulfilling its purpose."
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, the highway has been here for several generations.  Look, I
     have a story about how it was actually created by a divine being!
     And several people actually saw Elvis bless it!"
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, are you going to come out here, or not?"
Me: "But --"
BC: "You probably think that picking daisies is fun.  Well, you're wrong."
Me: "Where in blazes did you get this silly idea that you're supposed to
     be playing on the highway?  You'll get yourself killed!"
BC: "Better to be killed on the highway than to live an empty life off
     of it.  Besides, you're just asking pointless questions.  You know
     you really want to be playing on the highway too; you're just
     denying it."
Me: "If you want to get run over, then fine, but I'd much rather enjoy
     the daisies, if you please."
BC: "Why do you shun me like this?  The Creator of the Highway will flatten
     you with a steamroller if you don't see the light and come join me!"
Me: "Well, if he's gonna be THAT way about it, maybe I want to get as
     far from the highway as I can..."
BC: [ incoherent but quite familiar righteous sputtering ]

Brian C., don't you see?  I do not believe that your god is:

	(a) real, or even

	(b) beneficial.

In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary and, carried to
extremes, harmful.  I would like to help you see its shortcomings, and
perhaps someday finally become strong enough to see it for what it is:
an elaborate lie, kept alive by the elite priesthood to keep the
masses properly submissive to their influences.

Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just
don't believe 'cos you don't want to."  Everything you've said so far
could apply equally to any religion -- why do you believe yours is the
real one?

(Note that saying "it's the only one that promises eternal life" or
something like that isn't an answer to my question, unless you show
that (a) no other religion promises eternal life and (b) it is
unarguably true that eternal life must be a reality.)


I would stongly recommend a factory service manual, and if you are not
an experienced machanic then get a chiltons or haynes (sp?) ALSO.
Make sure the bike has cooled at least 6 hours since being run.
Read the books and if you have more questions you could mail me.
Also, be very careful when tightening valve cover bolts.  They take
very little torque and breaking one is disaster.


Dear Netters:

I am looking for C source code to test if a 3D point lies within a

concave polyhadra. I have read a few articles about this and know

that two solutions exist: parity counting and angle sumation. Both

ideas are pretty simple but coding is not. So I wonder if there exists

public domain source code for this.

    Another 'rough' solition (don't care special cases) is ray-casting

which is reported to be more or less independent of number of faces

consisting the polyhedra if a special space indexing is used
(M. Tamminen, et. al., 1984. "Ray-casting and block model conversion
using a spatial index". Computer-Aided-Designs. 4, 1984, 60-65).
But the prerequirement is that all the facets of polyhedra have their
normal pointing outside of polyhedra. How this could be done in practice ?
I have a set of trangles consisting the polyhedra. How could I ensure their
normals pointing outside the polyhedra ? The paper mentioned above assumed
this is already the case.

   I have also read some standard computer graphics textbook about hidden
line removal. It says "if we make the rule that the normal of a facet pointing

toward viewer standing far away from the polyhedra...". Again how to make
sure ?

   Any pointers are welcome ?

   Yaohong Jiang
   Queen's University
   Kingston, Ont.


I'm glad Grant Fuhr will never be as over-confident after two wins
as you are...it takes four wins to defeat an opponent...each tougher
to obtain than the previous one.  Buffalo is off to a good start...
Fuhr is proving the Fuhr-bashers wrong, but Boston is an awfully
good team.


...

Does it matter that the study (yes, singular) that showed LSD causing
birth defects also holds true for aspirin?  Does it matter that
this study is flat-out wrong, and LSD does not give you a greater
risk of having children with birth defects?


I am asked to design a video-aid system for teacher to show their students
how to work their way round in Windows.

I have seen people using video projector, TV set and large size monitor as
thrir display for presentations. I am told that there are three ways to
connect to a video projector: composite, Y/C & RGB.

Can anyone explain to me the different between the three and the likely cost
for each of them?

I would also like to know if there are TELNET or KERMIT for Windows.

Please reply to me via E-amil as well as bulletin. My internet account is
u129008@sparc20.ncu.edu.tw


I recently saw a message here (posted by Bob Silverman, I think) which
referred to a "birthday" attack on a cryptosystem. I'm looking for
references on, and explanations of, this type of attack.


I thought your nickname was "UnEnlightened"
--
Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553


stem
  I

I've had the same experience actually. I love the Mac interface and any number
of the features, but am sorely dissapointed with the speed. I use macs daily
and am a Moc consultant for OSU Statistics department; I'm familiar with almost
every model out there, and my experience is that both the Amiga and the Atari
ST simply "blow the Mac out of the water" in terms of performance. At this time
I would in general say that the other advantages of the Mac outweigh the
advantages of the Amiga or the ST (and Falcon), but I really wish Apple would
get their heads together on speed... :-((((( They could take a real lesson in
muli-tasking from the Amiga OS or the MultiTOS in the Atari Falcons too :-(((

 > I'm still happy with my ci, but I don't understand why the performance is

I just hope that someone comes out with a machine that does *everything* well
someday. If I had my choice, I would go with Mac in most aspects, but add the
speed and superior Multi-Tasking of the other platforms.

As for the original topic; Trying to compare *just the chip* in a machine seems
almost worthless. A fast 386 with a wiz-bang graphics accelerator will be
faster in productivity for many applications than a even a stock Quadra. Add a
graphics accelerator to a 486 and you *really fly*. Of course, add one the the
Quadra and then you're blowing the 486 away... etc...

I think mine was only worth $0.01.......
---------------------------------------------------------------------->


This is ridiculous, and your doctor sounds like a nut, if what is
reported here is what the doctor actually said.  If your wife's
pancreas stops producing insulin and therefore becomes diabetic, she'll
need insulin replacement.  That doesn't mean she's "dependent" on
insulin, anymore than she was beforehand--if her body doesn't make
enough, she'll have to get it elsewhere.  Oral thyroid replacement
hormone therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for hypothyroidism, and
it's really the only effective therapy available anyway.  Plus, it's
cheap.  Taking thyroid hormone when it isn't needed does cause your
thyroid gland to reduce its own production of the hormone, but that's a
_feature_, not a _bug_, and it's irrelevant in any case in the face of
hypothyroidism, because her problem that her gland isn't producing
enough.  There isn't a clinical phenomenon of "thyroid insufficiency"
caused by a sudden discontinuation of exogenous thyroid hormone
analogous to adrenal insufficiency caused by the sudden cessation of
prolonged administration of corticosteroids, so there should be no
worry about inappropriately "suppressing" the thyroid gland.

Homeopathy is nonsense.  Tell her to stop wasting her money, health and time,
and get her to a legitimate doctor who will be in a position to make
a proper diagnosis and recommend the right therapy.


My roommate, the atheist, says "to anyone out there who might be
listening."


Wasn't the shareware fee a "suggestion" by John?
Is so then it's up to the individual to make the choice whether or not to
honour it and part with money.  Personally if I was in his position I would
do exactly the same thing, John has obviously put in lot of time and effort
into xv and why shouldn't he receive some money for it.

Just my pennies worth

(Keep up the good work John)

	Julian


I just read an article in another group that mentions this. I have
never heard of the VCPI memory standard. Can someone explain what
this is??? Thanks


BIGOTRY"

Biden spoke well.  Then there was John Major, the architect of the
betrayal of Bosnian Muslims to genocide.

He basically has given yet another green light to HVO Ustashe and
Mladic-Chetnik serial killers, rapists, and plunderers to continue their
genocide against Bosnian Muslims.

But Major met with Mr. Rushdie and said it was "unacceptable" that Iran
should have a death decree on him.  While I disagree personally with
Fetwas against hack writers like Rushdie (it only helps them sell more
books), I find it interesting that Mr. Major finds the genocide of two
million Muslims in Bosnia acceptable, but a threat against one single
popular British writer "unacceptable."


I just exchange ideas over the USENET with other people. I never
attacked you as to put you in the need to defend yourself against me.
I am not a violent person, and I do not see how can anyone be threatened
by the opinions and ideas of others as expressed on USENET.
I asked you to continue on email because I am not interested on a
flamefest, where you change my words or just make up some of your own
and present them as mine.
So, do not worry. You do not need to defend yourself because I am not
attacking you.

This is a good advice for yourself.


I think there are some generally accepted criteria according to which
one can evaluate whether certain policies or practices constitute
racial discrimination. These criteria are to be found for example in the
1.  International Convention for Abolition of All Forms of Racial
    Discrimination (ratified by most countries)
2.   The International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights
3.   The Human Rights Charter
4.   The European Convention of Human Rights

If one reads carefully how racial discrimination is defined in these
legally binding instruments, and does not resort to sophistry, it is
obvious that the State of Israel is guilty of racial discrimination.

The people suffering the most extreme form of racial discriminatnion
by the Zionist regime are the Palestinian refugees, some of whom live
under Israeli military control and others who live in the diaspora.

They are not entitled to return to their homeland for the sole
reason that they are not Jews. International law does not include any
provisions which permits such denial of rights, under any circumstance.
Israel's actions of denial are totally illegal and immoral. By allowing
the return of the refugees and permitting them to settle in Tel in any area  of
the State of Israel, the State would finally gain its legitimaty under
international law and could be justified in asking to be recognized. It
would facilitate the peaceful integration of Israel into the Middle-east
and constitute the best guarantee for permanent Jewish presence -
in the area. Any attempt to create a separation, formal and human, between the
Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities, is fraught with
genociadal implications. I hope that U.S. Jews, who sincerely wish that
peace prevail in Israel/Palestine, will finally realize this fact.

Elias Davidsson


: What if clipper is fairly secure but leaves a distinct clipper signature...
: that is, what if it's not too difficult to tell that a msg. was clipper
: encrypted, even if you can't tell the contents?  In that case, anyone
: who is trying to hide behind anther encryption scheme will stand out
: from all of the other traffic and raise a red flag to the NSA, etc.

I think the obvious answer (which may have been posted, but I haven't
seen it) is to encrypt your data with some other scheme, then run it
through clipper.  The only way the police will be able to detect the
other encryption is through a wiretap, so even if they do notice with
an illegal wiretap, I have a hard time seeing a judge issuing a
warrant for a search to "confiscate" the illegal scheme (assuming that
at one day, it comes to this; a worse case) based on an illegal
wiretap.  Then again, maybe I am an idealist.  :>

: 	------------    --------    ----------------------
: 	Ben Liberman    INTERNET    ben@genesis.MCS.COM
: 	                            ben@tai.chi.il.us


so all us hockey/automobile racing fans all know exactly where we stand
	ESPN delays the martinsville race by a day for the NFL draft
	ESPN shows baseball instead of the overtime of a NHL playoff game

	gimme a break, guys

=>  >>Does anyone know why this race is tape delay? Especially until Monday???
=>  >Is this the weekend for the NFL draft?
=>  >If so, postponing the race for a day is
=>  >a real slap in the face for racing fans.
=>  I'm afraid you're right (as usual). As I recall they've been doing this
=>  ever since they started covering the draft live. I wish they could work
=>  out some kind of a deal with somebody else such as TNN to get the race
=>  on live, but I guess ESPN isn't much into sharing. It also clarifies
=>  where auto racing stands on their priority list (as if we didn't already
=>  know ;-)
--


Thanks to the people who have answered here and in email to my
question about which countries engage in space surveillance.
Unfortunately, I apparently didn't make the meaning of the message
clear, since most replies have addressed satellite reconnaissance,
rather than space surveillance

     What I meant was _not_ which countries use satellites to look at
the Earth (satellite reconnaissance) , but _was_ which countries have
programs to detect and track (i.e., determine the orbital elements of)
satellites as they pass overhead (space surveillance).

    The US uses missile-defense radars, supplemented by a fascinating
quasi-radar operated by the Navy, to do this for satellites in LEO, and
electrooptical systems for objects at altitudes above 5,000 km or so.
The FEE, I understand, does much the same thing.

    Amateur satellite observers use eyeballs, binoculars, stopwatches
and PCs for objects out to around 1500 km, enabling them to keep track
of satellites for which, ah, official element sets aren't available.
See the fascinating books by Desmond King-Hele for details, as well as
the files in the molczan directory on kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov.  The
material posted in my previous message suggests that Japan engages in
optical and radar space surveillance to a modest degree, and it may be
that other countries do also.

    Which was the question I meant to ask: who are they, how do they do
it, and why do they do it?

Allen Thomson                     SAIC                        McLean, VA


Doesn't matter if we assume they are obeying the law, since they won't have
had a court order to tap calls prior to the date of the court order, and
thus won't have them available.

If they aren't obeying the law, we are in an entirely different discussion,
in which this is the least of one's worries.

David


Perhaps I should quit eating mushrooms, soya beans, and brie cheese
which all have MSG in them.  It occurs naturally.

I'm not going to quit eating something that I like just because
it *might* cause me trouble later or causes problems in *some*
people.  I would much rather avoid stress by not worrying over
what goes in my mouth and not spending every day reading conflicting
reports of what is good/bad for you.

I may eat some things in quantities that may not be good for me.
Fine.  I've made my decision and I don't think it's appropriate
for anyone to try to 'convert' me.  "It's for your own good" are
the most obnoxious and harmful words, IMO, in the English (or
any other) language.

I think it is.  I get tired of people saying 'don't eat X because
it's BAD!'  Well, X may not be bad for everyone.  And even if
it is, so what?  Give people all the information but don't ram
your decisions down their throats.


reasonable

That's probably true but it's the closest to it that you're going to get.
The actual dealer cost depends on a lot of things and even the dealer
probably doesn't know exactly what it will be until all the factory
kick-backs, incentives, etc. are paid and that often depends on his volume
at the end of the month/quarter/whatever. It might be a funny munber but
it's all you have to start with, except the sticker, and anyone who pays
sticker price is really being ripped off.


Our 20-month son has started falling sick quite often every since he
started going to day care.  He was at home for the first year and he did
not fall sick even once.  Now it seems like he has some sort of cold or
flu pretty much once a month.  Most of the time the cold leads to an ear
infection as well, with the result that he ends up being on antibiotics
3 weeks out of 4.  I know kids in day care fall sick more often, but we
are beginning to wonder how often "more often" really is, whether our
son is more susceptible or has lower immunity than average, what the
longer-term effects of constantly being sick and taking antibiotics are,
and what we can do to build up his resistance.  He really enjoys his day
care and we think it's great too, but we are beginning to wonder whether
we should think about getting a nanny.

Are there any studies that can help answer some of these questions?

-- How often do kids in their first, second and third years fall sick?
How often do they get colds, flus, ear infections?  Is there any data on
home care vs. day care?

-- Does being sick "build immunity" (leading to less illness later),
does it make kids "weaker" (leading to more illness later), or does it
not have any long term effect?

-- Does taking antibiotics on a regular basis have any negative long
term effects?

-- How does one tell if a child is more susceptible to illness than
normal, and what does one do about it?

-- Is there any way to build immunity and resistance?

Any data, information or advice relating to this would be much
appreciated.  Thanks a lot.


X-Disclaimer: All views are my own unless expicitly stated otherwise.

That are the authorisation files for the server.
Depending on what type of key your X supports they contain magic cookies,
DES based authentication or SUN DES authentication.

The place is defined with the DisplayManager.authDir
Other things like the file name can be changed as well see XDM manual pages.


	[stuff about Ron Gant incident deleted]

	I agree that Hirschbeck was just doing what he was instructed to do
and also that Gant should have listened to him.  However, what is with this
policy of trying to speed up the games.  You are the first person
( non-mediot ) I have seen endorse this policy.  I have no problem with the
length of games at all and am tired of the ESPN crowd ( and other announcers )
bitching about it.  I have never been in a ballpark filled with people looking
at their watches and shouting "Hurry up!"  If I cough up big bucks for a
ticket, I don't mind a game that last more than 2:10.  I really don't
understand it.

	Games are longer now for several reasons:  more pitching changes,
more basestealing ( and throws to first ), etc...I think a very small factor
is the increased time it takes Jose Canseco/ Deion Sanders/ [insert fancy
showboat ballplayer here] to arrange their jewelry prior to stepping in the
batter's box.  My impression is that sportcasters and writers have made this
an issue because they like shorter games - they get to head back to hotel
bar, eat steaks, get drunk, tell stupid jokes with their pals and chase
stewardesses around the bar.  Sure they want the game over with.  Print
journalists have a slightly more legitimate reason for wanting faster games:
they have deadlines.  The ESPN guys on baseball tonight drive me crazy - they
constantly harp on this - primarily because they often have to work late
when the game goes longer than 2:30.

	Maybe I am just a ne'er-do-well with nothing better to do, but I
would like to hear reasons why the longer games upset you.

	As a parenthetical note, it seems the league is in any case fighting
a losing battle this year.  The increased offense thus far will certainly
spoil any hopes of getting the games over with more quickly.


   > I believe it is illegal to send any cryptographic code out of the
   > country without an export license. (Others will correct me if
   > this is inaccurate.)

   Glad to!  You are correct, it is illegal to send cryptographic
code (and lots of other things) out of the country without a license.
HOWEVER, every US citizen has a general export license, allowing
export of lots of things, including constitutionally protected speech.
This has the effect that it is legal for US citizens to export some
things which it is illegal for a US corporation to export without
first obtaining a license.

   > Dunno if you'd get one for the particular code you have; the only
   > way to find out is to apply for a license.

   Nope, talk to a good lawyer in the area of export law.  But, in
general, the government has to have a very good national security case
to try prevent the export of anything you personally might wish to
publish.  (Yes, I worded that the way I did intentionally.  It is a
lot easier for the government to TRY to prevent the export of
information than to charge someone with a crime after the fact.
Espionage is probably the only exception.)

   > Note that you need to distinguish between what is legal to send
   > to Canada if YOU have such a license, and what is legal to send
   > if you don't.

    If you are a US citizen, you have a general license.  (I am not a
lawyer, so take some of this with a grain of salt.  However, I have
also had to swim through both ITAR and export regs in a few cases.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus


One of the most popular methods of course is the password check where they ask
you for a word from page x, line y, and word z, but this is pitifully simple to
remove unless you throw some checksums into the main part of your program, and
some self-rewriting code to confuse some people.  Also, make sure that your
program can not be run out a debugger.

Another method of course is to not even make bad sectors on the original disk,
just write a certain key to a certain unallocated sector.   To help you here,
you also must do the code protection schemes mentioned in the first paragraph.
Make sure you also fill the rest of the unallocated parts of the disk with
garbage as well, or they (wanna be crackers) can just look for the junk in
some random sector.

Like you mentioned, there are the laser holed disks and hardware keys, but they
are both expensive and a pain in the butt for the end-user, which you is the
opposite of what you want.

Another configuration that can be used is to save the configuration of the
machine that it is being installed to in the most undecipherable format you can
think of.  If the program does not find that this is the same system, it
requests being installed by the original disk again.  The original disk should
be encrypted, compacted, have many sectors that should be checked, and anything
else you can think of to make sure that the original cannot be copied.  Once
again, you MUST put code-encryption, self-rewriting code, and multiple CRC
checks in the program to make sure that it does not get changed.  Among other
things, this also protects your program from virii.  If the program detects a
change in its code, tell the user that a virus has been detected in the
program.  Tell them the program is "VIRUS SECURE", and remember, you have
helped the world kill some pirating and kill some viruses.  Feel good.

I hope that I have helped.  Have fun.  Knock some cracking out (well, you can't
do it, everything that can be written can be cracked, but you'll piss'em off in
the process!). Goodbye.

What is the program that will be sold?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Gruschow                                Death do you gronk.
ag625@yfn.ysu.edu                              ggruscho@nyx.cs.du.edu


A world creator god does, the moment it creates the world. And to sayi
that you can't recall *anyone* is even below your usual standard of
a"arguing".

My argument is based on quite usual theistic assumptions, namely god
is perfect, god is all-knowing god sets the rules. The rules don't
work for whatever reason. Because of its omniscience, the god has
known it. In advance.

(Deletion)

It is not a question of grammar, it is a question of modelling. Has been
discussed in the wonderful time when you were not posting to this group.
When A is contradictorily defined A does not point to an instance in
reality. Unless there is more information in the definition of A that
allows me to find it somehow. However, when the contradictory attribute
is said to be essential, ie has not got that attribute => not the A I
am looking for, I can conclude that A does not exist.

That's quite like: I predict coins falling
   Predicted            Happened
1.   Heads                 Tails
2.   Tails                 Tails
3.   Heads                 Tails
4.   Heads                 Tails

I take 2. and dismiss the rest because of the unnecessary complexity
the other evidence causes.