THE WHITE HOUSE

                  Office of the Press Secretary
                 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
______________________________________________________________

                       BACKGROUND BRIEFING
                               BY
                 SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS

                          April 4, 1993

                          Canada Place
                  Vancouver, British Columbia

9:40 A.M. PST

	     Folks, we're about to start the BACKGROUND BRIEFING
on the aid package.

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Good morning.  The
President -- President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed
yesterday on a series of American initiatives to support economic
and political reform in Russia, and it's valued at $1.6 billion.

	     Before taking your questions and running through the
basic outlines of this package, I want to make a few points.
First, this is the maximum that the Clinton administration can do
with available funds to support Russian reform.  All of the funds
have been allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  There is
no need for the administration to go back to the Congress to fund
any of these programs.  All our Fiscal Year '93 funds currently
are available, so in effect, all of these programs can begin
tomorrow.

	     The second point is that this package is designed to
support Russian reformers.  All of the initiatives in the package
are directed at reformers and for their benefit, and all have
been worked out with prior consultation with the Russian
government.

	     Third, the President is determined that we will
deliver on these commitments this year.  The package is designed
to maximize our ability to support reform.  In designing it we
wanted to avoid making commitments that we could not meet, and we
feel very confident that we can meet all of these commitments in
front of you.

	     Fourth, I'd like to note the special importance of
trade and investment.  I think it's fair to say that Russia's
capital and technology needs throughout the next decade extend
well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.  No collection of
governments can meet those needs; only the private sector can do
so.  And so the President and President Yeltsin agreed to make
trade and investment a major priority in the relationship.

	     They also agreed that there would be a new joint
commission on energy and space formed, headed on the U.S. side by
Vice President Gore; on the Russian side by Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin.  And the goal of this effort is to break through
the barriers to trade and investment on both sides and to promote
a vastly expanded relationship.

	     If it would be helpful I'd be prepared to run down
the first page, which is a summary of U.S. assistance, and just
give you some general background on what these programs are.
I'll do it quickly and then I'll be glad to take questions.

	     The first group of initiatives are humanitarian food
and medical assistance.  This is part of our effort which has
been underway for several years to provide basic humanitarian
grant food assistance so that the Russian government can assure
there's at least a minimal amount of bread on the shelves in the
major cities.  That's $194 million in grant -- that is from Food
for Progress, the grant portion of Food for Progress.  We'll also
be continuing our grant assistance in medicines and
pharmaceutical supplies, and that's $30 million.

	     The second item is concessional food sales.  As you
know, the United States has had a long-term grain relationship
with Russia.  It's important to us and it's important to Russia
that we continue that relationship.  The President has chosen the
Food for Progress program which is a concessional loan program.
The value over the next seven months is $700 million.  These are
concessional terms.  The exact terms have not been worked out,
but I think it's fair to say there will be a grace period on
principal of six or seven years, and concessional rates
thereafter for the life of the deal.

	     The third program is a collection of private sector
support.  We think this is one of the most important things we're
going to do.  Privatization and the creation of small businesses
is the number one priority of the reform government in Moscow.
And so the President has decided to create a Russian-American
enterprise fund capitalized this year at $50 million.  And the
goal of this fund is to make direct loans to small businesses in
Russia, to take equity positions in those businesses.

	     The President has also decided to create a
privatization fund which would work directly with the Russian
government in its priority objective of trying to convert state
enterprises from a state-owned basis to a private basis.  He has
also agreed -- the President has also agreed to establish a
Eurasia foundation.  This would be a private foundation led by
prominent Americans to fund democratization projects in Russia.

	     The fourth grouping you see there in the summary
page is democratization itself.  I think it's fair to say that
this administration has given a new impetus to the goal of
pursuing democratization in Russia.  You see that we have a total
of $48 million in programs, various programs.  The detailed
tables give an indication of some of the programs that we're
launching.

	     The President is also calling for the development of
a democracy corps, which will be an overarching umbrella group to
try to incorporate all of the disparate private and public
efforts now underway from the United States to support reform in
Russia.

	     The fifth program you see is Russian office of
resettlement.  This is a new initiative created and
conceptualized by this administration.  This is a demonstration
project.  What we'd like to do is work with the Russian military
to help resettle Russian officers returning from the Baltic
states and other parts of the former Soviet Union.  We want to
make sure that we work out the best way to do that, whether it's
with Russian labor and Russian materials or using prefab American
construction.  And so we've decided to fund on a demonstration
basis the construction of 450 housing units.  We'll be working
very closely with the Russian military on this.  And I would say
that we have a long-term commitment to this project.

	     The sixth area is energy in the environment.  They
are two issues that the President feels strongly about.  Our
initial efforts will be feasibility studies to look into the
possibility of enhancing their energy production, both oil and
gas; and equally important trying to cut down on the leakages in
the oil and gas pipeline systems, which cause so much
environmental damage.

	     I've talked a little bit about trade and investment,
about the new group being created that the Vice President will
chair on our side.  Secretary Ron Brown will also be cochairing
with Deputy Prime Minister Shohkin, a business development
committee, which will work in all other sectors of the economy,
to break down the many barriers that currently exist and impede
trade and investment.  We are also going to appoint a full-time
investment ombudsman in the American government to work on this
problem full-time.

	     And the point I'd like to make here is, trade and
investment in the 1990s is every bit as important, to draw an
analogy, as arms reductions was in the '70s and '80s.  And we
just thought that in looking at this we needed to make a
commitment within our own government to have people work on it --
senior people on a full-time basis, because it is terribly
important.

	     You'll notice that the United States is going to
support Russia's membership in the GATT.  Russia has had observer
status.  Russia has requested our support and, in fact, requested
our advice in becoming a member of the GATT.  We think that the
long-term goal of drawing Russia into the global economy is
paramount, a very important goal.  And that is why we are
supporting the membership in the GATT.  We are also supporting
their access to GSP, the Generalized System of Preferences.

	     You'll note that Ex-Im has extended $82 million in
credit for a caterpillar deal in Siberia, that OPIC has extended
$150 million in credits and loan guarantees for a Conoco oil
project.  I'd like to emphasize that we are very close to an
agreement between Russia and the United States for a $2-billion
framework facility through the Ex-Im Bank that would finance
Russian purchases of American oil and gas equipment and services.
We think this is a very important development.  We think we'll
get there by April 14th, which is the opening day of the Tokyo
conference, the G-7 conference.

	     Before I take any further questions, I'd like to
defer to my colleague, who will review the security assistance
objectives with you.

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Our major
unfinished agenda with the Russians and with their counterparts
in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus is in the area of the safe and
secure dismantlement of the nuclear arsenals on their territory
under the terms of the START I and START II agreements.
Recently we completed in Moscow three, I think, very important
agreements that devote a significant chunk of Nunn-Lugar funding
to three important programs.  The first is the program of $130
million for the strategic nuclear delivery vehicle dismantlement
program.  That is for submarines, for ICBM dismantlement and for
bomber dismantlement -- $130 million.

	     The second is a $75 million tranche of funding for
the construction of a facility to store nuclear materials removed
from the warheads as they are dismantled.  This will essentially
contribute to the overall design and the early phases of the
construction of that storage facility.

	     And finally, a $10-million tranche of money to help
in the establishment of a monitoring system for the nuclear
materials as they are withdrawn from the weapons system.  So we
add that $215-million total to the extant Nunn-Lugar assistance
which has been flowing -- about $150 million for some overall
safety improvements for various kinds of equipment and safety
measures that we have been working out with the Russians over the
last couple of years.

	     So this is an area where we will be going a lot more
work with not only the Russians but with the Ukrainians, Kazhaks,
and Belarussians.  Belarus, for example, has just, in the last
couple of weeks, received up to $65 million in FY'93 funds for
safety, security and dismantlement programs on Belarussian
territory.  And this was in the wake of their ratification of
START I, an agreement to accede to NPT.

	     So we are working very hard with all the parties to
the Lisbon protocols, and will continue to work very hard with
them.  And I look upon these three recent agreements with Russia
as a very important step in that process.

	     Q	  The OPIC funds to -- is that for the field in
Kazhakstan -- and Conoco already signed this deal with
Kazhakstan.  Why do you feel now it is necessary -- if it's the
same one, why do you feel it's necessary?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It's not the same
deal.  Chevron signed a deal with Kazhakstan, the Tenges oil
field.  This is a new investment project.  It's a polar lights
oil development and renovation project, and it's being announced
today.  So it's completely new.

	     Q	  Can you tell us more about what's involved?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  Conoco, like
other American oil companies has been searching for ways to do
two things.  One, to prospect for new oil in Siberia, west
Siberia; and two, to try to get into the business of renovating
oil wells and renovating pipelines, both oil and gas, in Russia.
The objective here, obviously, is to take advantage of the
natural resources in Russia, increase energy production, which
will, in turn, increase hard currency revenues, which is what
Russia needs.

	     So we think this deal is very, very good development
for Russia.  The Russians do as well, and it's good for an
American company.  And the American government has played a
leading role in pulling this together through the credit facility
in OPIC and through the loan guarantee.

	     Q	  So it's to search and also to renovate fields
that are already there?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.

	     Q	  On that point, should other American companies
expect to get administration support for such deals, or should
they now go to the Ex-Im and try to get the money out of the $2
billion?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as you know,
Ex-Im is part of the U.S. government and various parts of the
U.S. government have been pushing, including the State Department
and the White House for this deal to be consummated.  And we
think it will.  And if we arrive at this agreement by April 14th,
there will be $2 billion in financing available for American
companies to sell their equipment and sell their services.

	     Q	  That should take up all of the rest of the
deals and their won't be -- and their will or there won't be
support for OPIC sort of deals such as this Conoco?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's a
tremendous amount of interest on the part of American oil and gas
companies to invest in Russia.  We think that the Ex-Im oil and
gas facility, the $2-billion facility, once it is concluded, will
soak up a lot of that interest.  But I think the interest may
even extend beyond that.  And if so, the government will respond.

	     Q	  What's the current year budget costs of that
$2-billion agreement should it go forward?  And is there any
current year budget costs --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'll have to refer
you to Ex-Im for that.  I don't know the details of that.

	     Q	  The concessional food sales -- is there any
current year costs to that, or is it delayed until the years in
which the payments are due?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The concessional
food sales are from Food for Progress, which is a USDA program.
USDA has the funds, we don't need to go back to the Congress to
expend those funds.  There will be a hit in the budget.  I'd
refer you to USDA and OMB for the details on that.

	     Q	  Can you talk about the Democracy Corps?

	     Q	     and the private sector -- how many folks are
going to be involved in that?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Why don't I start
with the Democracy Corps first.  I think the administration felt
coming into office that there were literally thousands of
organization, private organizations in the United States that in
one way or another were working at the goal of trying to achieve
democratization in Russia, helping on a farmer-to-farmer basis.
And there were literally 10 or 15 U.S. government agencies that
had a variety of programs in this area.  And so the
administration felt -- the President felt it was important to try
to draw all of these initiatives together under one group to give
some coherence to the efforts and to give some impetus to the
efforts.  And so this is a presidential initiative.

	     It will be headed by Ambassador Tom Simons who will
soon take up his duties as the coordinator for U.S. assistance in
the former Soviet Union.  And we're very hopeful that we might
use this Democracy Corps not only to draw upon the resources of
our own government, but the resources of the American private
sector and schools and communities across the nation.

	     Q	     any kind of commitment yet, any kind of word
yet on FY'94, and any new money that needs to be appropriated
besides the $300 million the President talked about?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The administration
is requesting additional funds in FY'94 of $700 million.  What
the President has done this weekend is to consult really
intensively yesterday with President Yeltsin about additional
measures the United States could take in some of these areas to
support reform.  He'll be consulting with the Congress.  When he
returns to Washington, he'll be consulting also with the other
ally governments, and we'll make a decision at that time.

	     Q	  Two questions about the $700 billion
agricultural money.  First of all, I thought it was the sort of
consensus that what Russia did not need was more loans for food.
So why did you decide to do it that way?  Secondly, could you
explain -- agriculture has been stopped from making further loans
for food because of Russia's inability to pay.  How does this fit
into that situation?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As you know, the
United States for a long time has been a major supplier of grains
and food commodities, agricultural products to Russia.  I think
between 1991 and '92 we had extended -- a little bit of history
here -- about $5.5 billion in credits, credit guarantees, through
the Commodity Credit Corporation.  That was the principal vehicle
to ensure the sale of American grain products.  On December 1 of
last year, '92, the Russian government stopped its payments on
that program.  They are now in arrears to us on that program, and
therefore, by law, the United States cannot continue that
program.  And so the President, working with Secretary Espy and
other officials in the Cabinet, looked for other ways that we
could promote American grain sales.

	     And I think we have two ways to do that.  We've
announced today $194 million in grant food assistance through the
Food for Progress program.  But we do not have sufficient
authority to spend $700 million in grant food, and so we looked
for a concessional loan program.

	     I think everybody agrees that Russia -- that a
short-term loan program for Russia would not make sense now, but
a long-term concessional loan program would.  And that is what
this program is.  It will provide, once the final details are
worked out, for a six to seven-year grace period on payments of
principal.  And then from years seven through 15, which is the
life of the deal, it will provide for concessional rates of
interest -- generally around three to four percent.  And so we
believe and the Russian government believes this is a good deal
for them because it will avoid the imperative of early payments
and put them into the out years, but it will also continue this
very important grain relationship, which is important for them,
and it's important for the American farm community.

	     Q	  I gather from what you say that this could make
it explicit -- the Russians' failure to pay the interest on ECC
loan does not in any way affect this kind of loan going through,
is that right?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me be explicit
about that.  We are prevented under the law to from continuing
the Commodity Credit Corporation short-term credit program
because of Russia's arrearages to the United States.  All of you
know about those arrearages.  They total about, I think, around
$640 million.  USDA can give you an exact figure.  So having
taken that into consideration and wanting to preserve American
market share and a long-term grain relationship, wanting to
respond to a specific request from the Russian government for
major food assistance, knowing that we couldn't take it from the
grant programs because we don't have sufficient authority there,
we looked at Food for Progress, which is a program we've used to
great effect in other parts of the world.  And we consulted with
the Russian government and arrived at this solution.

	     I think the Russians are pleased because it provides
them with the food, but also gives them a little bit of relief on
the short-term payments.

	     Q	  Where do those funds actually come from?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They come from the
Food for Progress program, which is a program under USDA's
authority.  USDA has the authority to spend these funds.  We do
not need to go back to the Congress for these funds.  And I want
to make that general point again:  Everything in this package,
the $1.6 billion package, comprises funds that have already been
allocated and appropriated by the Congress.  The administration
can begin to spend these monies tomorrow.  And it's very
important in our eyes that we expend all the funds this year,
that we meet these commitments.  And we are confident we'll be
able to do so.

	     Q	  How did you arrive at the figure of $700
million -- does that max out that program, or did you actually
have a range from 0 to --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There's a reason
for it.  The reason was that the Russian government told us
that's about the amount of grain that they needed between now and
harvest time.  And so the idea is that we would begin the
shipments probably $100 million per month from now until the
harvest in the autumn, at which time Russia won't require the
same level of food imports from the West.

	     Q	  I would imagine there's going to be some
considerable envy and jealousy on the part of some of the other
republics because of the size and the scope of this with Russia.
Have you given any consideration to advancing negotiations for
the same kinds of projects with the Ukraine, with Georgia , with
some of the other republics?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, we're very
conscience of the fact that we also have an interest in extending
American support to the 11 other countries of the former Soviet
Union.  We have told ourselves, and we have planned that in the
area of technical assistance, the grant technical assistance that
you see, roughly 50 percent of the funding will go to Russia and
roughly 50 percent to the other countries.

	     In the area of food sales, we have been active with
Ukraine, in grant food assistance with Georgia and Armenia.  We
will continue that.  And I think it's fair to say that after this
summit we will go back and look at all of our programs with the
other countries to ensure that they are adequate and they are
productive and they're hard-hitting.

	     Q	  Has anything happened at the summit to lead
American energy companies and other companies to believe that
Russia is going to be more user-friendly toward them in terms of
taxing, legalities, bureaucracy?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, one of our
primary objectives coming into this summit was to highlight,  not
only the economic agenda, but also trade and investment.  And I'd
like to refer to the point I made at the beginning.  We're
convinced in talking about this problem -- the problem of how to
support Russia long-term -- we're convinced that no collection of
Western governments have the financial resources over the next
decade to fuel the continuation of reform, that only the private
sector can do that.

	     We look at our own society and we see tremendous
capability in resources in the oil and gas sector.  It is a very
good match with what the Russians need now, which is financial
investment in the existing oil and gas wells and pipeline and new
technology and new capital to finance new production.

	     That's what the Russian government has told us it
wants to do, and so that's why we have made such a major emphasis
on it.  That's why trade and investment was a prominent issue on
the first day of these talks, and in fact, figured prominently
last night in the meeting between President Yeltsin and President
Clinton.  And we're hoping that together we might send a strong
signal to the American business community that we support their
efforts to invest in Russia, that the United States, through Ex-
Im and OPEC and the Department of Commerce, will be there to
support them.

	     Q	  My question is, is Yeltsin in any position to
deliver on making Russia a more --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We think he is.  I
would note that President Yeltsin's Prime Minister, Mr.
Chernomyrdin, worked for 30 years in the Russian oil and gas
sector.  He will now chair a high-level commission with the Vice
President, Vice President Gore, to try to break through the
barriers that currently exist to Western investment in the oil
and gas sector.  We believe we have a commitment to make that
committee an important committee.  And we're looking forward to
the work.

	     Q	  What type of mechanism is already in place to
administer the private sector portion of the program?  And will
the U.S. be directly involved in the tail end of distribution of
the actual funds or is the money simply turned over to the
Russian government for distribution at their will?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Are you talking
about the variety of programs listed here?  It depends on the
program itself.  In most cases, though, we are either working
through American PBOs or American government agencies to ensure
that the money obviously is well spent, that the money gets to
the intended source.  That's an obligation we have to the
Congress to ensure the money is well spent and that we can
account for the money.  We have done that in the last couple of
months intensively and we will continue to do it for each of
these programs.

	     But they are all quite different.  For instance, in
the area of grant food and medical assistance, for grant food it
is carried out through USDA and USDA accounts for the delivery of
the food.  For grant medical assistance, we've been working
through Project Hope which is a private organization.  For the
housing -- for instance, the resettlement of Russian officers,
we'll be working with a group of American PBOs.  On some of the
democratization projects, we're working directly with Russian
private individuals and private foundations.  We're working with
journalists in Russia on a media project that you may have
noticed.

	     So we literally have here 30 to 40 different
activities under all these rubrics and they're all going to be
carried out in slightly different ways.  Some directly with the
Russian government, some with Russian citizens.

	     Q	  The Jackson-Vanik restrictions that remain and
on the COCOM restrictions that remain, can you tell us what the
President has to do on that?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as George
noted yesterday, President Yeltsin raised these as irritants in
the relationship.  The President has noted that.  I think it's
fair to say we will go back now in our own government when we
return to Washington and look at both of these questions, and
we'll get back to the Russian government.

	     Q	  You were not prepared for these questions when
you got here?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We were prepared
for these questions.  We've looked at them.  But we're not
prepared to make a quick decision this weekend.  They require --
let me just explain, particularly on Jackson-Vanik.  They require
consultation with the Congress.  They require consultation with
the American Jewish community.  And we're very sensitive to those
concerns.  And so we'll want to go back and talk to them before
we take any action.

	     Q	  Is this package designed so that you will not
have to go to Congress for anything at this point?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  As I said at the
beginning, the advantage of this particular package is that all
the funds have been allocated and appropriated by the Congress.
So the administration will not have to go back to the Congress to
seek any additional authority to fund any of these efforts.  In
effect, they can all begin tomorrow, and I know that many of the
agencies responsible for these projects will begin tomorrow.  And
that's the advantage of this particular initiative.

	     Q	  If this, as the President says, is a long-term,
long-haul thing, and members of Congress are at this moment
heading for Moscow, why aren't you talking about going to
Congress and suggesting to the President of Russia that you are
prepared to go to Congress for various things?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think we've been
clear about that.  The President is discussing this weekend with
President Yeltsin some additional ideas that we have for American
funding of additional projects, and ideas that he has.  We have a
major congressional delegation that left last night, headed by
Representative Gephardt and we'll want to consult with that
delegation and other members of Congress before doing anything.
And we'll also want to consult with our allies.  So that's where
it stands now.

	     Q	  We've been told repeatedly that a number of
these items represent different or new ways of spending the money
already appropriated.  Could you just tick off which of these
items represents reprogramming or at least spending money in ways
that it was not previously set to be?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that we've
said that these are all projects that either Congress had
allocated money for through the Freedom Support Act; there were
some funds that were left over from FY'92.  And this
administration took office and had some new ideas about how the
funds might be expended.

	     We didn't use just the Freedom Support Act funds or
the FY'92 funds.  We went into some of the agency allocations --
Ex-Im, OPIC, and USDA -- and tried to look for creative ways to
further our programs.

	     And example of that is the Food for Progress
concessional loans.  We had hit a brick wall with another type of
funding through USDA.  We could not go forward legally, and so we
looked for a more creative way to ensure continued American
market share and ensure continued grain sales, and we think we
found it.

	     Q	  Where, for example, are you getting the money
for this Russian officer resettlement --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's from the
Freedom Support Act funds.

	     Q	  In other words, all of the money is being
directly spent in new ways, so to speak --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Most of the grant
projects that you see -- if you look at the general chart, the
second chart, it's broken down into grant and credits.  And if
you look under grants, the technical cooperation projects that
total $281.9 million -- that is almost all Freedom Support Act
funding.  A little bit of it is leftover funds from fiscal year
'92.  The Nunn-Lugar funds, of course, you know about the
legislative history of those funds.

	     Q	     cooperation --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  From FY '92?  I
don't have the exact figure.  It was not a considerable figure.

	     Q	  Could you tell us please, has anything happened
here this weekend that will break the log jam between Ukraine and
Russia over START -- for START I and II as a result of what's
happened here --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Both presidents,
President Yeltsin and President Clinton, will be discussing this
issue this morning.  In fact, we haven't yet gotten to security
and arms control related issues.  That will be this morning's
session.  I know that President Clinton will be very strongly
reinforcing that this is a top priority for us.  We've been
talking to the Russians and the Ukrainians over the last couple
of weeks about ways that we might help to facilitate the
discussions between them.  Up to this point, this has been a very
important negotiation that's been going on essentially between
Moscow and Kiev.  And we are at the point now of essentially
discussing with them if there are ways that we could contribute
to this discussion, help to move things forward essentially.

	     But in terms of what is coming out of this weekend,
I don't yet know.  In a couple hours we'll know.

	     Q?	    Just a follow-up on the financing here.  Is
any of this robbing Peter to pay Boris -- since it's all current
year appropriations, have you taken it from anyplace that's been
earmarked and put it into this fund?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are smoke and
mirrors here, and I think it's an important point to note.  We
could have given you a page of assistance numbers that included
out-year funding.  We're going to make a long-term commitment to
many of these projects -- for instance, the enterprise funds, the
privatization effort, the housing effort.  And we've already
talked to the Russians about our long-term commitment.

	     We could have put in really big numbers and this
could have been a bigger package, but we wanted to make a point:
This package is FY '93.  It's funds that we have.  And we're
going to do what we say we're going to do.  And the President
feels very strongly about that.  In the past there is a legacy
that the western governments, the combination of governments, put
up large budget figures and for any number of reasons we're not
able to meet them, we're determined, and the President is
determined, to carry out every single program in this package.
And we'll do it.

	     But we do have a longer-term commitment, and that's
part of the discussions on economics this weekend.  We're looking
for Russian ideas on what it is we can do to most effectively
support reform.  And we've told them that we do have a commitment
on some of these programs beyond this fiscal year.

	     Q	     taken it way from any --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, we haven't.
Okay, the question is, have we reprogrammed any of these funds;
so have we taken it from other countries to pay for programs in
Russia?  The answer is no, we have not done so.

	     Q	  In terms of funding, there is no available
monies left -- and you simply find a creative way to find money
somewhere else.  Doesn't that, in fact, support the -- theory?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Not at all.  I
don't think it does.  That's a particular example, and the
example is grain sales.  The Commodity Credit Corporation credit
guarantee program was short-term loans that Russia had to pay
back within 12 to 15 months.  You all know about Russia's debt
problem, and Russia was unable to meet those commitments.  So we
looked for a way to do two things:  to meet Russia's requirement
for grain.  They're a net grain importer on a massive scale, and
also meet our objective of making sure that the American farmers
have a chance to sell their products to Russia.  And we simply
look for another way to finance that.  And we have legislative
authority to do it.  This program has been successful in other
areas.  We had not tried it before in the former Soviet Union,
but we thought we should now.

	     Q	  Isn't this really the Bush-Clinton aid package
for Russia, since these funds were really first derived by
initiatives put forward by President Bush?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I don't think
that's a fair characterization.  A lot of these funds were
appropriated by the U.S. Congress is 1991, in 1992.  This
administration took office and inherited some obligations that
the Bush administration had made.  But we had a long six to seven
week review of this program.  We decided to meet the commitments
that had been made by the previous administration.

	     But we have gone well beyond them in funding the
enterprise fund, which was just an idea, but the idea had not
been filled out with a program.  There was no number attached to
it.  In grouping together some projects and trying to make them
into a coherent whole in the privatization effort, I would say,
is another Clinton initiative.

	     Further, we listened to the Russian government and
listened to the Russian military who told us that the
resettlement of their officers was important to them for
political and economic and social reasons.  And President Clinton
has responded to that.  And we are making a long-term commitment
that beyond this demonstration project we're going to figure out
a way to do much more in trying to settle those officers.

	     I would also say that the President has given
impetus to all of us in the agencies to think much more broadly
about what it is we can do on democratization, because there we
have some experience and some comparative advantage that lends
itself to the Russian experience.  And in calling for the
creation of a democracy corps, which is another new initiative,
we're hopeful that we can take the resources of the private
sector as well as the American government, to achieve that
objective.

	     So I would not characterize it that way at all.  And
as most of you know, I am a career civil servant.  I was in the
last administration.  I'm very familiar with what the last
administration did.  And I would characterize this as a Clinton
assistance package for Russia.

	     Q	  There's been a lot of criticism that aid in the
past has not gotten to the people.  Is there anything in this
outside of the ombudsman, that will guarantee that this money
will not just disappear because it's being administered by the
Russian government?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think that -- I
know that the President and other senior officials of our
government are concerned that American money be spent wisely and
that it get to the source that it's intended -- for which it's
intended.  And so we're going to take great care -- AID and the
State Department will take great care in making sure that the
funds are expended properly and that they're reaching their
source.

	     I would not that this package is not simply a
package of support solely to the Russian government.  Some of
these projects, especially in democratization and exchanges, are
going to be worked out directly with Russian private individuals,
with businesses.  The private enterprise support is another
example of that.

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If I could just add
a word on this point with regard to the SSD-related programs, one
area that we've been looking at very, very closely is
consideration of actually using Russian firms in subcontracting
for these kinds of programs.  They would be working very closely,
of course, with the American firms, who would be the prime
contractors.  But this is a fine example, I think, of a more --of
a imaginative and flexible approach toward getting some of that
funding down to the grassroots level, down to the ground in
Russia; but at the same time ensuring that it is spent
efficiently and for the purposes for which it was intended.

	     Q	  When would the democracy corps start?  Exactly
when do you see this happening?  How would get it off the ground?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the President
is today calling for the creation of a democracy corps.  I think
it's fair to say that we're going to work out its framework over
the next couple of weeks.  Ambassador Simons takes up his duties
on May 1st.  But in effect we've already started, because over
the last couple of weeks the administration has begun to reach
out to people in the private sector who have come to us asking us
to help facilitate their activities in Russia.  And we've said
that we will be helpful.  We've also tried to kind of coordinate
in a much more effective way the activities of our own
government.  We do have 10 or 15 agencies that are active in
Russia in one way or another.  We think it makes sense to draw
them together and to focus their efforts.

	     Q	  Excuse me.  How much of this $1.6 billion will
actually be spent in the United States by American made goods?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't have any
figures for you now, but perhaps we could try to work something
up in the next couple of days on that.

	     Q	  This figure is larger than the figure that has
been in the press -- did this program grow yesterday as a result
of the discussions, or have we just been that far off the mark?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I think --
unfortunately the press has been a little bit off the mark, and
I'm sorry to say that.  No, this package -- President Clinton put
us to work about seven weeks ago on this package.  And he was
briefed intensively on this.  He contributed a lot of the
intellectual leadership in this package.  He contributed a lot of
the ideas in the package.  And I think it's fair to say that we
had this rough package worked out about two weeks ago.  We have
been refining it ever since.  We spent a couple of days last week
going over it with the Russian government, both the embassy in
Washington and the government in Moscow through our own embassy.
And so it's been evolving.  But this particular package has been
together for about two weeks.

	     Q	  Where is Yeltsin's input into this then?  There
was so much talk before about the President wanted to get
Yeltsin's views about specifically what was needed and so forth.
Is that in the out years?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, it's both.
President Yeltsin has on several occasions told us, for instance,
that support for the creation of private businesses is important
to him; that the resettlement of Russian military officers is
important; and that first and foremost the effort to privatize
the state industries is important to them.

	     And so what we did was to try to make those the
centerpiece of our technical assistance part o the package.  We
listened to him.  On the privatization effort, we have been
working with the Russian government for months on this trying to
work out all the details.  So the Russian government on most of
these programs was involved every step of the way.

	     But let me get at the other part of your question.
The President is also using this weekend to talk about a broader
set of initiatives that we might undertake.  And we're looking
for his ideas.  The President has brought his own ideas to the
table -- for instance, on energy and the environment and in
housing.  But we're looking for Russian ideas not.  We need to
consult with the Congress; and we need to consult with the other
allied governments that are also active.

	     Q	  There's essentially nothing that happened in
the last day and a half that measurably altered the package that
you came in with?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This particular
package, as I said, was worked out and was ready about two weeks
ago.  We have since then consulted with the Russian government on
the final stages of its development, and so this weekend we've
primarily talked about future, about what more the United States
and other Western countries can do to support reform in Russia,
which is our base objective here.

	     Q	  I noticed that you -- that money appropriated
to train bankers and businessmen and officers.  Can you tell me
what about job training for workers who are displaced by
privatization?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  You're right; we
have a program to train Russian -- young Russians in banking and
financial services in the United States.  Part of the housing
initiative, it's not just to build housing units, it's to retrain
Russian officers who are retiring into other professions.

	     Q	     money for job training for workers whose
jobs are disappearing because of privatization --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have not yet
allocated any money for that.

	     Q	  Why not?

	     Q	     of the $6 million is going to build 450
housing units.  Isn't that a lot of money per unit given what the
Western dollar will buy in the former Soviet Union?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  If you want to do
housing the right way, it's not just the building the framework
of a house, you've got to think about all the utilities.  You've
got to think about the purchase of land.  You've got to think
about sewage and gas and electricity and so forth.  And it's also
retraining.  It's not enough to put retired -- an officer coming
out of -- Riga or Tallin or Vilnius in a house in western Russia.
We think we have an obligation to try to retrain those officers
as well.  This is responding to a request from the Russian
government.

	     Q	     of the $6 million will go to retrain --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That's right.

	     Q	  Are you talking about apartment buildings or
single --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We're talking about
single, individual dwellings.

	     Q	  You're saying that only 450 families will be
served by this?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  What I want to -- I
thought I pointed out earlier, this is a demonstration project.
What we didn't want to do -- given the experience that the
Germans and the Turks and the Italians have had in building
housing in western Russian, we did not want to leap into it with
a huge amount of money.  What we want to do is work over the next
couple of months and try to figure out with American
organizations in the private sector the best way to get this job
done.

	     I noted that we have a long-term commitment to that.
And so I would expect that we would put a lot more money into
this in the future .  But we want to do it wisely; we want to
spend the money wisely.

	     Q	  What is it about this program that convinces
you that it will protect Russia's reforms and that Russia will be
in a position to may back the money they're supposed to pay back,
especially considering their other debt problem?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, look, I think
it's important to note that the United States on its own does not
have the capability to fuel a continuation of Russian reform.
It's got to be a collective Western effort, and we're looking to
our allies to do more as well.  But beyond that, it's really what
the Russians do that is going to decide the fate of reform.  We
can simply play a role, and we feel we have an obligation to do
so, which is consistent with our national interests.

	     Q	  Did the President say that the value of the
U.S. contribution was that it would create security and
prosperity for the United States?  So what is it about this
program that does this?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think you have to
go back to the fundamental objective of our policy toward Russia,
and that is we want to do everything we can to support the
continuation of reform.  We are convinced that if reformers stay
in power, then we'll be able to continue the drawdown of nuclear
forces, foreign policy cooperation and economic interaction,
which are the three benefits to the United States from reform in
Russia.  So it's not a simple question.  You can't just say that
this program is the answer.  It's a long-term question and we
have to make a long-term commitment to it.

	     Q	  And then on the question of Russia's ability to
repay, what convinces you they'll be able to pay seven to 15
years from now?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, the Russian
government has made a commitment to repay, and what we're hoping
is that if reform continues, and if they can continue to improve
their oil and gas sector and earn additional hard currency
revenues, that Russia will be in a position six or seven years
from now to pay back those loans.

	     Q	     substantial government-to-government loan
we've ever gotten into with the Russians?

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't want to
answer authoritatively on that.  I don't go back 20 or 30 years
on this.  But in the last four or five years, yes it is, because
the previous way that we financed grain exports was really to
just ensure private bank loans.  This is a different type of
effort.

	     Q	     government loans in any other sector that
you recall?  I know it wasn't done in --

	     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think it's fair
to say this is a new and unique effort.


Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply
another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of
folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim
Jones, circa 1993.

Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption
for centuries.


  So.  If I can scrounge up a good looking CX500 Turbo, will someone
  trade me an MHR Duc for it?

===============================================================================


One thing I think is interesting about alt.athiesm is the fact that
without bible-thumpers and their ilk this would be a much duller newsgroup.
It almost needs the deluded masses to write silly things for athiests to
tear apart. Oh well, that little tidbit aside here is what I really wanted
write about.

      How can anyone believe in such a sorry document as the bible? If you
want to be religious aren't there more plausable books out there? Seriously,
the bible was written by multiple authors who repeatedly contradict each
other. One minute it tells you to kill your kid if he talks back and the next
it says not to kill at all. I think that if xtians really want to follow a
deity they should pick one that can be consistent, unlike the last one they
invented.

      For people who say Jesus was the son of god, didn't god say not to
EVER put ANYONE else before him? Looks like you did just that. Didn't god
say not to make any symbols or idols? What are crosses then? Don't you think
that if you do in fact believe in the bible that you are rather far off track?

Was Jesus illiterate? Why didn't he write anything? Anyone know?

      I honestly hope that people who believe in the bible understand that
it is just one of the religious texts out there and that it is one of the
poorer quality ones to boot. The only reason xtianity escaped the middle east
is because a certain roman who's wine was poisoned with lead made all of rome
xtian after a bad dream.

      If this posting keeps one person, just ONE person, from standing on a
streetcorner and telling people they are going to hell I will be happy.


WANTED:

Cannon's Xapshot digital camera.  I'd be interested in any other
makes, but the Xapshot is the only one I'm familiar with.
I need one with a composite output and approx. 50 pictures per
disk capability.

If you have one for sale, or if you know of a cheap place to order one,
please leave me Email at lgibb@nyx.cs.du.edu


Interesting statements, simply because I have been told otherwise.  I'm
certainly not questioning Steve's claims, as for one I am not a doctor, and I
agree that foods don't bring on the recurrence of Crohn's.  But inflammation
can be either mildly or DRASTICALLY enhanced due to food.

Having had one major obstruction resulting in resection (is that a good enough
caveat :-), I was told that a *LOW RESIDUE* diet is called for.  Basically,
the idea is that if there is inflammation of the gut (which may not be
realized by the patient), any residue in the system can be caught in the folds
of inflammation and constantly irritate, thus exacerbating the problem.
Therefore, anything that doesn't digest completely by the point of common
inflammation should be avoided.  With what I've been told is typical Crohn's,
of the terminal ileum, my diet should be low residue, consisting of:

Completely out - never again - items:
	o corn (kernel husk doesn't digest ... most of us know this :-)
	o popcorn (same)
	o dried (dehydrated) fruit and fruit skins
	o nuts (Very tough when it comes to giving up some fudge :-)

Discouraged greatly:
	o raw vegetables (too fibrous)
	o wheat and raw grain breads
	o exotic lettuce (iceberg is ok since it's apparently mostly water)
	o greens (turnip, mustard, kale, etc...)
	o little seeds, like sesame (try getting an Arby's without it!)
	o long grain and wild rice (husky)
	o beans (you'll generate enough gas alone without them!)
	o BASICALLY anything that requires heavy digestive processing

I was told that the more processed the food the better! (rather ironic in this
day and age).  The whole point is PREVENTATIVE ... you want to give your
system as little chance to inflame as possible.  I was told that among the
NUMEROUS things that were heavily discouraged (I only listed a few), to try
the ones I wanted and see how I felt.  If it's bad, don't do it again!
Remember though that this was while I was in remission.  For Veggies: cook the
daylights out of them.  I prefer steaming ... I think it's cooks more
thoroughly - you're mileage may vary.

As with anything else, CHECK WITH YOUR DOCTOR.  Don't just take my word.  But
this is the info I've been given, and it may be a starting point for
discussion.  Good luck!

-Spenser


I hate to pour cold water on this, but currently seawater extracted
uranium, even using the new, improved fiber absorbers from Japan, is
about 20 times more expensive than uranium on the spot market.
Uranium is *very* cheap right now, around $10/lb.  Right now, there
are mines closing because they can't compete with places like Cigar
Lake in Canada (where the ore is so rich they present safety hazards
to the mines, who work in shielded vehicles).  Plenty of other sources
(for example, uranium from phosphate processing) would come on line before
uranium reached $200/lb.

"Demand and supply balance will collapse" is nonsense.  Supply and
demand always balance; what changes is the price.  Is uranium going
to increase in price by a factor of 20 by the end of the century?
Not bloody likely.  New nuclear reactors are not being built
at a sufficient rate.

Uranium from seawater is interesting, but it's a long term project, or
a project that the Japanese might justify on grounds of
self-sufficiency.


Center for Policy Research writes...

    Your comparison with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising is insulting,
    and racist beyond belief.  The attempts to quiet any violence
    in the Gaza Strip are just that.  The efforts to quell murder
    and mayhem in the Gaza strip were the resluts of violence and
    came AFTER the violence.  It was not an arbitrary racial move
    like the nazi treatment of Jews.  Jews had NOT committed acts
    of violence and murder as have the residents of Gaza.  I find
    your eagerness to ignore the acts of murder nothing more than
    anti-Israel bigotry.

    It is NOT punishment, but protection from repeated attacks by
    residents of Gaza.  You self-servingly omit any references to
    WHY Israel has had to take action.  Apparaently the deaths of
    innocent Israeli civilians do not enter into your equation, a
    racist ommission on your part.

    The right of Israel to protect its citizens from murderers is
    also recognized by international law.  Israeli civilians have
    been getting stabbed to death on a daily basis.  If this wave
    of murder does not matter to you, then your posturing for the
    basic human rights you claim matter so much to you is nothing
    but an anti-Israel charade.

    Do you know of residents of Gaza who have applied for Israeli
    citizenship and were denied?  I have heard of no such denials
    taking place.  Can you document this, or is this more of your
    stupid and innacurate propaganda?  The truth is that if Gazan
    residents applied for citizenship, HAMAS would murder them as
    collaborators.

	     Many Gazans are born in towns and villages located in

    How dare you use such a disgusting phrase.  How very easy you
    attack a people, when you omit facts which fly in the face of
    your pure racism.  Perhaps you are judging a people to be the
    racists that you are.  Do you believe that all Jews must have
    the same bigoted makeup as you?

    Here's another little fly in your ointment, about the 'master
    race,' for you to avoid...

    Two months ago a plane with 86 Bosnian Muslims left Bosnia to
    seek asylum in the middle east.  Four Arab nations refused to
    grant them asylum.  Then when Israli Arabs agreed to take the
    responsibility for them, they were allowed into Israel.  Yes,
    Israel.  But when the plane landed, the Israeli Arabs who had
    previously agreed to take care of them refused to be involved
    with the rescue project, because they felt that it would make
    Israel look good.  It was more important to avoid any good PR
    for Israel than to take care of fellow Muslims.  Israel moved
    them to a kibbutz, where they are safe and secure.  The truth
    is that time after time the Islamic world has turned its back
    on Muslims in need more than Israel has.  Even in the case of
    the 400 deportees, Lebanon was willing to let their so-called
    Arab brothers freeze to death rather than give them sanctuary
    in Lebanon.

    Nearly twice as many Palestinians have been murdered by other
    Palestinians than in confrontations with Israel.  Hundreds of
    thousands of Palestinians had been deported from Kuwait, just
    because they were Palestinian.  The truth is that your phoney
    concern for the welfare of the Palestinians is nothing but an
    excuse to attack Israel.  You are part of the ignorant effort
    to confine all concern for the welfare of the Palestinians to
    attacking Israel.  But the truth is there are greater reasons
    than Israel for the plight of the Palestinians.  To disregard
    Jordan or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or any of the other oil-rich
    nations who do nothing for these people, is to use the plight
    of these poor people as a vehicle for your hatred of Jews, or
    your hatred of Israel.  Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is NOT
    the same as pro-Palestinian and anyone who insists that it is
    the same really does not give two hoots for their welfare.

    Your pathetic analogy is so absent of relevant fact that your
    racism cannot be disguised.  Jews had never declared war on a
    Polish people.  Jews had never attacked Poles with knives, or
    had used the Ghetto as a staging ground for attacks.  To take
    something like the Warsaw Ghetto(the creation of which you do
    not even bother to discuss!)and the uprising that followed is
    to degrade the dead, and to show that intelligent debate on a
    difficult situation is beyond your intellectual purview.  You
    clearly have never even read a single word of the Covenant of
    the Islamic Resistance Movement.  Here is arguably the single
    most anti-semitic genocidal document since Mein Kampf, yet it
    is totally disregarded in your rantings.  Your racism is most
    evident in your eagerness to avoid such documentation.  If it
    were considered, you might actually have to deal with mideast
    problems in a balanced manner, rather than in an anti-semitic
    manner.

    And just how was Gaza obtained?  Do you forget that Israel is
    not in the habit of grabbing land for the hell of it, but had
    taken Gaza in a war that it did not start?  Did you know land
    Israel captures in wars, wars which other nations have ALWAYS
    started, aren't the same as Israel, and they are subject to a
    completely different set of international laws?  Since you do
    continuously refer to international law, would you please say
    what specific international laws Israel is violating?

						   This attitude

    I can cite 6,000,000 reasons why it is not.

    Where is this quote?  I have never heard Rabin assert that he
    wished such a thing.  Since you are in general a liar, you'll
    have to provide the entire quote, with source, or this effort
    will be regarded as just another one of your fabrications.

    Only you are led to ask such a loaded, racist, intellectually
    dishonest question.  You inability to come to terms with what
    you are has turned you into a racist of the highest order.

    Why do you not feel the same compassion for the Jews of Iran,
    or Iraq, or Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria?  Do you have an
    inkling of what they have endured over the past decades?  Or,
    what about the plight of the Palestinians in Kuwait?  Or what
    about the treatment of the Bosnian Muslims?  Do you think the
    residents of Gaza are being subjected to what all the Muslims
    in Bosnia are enduring?  Why are you indifferent to the death
    and suffering of people?  Why do you not care that these folk
    are being exterminated?  Why do you not care that only Israel
    has given any of these people safe haven?  Could it be due to
    the fact that it is not Israel who is doing the killing?  The
    people in Gaza are not being exterminated.  They aren't being
    killed.  They aren't being raped.  They aren't being starved.
    They aren't being driven from their lands.  They are not kept
    from receiving food or other supplies.  But the Bosnians are.
    And the ONLY country which has provided some sanctuary to the
    Bosnian Muslims is the same nation that you have devoted your
    life to attacking, in the guise of compassion.

    Your rantings are so unfettered by the burden of intellectual
    honesty that you ought to take a deep breath and ask yourself
    what your real motives are.  Do not flatter yourself into the
    belief that truth or compassion are what drives you.  In your
    case, it is clear that hate beats out love every time.  Maybe
    you are burdened with some kind of guilt for having been born
    a Jew.  It is obvious that your hatred of your own Judaism is
    being dumped on all other Jews.  Why else would you suggest a
    racist idea like breeding Jews out of existence?  Maybe these
    fits of anti-semitism are a result of being cut off from your
    own people for an extended period.  Whatever the case may be,
    it is clear that you are not what you have labored so hard to
    appear to be.  When you realize that you can't care for other
    people while you hate yourself you might actually begin to do
    some good.


Well I just read in the Boston Globe that while not confirming
(or denying) anything, Walsh may end up with the Rangers organizations
as an (assistant Coach?).  Keenan has talked with Walsh in the past
(he came up to see Kariya as he will be coaching him in the worlds,
funny I guess he got to watch the Ferraro brothers as well.....) I'm
not sure if walsh will go, but if Keenan is getting 700,000 and walsh
even gets 100,000 that's a 30% pay raise for walsh (not to mention
a nice career move....) Anyone from New York Hear anything about
this????????

               Pat Ellis

P.S.  GO BRUINS    GO UMAINE BLACK BEARS    42-1-2       NUMBER 1......

                   HOCKEY EAST REGULARS SEASON CHAMPIONS.....
                   HOCKEY EAST TOURNAMENT CHAMPIONS>......
                   PAUL KARIYA, HOBEY BAKER AWARD WINNER.......
         NCAA DIV. 1 HOCKEY TOURNAMENT CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There's this old SE here. It's got the older-style fans that remind
me of a house-ventilator. A cylindrical drum instead of the bladed rotor
I usually see. Anyway, the SE makes this loud buzzing noise due
to vibration somewheres. If I remove the screws and loosen the front
from the back, it quiets down. I can only assume that the fan housing
from this goofy thing is touching the back of the case and vibrating
against it.

Anyway, any suggestions for where to get replacement fans and how to
"stealth" this guy? Your experiences welcome.....


Graeme> 	Yes, that's known as "Bresenhams Run Length Slice Algorithm for
Graeme> Incremental lines". See Fundamental Algorithms for Computer Graphics,
Graeme> Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 1985.

Graeme> 	Hmm. I don't think I can help you with this, but you might
Graeme> take a look at the following:

Graeme> 	"Double-Step Incremental Generation of Lines and Circles",
Graeme> X. Wu and J. G. Rokne, Computer Graphics and Image processing,
Graeme> Vol 37, No. 4, Mar. 1987, pp. 331-334

Graeme> 	"Double-Step Generation of Ellipses", X. Wu and J. G. Rokne,
Graeme> IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, May 1989, pp. 56-69

Another paper you might want to consider is:

@article{fungdraw,
  title="A Run-Length Slice Line Drawing Algorithm without Division Operations",
  author="Khun Yee Fung and Tina M. Nicholl and A. K. Dewdney",
  journal="Computer Graphics Forum",
  year=1992,
  volume=11,
  number=3,
  pages="C-267--C-277"
}

Khun Yee


: > This is not a new idea.  At least 10 years ago I got this little gadget with
: > a keyboard on the back and 8 LED's in a vertical row on the front.  It has a
: > long handle and when you wave it in the air it "writes" the message you typed
: > on the keyboard in the air.
:
: This is not news.  In fact it's where I got the idea from, since it was
: such a neat item.  Mattell made it, I believe, modeled after a "space
: saber" or "light sword" or something likewise theme-y.  My addition was
: using a motor for continuous display, and polar effects in addition to
: character graphics.  I should have protected it when I had the chance.
: No one to kick but myself...
:
: Ten years ago is about right, since I built mine in '84 or '85.

It's even older than that.  I remember seeing a description of
a garage operation selling them at some of the early Computer Faires
in San Francisco about 5 years before that.


I couldnt agree more.  That is how it SHOULD work. People should also ALWAYS see motorcycles too.

I CONSTANTLY scan behind me (I have one of those wink mirrors) and two outside mirrors.  I actually spend just as much time checking my six (cops you know).

I still get caught off guard every now and then.


I watched him over his entire career.  I have NEVER seen a player, and that
includes Russell Courtnall and Davie Keon, screw up as many breakaways as
Bob Gainey.  And I will never forget the time Denis Potvin caught Gainey
with his head down.  You have been sold a bill of goods on Bob Gainey.

Gainey was a plugger.  And when the press runs out of things to say about
the stars on dynasties they start to hype the pluggers.  Grant Fuhr, Essa
Tikkannen, Butch Goring, Bob Nystrom, Bob Gainey, Doug Jarvis, Derek
Sanderson, Wayne Cashman, Bob Baun, Bob Pulford, Ralph Backstrom, Henri
Richard, Dick Duff...and so on...

cordially, as always,

rm


[On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...]

I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than
everyone else, Pat.  Just a *few* corrections:

1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable
to GO LOOK AT.

2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of
the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply
doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to
become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility
(sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a
down-side that was too expensive to overcome).

I figure 2 things wrong in a single sentence is a high enough fault
density for even you, Pat.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden


Hi!
	I am working on a project that needs to create contour lines
from random data points.  The work that I have done so far tells me that I
need to look into Triangulated Irregular Networks (TIN), the Delauney
criiterion, and the Krige method.  Does anyone have any suggestions for
references, programs and hopefully source code for creating contours.  Any
help with this or any surface modeling would be greatly appreciated.
I can be reached at the addresses below:

			-- Paul Conway


Actually, Hiten wasn't originally intended to go into lunar orbit at all,
so it indeed didn't have much fuel on hand.  The lunar-orbit mission was
an afterthought, after Hagoromo (a tiny subsatellite deployed by Hiten
during a lunar flyby) had a transmitter failure and its proper insertion
into lunar orbit couldn't be positively confirmed.

It should be noted that the technique does have disadvantages.  It takes
a long time, and you end up with a relatively inconvenient lunar orbit.
If you want something useful like a low circular polar orbit, you do have
to plan to expend a certain amount of fuel, although it is reduced from
what you'd need for the brute-force approach.


Hai,

In a few days I'm going to buy a new motherboard with local-bus(ses).
It comes with a Cirrus Logic VLB card which has 2Mb RAM onboard.
It can do true-color but I don't know what type of card it is.
I read that Cirrus Logic cards aren't exactly the fastes around.

My old system had a TSENG 4000. I was pretty pleased with it, so I
consider buying a W32/TSENG card. I'd like to know a few things:

	- How is the speed/performance in DOS/Windows/Unix/OS/2
	  Graphics & Text (also compared to S3 cards for example)
	- What resolutions (including no. of colors) does it
	  support (text & graphics)
	- How many RAM can be installed and what type of RAM
	- Compatibility with old TSENG 4000
	- Support in software

If anyone has any experience with this card (good or bad) I'd like
to know. If you have a better alternative than the W32 please tell
me about it.

For the people in Holland:
Kan iemand me misschien vertellen waar de W32 in Nederland te verkrijg
is? Het liefst in de omgeving van Amsterdam!


The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
were purged.  Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
tainted evidence.  The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
place when they departed, but concrete particulars are still no more than
more or less shrewd guesses.
-- Diccon Frankborn


In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov

Sorry I think I missed a bit of info on this Transition Experiment. What is it?

Will this mean a loss of data or will the Magellan transmit data later on ??

BTW: When will NASA cut off the connection with Magellan?? Not that I am
looking forward to that day but I am just curious. I believe it had something
to do with the funding from the goverment (or rather _NO_ funding :-)

ok that's it for now. See you guys around,
Jurriaan.


Hello all,

I'd like to know, how z-modem-upload is initiated in a WinQVT-Script-file,
to check how it works before registering.
Unfortunatly, nothing about that feature is mentioned in the manual.
Can anybody help me?


: 			Watch us soar in 1993!

Shouldn't that be 'Watch us stoned in 1993!'? :)

or maybe 'Watch us suck in 1993!'

or even 'Watch us sore in 1993!'


You do not need the SDK. What you need (and can get free) are

Location: ftp.cica.indiana.edu
index:      /pub/pc/win3/INDEX

First get /pub/pc/win3/uploads/what.zip (~1.3M) This contains the help
compiler among other things. It is free from Microsoft.

Then get these (I think these are free too)

dir:	/pub/pc/win3/programr
files:  hag.zip, whag.zip wfwhlp.zip

These are shareware

dir:    /pub/pc/win3/util
files:	hwab21.zip, qdhelp.zip, qdtool.zip

dir:	/pub/pc/win3/winword
files:	drhelpev.zip (macros for word 2.0 to convert doc to hlp files).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Shenoy                              | e-mail: shenoy@iastate.edu
2066 Black,Dept of AEEM,ISU,Ames,IA 50010 | Office: (515)-294-0082
--


Hi all,

  I would like to purchase CD-ROM drive. The specs I would like to have is:

   * Applicable to Kodak multisession Photo-CD
   * SCSI(2) Interface
   * Compatible with Adaptec-1542B
   * Does not need any caddies
   * Cheaper ( < $500 if possible)
   * Double Speeded

  I believe there are no drives satisfying all of the above condition,
  so I would like to know all of your opinion.  The above conditions
  are sorted by my priority.
  I think NEC CDR74-1/84-1 is a little bit expensive, but it DOES satisfy
  almost all of the above conditions. The problem is that I do not know
  the compatibility with 1542B. Has someone succeeded to connect these
  NEC drives to 1542B? I have heard a rumor that NEC drive is incompatible
  with 1542B adapter.
  Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.


After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?
=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor
become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of
either.


  In a word, yes.  I don't believe that physical knowledge has a great deal of
impact on the power of God.  In the past, God gave us the ability to create
life through sexual relations.  Now, he is giving us the ability to create life
through in vitro fertilization.  The difference between the two is merely
cosmetic, and even if we gain the ability to create universes we won't begin to
approach the glory of God.
  The power we are being given is a test, and I am sure that in many cases we
will use our new abilities unwisely.  But, people have been using sexuality
unwisely for millenia and I haven't heard an outcry to abolish it yet!
  No matter how far we extend our dominion over the physical world, we aren't
impinging on God's power.  It's only when we attempt to gain control of the
spiritual world, those things that can't be approached through science and
logic, that we begin to interfere with God.


{Michael Fulbright} said
   "Analog switches/Balanced"
      to <All> on 04-15-93  01:08
 MF> I am trying to build a synchronous demodulator and I've hit a snag.
 MF> In my application I want to be able to change the gain of an
 MF> op amp amplifier from 1 to -1, controlable via a digital input.
 MF> The most obvious way I've come up with is to use analog switches
 MF> to adjust the gain of the op amp. The only analog switch I have
 MF> experience with it the 4066. Unfortunately I want to switch an
 MF> AC signal which goes from about -5V to 5V, and the 4066 is only
 MF> for positive signals.

    How about using a 4053 it has a seperate ground for the
    analog outputs.  It would get you 3 bits.

 MF> Another part which caught my eye was the Analog Devices AD630. This
 MF> is a balanced demodulator which appears to fill exactly the need I
 MF> have. The data sheet was somewhat skimpy on application notes. Could
 MF> someone comment on using this chip for the following application?

    Or how about a multiplying D/A convertor?  This is
    essentiallty what you are makeing.

                Stephen Cyberman@Toz.Buffalo.NY.US
             Mangled on Fri  04-16-1993  at 13:36:11

... Catch the Blue Wave!


I will try to answer some of Dorin's questions, even though they were
not addressed to me specifically, but I feel that I am a bit concerned
by the thread since I am a Southern Lebanese from a village that is
often on the receiving end of Israel's bombs.
In the first place the death of three soldiers on a patrol in occupied
Lebanese terrritory is NOT an act of terrorism or murder.  It is
disingeneous to compare their death to that of athletes in Munich
or any other act of terrorism or mrder.  This exercise is aimed
solely at diverting the issue and is far from the truth.
It seems to me, Dorin, that, you are so remote and ignorant of the problem
on the ground that your comments can only be charactrized as irrelevant,
and heavily colored by the preconceptions and misinformation.
I will try to paint the most accurate picture I can of
what the situation really is in South Lebanon.

I am.  I was back in my home village this last summer.  For your information
we are PEOPLE, not a bunch of indiscriminate terrorists.  Most of the
people in my village are regular inhabitants that go about their daily
business, some work in the fields, some own small shops, others are
older men that go to the coffe shop and drink coffee.  Is that so hard to
imagine ????  It is NOT a "terrorist camp" as you and the Israelis like
to view the villages they are small communities with kids playing soccer
in the streets, women preparing lunch, men playing cards, etc.....
SOME young men, usually aged between 17 to 30 years are members of
the Lebanese resistance.  Even the inhabitants of the village do not
know who these are, they are secretive about it, but most people often
suspect who they are and what they are up to.  These young men are
supported financially by Iran most of the time.  They sneak arms and
ammunitions into the occupied zone where they set up booby traps
for Israeli patrols.  Every time an Israeli soldier is killed or injured
by these traps, Israel retalliates by indiscriminately bombing villages
of their own choosing often killing only innocent civilians.  Once they
are back they announce that they bombed a "terrorist  hideout" where
an 8 year old girl just happened to be.
We are now accustomed to Israeli tactics, and we figure that this is
the Israeli way of telling us that "if you're gonna hurt our soldiers
you're gonna pay the price".  We accept this as a price we have to pay
to free our land, Israel knows very well that it is not really hurting
the resistance that much militarily with these strikes, but rather
just keeping the pressure on the villagers to demand from their young
men to stop attacking Israeli soldiers since these attacks are
taking a heavy toll on the lives of the civilian villagers.
Israel's retalliation policy is cold hearted, but a reality that
we have come to accept and deal with, the Lebanese Resistance
on the other hand is not going to stop its attacks on OCCUPYING
ISRAELI SOLDIERS until they withdraw, this is the only real
leverage that they have to force Israel to withdraw.
The people of South Lebanon are occupied, or shelled by Israel on a
regular basis.  We do not want to be occupied.  If Israel insists that
the so called "Security Zone" is necessary for the protection of
Northern Israel, than it will have to pay the price of its occupation
with the blood of its soldiers.  If Israel is interested in peace,
than it should withdraw from OUR land.  We are not asking for the
establishment of a Lebanese occupied zone in northern Israel to protect
our villages that are attacked on a regular basis by Israel, so the
best policy seems to be the removal of Israeli occupation and the
establishment of peace keeping troops along the border.

I have written before on this very newsgroup, that the only
real solution will come as a result of a comprehensive peace
settlement whereby Israel withdraws to its own borders and
peace keeping troops are stationed along the border to insure
no one on either side of the border is shelled.
This is the only realistic solution, it is time for Israel to
realize that the concept of a "buffer zone" aimed at protecting
its northern cities has failed.  In fact it has caused much more
Israeli deaths than the occasional shelling of Northern Israel
would have resulted in.
If Israel really wants to save some Israeli lives it would withdraw
unilaterally from the so-called "Security Zone" before the conclusion
of the peace talks.  Such a move would save Israeli lives,
advance peace efforts, give Israel a great moral lift, better Israel's
public image abroad and give it an edge in the peace negociations
since Israel can rightly claim that it is genuinely interested in
peace and has already offered some important concessions.
Along with such a withdrawal Israel could demand that Hizbollah
be disarmed by the Lebanese government and warn that it will not
accept any attacks against its northern cities and that if such a
shelling occurs than it will consider re-taking the buffer zone
and will hold the Lebanese and Syrian government responsible for it.
There seems to be very little incentive for the Syrian and Lebanese
goovernment to allow Hizbollah to bomb Israel proper under such
circumstances, and now the Lebanese government has proven that it is
capable of controlling and disarming all militias as they did
in all other parts of Lebanon.

I agree, only in the case of the Isareli soldiers their killing
CANNOT be qualified as murder, no matter what you say.

 I have the feeling that you may be able yourself to make

Yes, we have no quarrel with Jews, or Israeli civilians.
The real problem is with OCCUPYING Israeli soldiers and those brave
Israeli pilots that bomb our civilian villages every time an
occupying soldier is attacked.


88 toyota Camry - Top Of The Line Vehicle
blue book $10,500
asking 9,900.

73 k miles
auto transmission

Has Everything!

owned by a meticulous automoble mechanic

call (408) 425-8203 ask for Bob.


Had an '83 Alliance for a long time.  It was a comfortable but sluggish
car.  I got very used to the horn on the stalk, after a couple months worth
of getting used to it.  After I bought my next car, a Chevy, it took me
for-EVER to get used to the horn on the steering wheel again!

jim grey
jwg@acd4.acd.com


If you do make it into New York state, the Palisades Interstate Parkway is a
pleasant ride (beautiful scenery, good road surface, minimal traffic).  You
may also want to take a sidetrip along Seven Lakes Drive just off the parkway
for the same reasons plus the road sweeps up and down along the hills with
sweeping turns under old forest canopy.


Northwest Air tix - SAVE $30 ANY FLIGHT

I have a $400 credit with Northwest Airlines which must be used
by Nov 27, 1993.

There is a $50 charge to change the ticket, so I will sell it for
$320.  It can be used for any Northwest flight, but I don't think
they will refund cash.

Please contact me at tallen@corp.hp.com  or (415)857-5878.


I just visited the NY Auto Show, and saw two LH cars on the floor: Eagle
Vision and Dodge Intrepid.

Really nice I must say. Very attractive styling, lots of features and room,
at a competitive price.

Unfortunately, the workmanship is quite disappointing. On BOTH cars,
the rubber seals around the window and door fell off. It turns out
the seals are just big grooved rubber band. It goes on just by pressing
the groove against the tongue on the door frame. Surely it would come
off easily.

I am not sure how many of this kind of pooring engineering/assembly
problems that will show up later.

I may still consider buying it, but only when it establishes a good
track record.


Yes -- my error -- you will need the DIFF between the
standard console.h and console.c supplied with
Symantec's THINK C 5.0.4 and the specially modified
one that works with MacPGP 2.2.

I added the two DIFFs to the end of the signature
file "MacPGP2.2srcSIGNATURE" in pub/grady of netcom.com

Please download via anonymous FTP and, using SED (oops),
cutting and pasting, fix-em-up.

Will one of you Mac-geniuses PLEASE port this to MacApp
or AppMaker, or...?

Grady


So what.  We think you're pretty hilarious too.

I love how you Brit's kiss royal arse.  That you're willing to throw
out freedom-of-speech for the sake of protecting the reputation of the
royal sluts.

That the British government advertised in American newspapers "Send A Gun
to Defend a British Home -- British civilians, faced with threat of
invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." during
WWII.  [American Rifleman November, 1940]

That The Obscene Publications Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act have been
used as justification for the police to seize masterpieces such as William
S. Burrough's "Junky", Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas",
and Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test".  British courts have
never recognized the right to assemble or to demonstrate.

That evidence obtained form coerced confessions is allowed in a trial.

That only serious felonies warrant a trial by jury.

That suspected terrorists must prove their innocence, instead of the
government having to prove their guilt.

That the secretary of state may issue an "exclusionary order" which
bars someone from ever entering a particular part of the United Kingdom,
such as Northern Ireland or Wales.

That the BBC banned Paul McCartney's "Give Ireland Back to the Irish"
as well as John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" during the Gulf War.

Yes, England is very very funny.  And very pathetic.

So what.  Laughter is a way of dealing with things we find uncomfortable.
I thought the "Las Vegas Show Girl" ads on Las Vegas street corners were
pretty funny.

Yes indeed, there are many strange and wonderous things in this country.
I wouldn't have it any other way.

I don't disagree with that, I don't think it's bad either.

So what.  If they didn't come from here they would come from elsewhere
disguised as cocaine.

You can laugh all you want, for us it's a matter of life or death.
I don't find that funny in the least.

As for England:

"As our allies become more open, Britain grow yet more secretive and
censorious.  Perhaps the real British vice is passivity, a willingness
to tolerate constraints which others would find unbearble." [in "Britain,
An Unfree Country" by Terrence DeQuesne and Edward Goodman, pp 33.]


If you could not tell which one had MSG, why restaurants bother to
use it at all?

If you can taste the difference, psychological reaction might play a role.

The fact is, MSG is part of natural substance. Everyone, I mean EVERYONE,
consumes certain amount of MSG every day through regular diet without
the synthesized MSG additive.

Chinese, and many other Asians (Japanese, Koreans, etc) have used
MSG as flavor enhancer for two thousand years. Do you believe that
they knew how to make MSG from chemical processes? Not. They just
extracted it from natural food such sea food and meat broth.

Baring MSG is just like baring sugar which many people react to.


Douglas Adams once said (paraphrased from memory): "I just picked it.  It
seemed like the sort of number you wouldn't be afraid to take home to meet
your parents.  Nice and even, perfectly normal."


Well now, we can't judge death until we are dead right?  So, why should
we judge religion without having experienced it?  People have said that
religion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc.,
but I don't totally agree with this.  Of course, we cannot really say
how the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion,
but some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it.

So basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for
a given individual, or even for a general population.  We can say that
it is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use
religion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state
above).


I think VW got caught out on the airbag thing.  It's only been in the last
year or two that airbags have become a significant selling feature.
VW assumed that  automatic belts would satisfy govt. requirements for
passive restraint, but didn't guess that the 'merican consumer would
actually make buy decisions based on the presence of an airbag.

VW is really hurting right now in the US market.  Check out the
article in last week's Autoweek about the crisis at VW.  Golfs and
Jettas will be coming from the plant in Mexico, but they don't have
the quality at that facility.  As per normal VW practice, the US
launch of the Jetta III is delayed again and again, until a good chunk
of the useful life of the design is spent.

I think that Passats come from Germany, so there is not the same
quality and availability issue.  It's a nice car with a nice engine.
Whether VW will be a player in the US market in two year's time is a
different question...


I love the idea of progressive developmental prizes, but the assumption
has
been all along that only the U.S. Gummint could fund the prizes.  It
wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing ... BUT ...

An eccentric billionaire COULD offer such a prize or series of prizes.

Anyone know H. Ross Perot or Bill Gates personally?


I've been using MS Access (still available from some stores for $99.00)
and I am quite pleased with it.  It's relatively easy to learn, very easy
to use and somewhat easy to program.  I highly recomend it, particularly
at $99.00!  I have not used Paradox for Windows, but I don't expect it to
be $30.00 better than Access (IMHO).


#>So instead of calling it interest on deposits, you call it *returns on investements*
#>and instead of calling loans you call it *investing in business* (that is in other words
#>floating stocks in your company).
#
#No, interest is different from a return on an investment.  For one
#thing, a return on an investment has greater risk, and not a set return
#(i.e. the amount of money you make can go up or down, or you might even
#lose money).  The difference is, the risk of loss is shared by the
#investor, rather than practically all the risk being taken by the
#borrower when the borrower borrows from the bank.
#

But is it different from stocks ?  If you wish to call an investor in stocks as
a banker, well then its your choice .....

#>Relabeling does not make it interest free !!
#
#It is not just relabeling, as I have explained above.

It  *is* relabeling ...
Also its still not interest free. The investor is still taking some money ... as
dividend on his investment ... ofcourse the investor (in islamic *banking*, its your
so called *bank*)  is taking more risk than the usual bank, but its still getting some
thing back in return ....

Also have you heard of junk bonds ???

---Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
                                           vinayak dutt
                                   e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu

             standard disclaimers apply


If I believed in the God of the bible I would be very fearful of making
this statement. Doesn't it say those who judge will be judged by the
same measure?

A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship.
If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to
convince people to worship him.

It was the myth of hell that made me finally realize that the whole thing
was untrue. If it hadn't been for hell I would still be a believer today.
The myth of hell made me realize that if there was a God that he was not
the all knowing and all good God he claimed to be. Why should I take such
a being at his word, even if there was evidence for his existance?


These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
alike.

God be with you,


Curtis Mathes VHS VCR Remote included and it works with universal remotes.
 2 heads, Works great but I replaced it with a Stereo VCR.
 paid $300 years ago, will sell for $125 delivered OBO.

Radio Shack stereo amp.  2 inputs, tone, and left and right volume.  Speakers
 not included.  Compact 12W unit for $20 plus shipping.  Great for Amiga
 Stereo output or Soundblaster output.

If you are interested in either of the above mail me, Keith, at
radley@gibbs.oit.unc.edu or call me at 919-968-7779.


	The South Florida Colons.

	:)


<Dear Xperts:
<
<   Here's my problem:  I am designing several related X
<applications (each one is a separate executable) and  I'd like
<to build a single control window that would allow the user to
<access each application (instead of having to locate the correct
<icon). The Control Window would contain a button for each
<application and by pressing it, the application's main window
<would appear.  I would also like to use the application's button
<as a color status indicator.  Has anyone done this or have any
<good ideas??  Because these are all separate executables this
<seems like a communications nightmare to me, but maybe I'm
<wrong.  I'd appreciate any ideas! I'm using X11R5 and Motif 1.2.1.
<
<Thanks,
<dbohdal@jaguar.ess.harris.com

I can think of two different methods that you could try. 1) use fork and
execv 2) use the "system" called in your program.  I'm assuming that you're
running under the Unix OS of course.


I have two questions:

1) What would be required to create a Macintosh PC network
   including laser printers, line printers, etc.?


1.  Why, or how actually, can a Powerbook have a 640 x 400 pixel
    display, regardless if it is a 9" or 10", and still keep the
    72 dpi resolution?  (I assume that it doesn't, and I don't
    mean to imply they *all* have these dimensions)

2.  Any info on price drops or new models (non-Duo) coming up?


   I agree very much.  I have read almost every article written about
   the Glock, and IMO, it is probably the safest auto-loader made.  It
   has the best safty of all, Jeff Cooper's First Rule, "Keep your finger
   OFF the trigger until you want to shoot."  If everyone just observed
   this, there would be fewer "accidents".

   David N. Bixler
   Auburn University


The problem is that Motif uses XGrabKey to implement menu accelerators,
and these grabs are specific about which modifiers apply.  Unfortunately,
the specification for XGrabKey doesn't allow AnyModifier to be combined
with other modifiers, which is exactly what would be desired in this case:
"Ctrl Any<Key>q".

This is true for accelerators and mnemonics, which are implemented using
event handlers instead of grabs; it's not true for menu accelerators.  If
you're a Motif implementor, I'd suggest lobbying to get the Xlib semantics
changed to support the feature I described above.  Otherwise, change the
documentation for menu accelerators to properly set the user's
expectations, because menu accelerators are NOT the same thing as
translations.

If you mean "menu accelerator", no it's not possible.  That's according to
the definition of the XmNaccelerator resource in the XmLabel manual page.

I can't think of a reason why not.

There is a workaround for Motif users.  In addition to the normal menu
accelerator you install on the XmPushButton[Gadget], set an XtNaccelerators
resource on the shell (TopLevel or Application).  Install the shell's
accelerators on itself and all of its descendants with
XtInstallAllAccelerators (shell, shell).

For example,

  applicationShell - mainWindow - menuBar - fileCascade
					  -- filePulldown - openPushbutton
							  - exitPushbutton

  *openPushbutton.accelerator = Ctrl<Key>O
  *openPushbutton.acceleratorText = Ctrl+O
  *exitPushbutton.accelerator = Ctrl<Key>Q
  *exitPushbutton.acceleratorText = Ctrl+Q

  *applicationShell.accelerators = #override\n\
    Ctrl<Key>O: PerformAction(*openPushbutton, ArmAndActivate)\n\
    Ctrl<Key>Q: PerformAction(*exitPushbutton, ArmAndActivate)

You have to write and add the application action PerformAction, which you
can implement by using XtNameToWidget on the first argument and then
XtCallActionProc with the rest of the arguments.

I tested out something similar to this.  To shorten development time, I
used TeleUSE's TuNinstallAccelerators resource to install the accelerators
on the shell, and I directly invoked the Open and Quit D actions instead
of asking the pushbuttons to do it for me, but the more general approach I
described above should work.


#
#
# Is there an Xt call to give me my application context?
# I am fixing up an X/Motif program, and am trying to use XtAppAddTimeOut,
# whose first argument is the app_context.  What call can I use
# to give me this value?
#

Use XtDisplayToApplicationContext() to retreive the application context.

Patrick L. Mahan

--- TGV Window Washer ------------------------------- Mahan@TGV.COM ---------

Waking a person unnecessarily should not be considered  - Lazarus Long
a capital crime.  For a first offense, that is            From the Notebooks of
							  Lazarus Long
Patrick L. Mahan

--- TGV Window Washer ------------------------------- Mahan@TGV.COM ---------


Sketch:  Rotate so cylinder axis is || Z axis.

Intersect X/Y projection of line with projected cylinder (similar to,
but easier than, sphere intersection).  Result: no intersection, one
intersection, or two intersections, parameterized along line by t0 and
t1.  Now look at Z, and compute intersections of line with top and
bottom planes of cylinder.  This gives t0' and t1'.  The interval of
intersection is then the bit of the line from [t0,t1] INTERSECT [t0',t1'].

Details left as an exercise for the reader.

=S


There are also a couple or three places on West 45th between Fifth and
Sixth.

Harvey

--