mwicks@sun.uucp (Michael Wicks) (07/22/86)
I realize that this subject may have been beaten to death long
before now but I wanted to add 2 cents from my end. Here in California
we of course do not have any helmet laws and motorcylists can do just
about anything they like, and they usually do. Some are safe and
courteous riders and others are reckless. I don't have any numbers or
percentages on that or for the number of safe or reckless drivers
either. I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY
seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to,
and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that
sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and
it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law.
Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though
their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an
enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers
have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the
persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a
helmet law? I don't have the answers but I do say that if you are on
a motorcycle on the freeway WITHOUT a helmet and decide to travel
between cars, you deserve to get you head mashed if that's all the
sense you have. I've always wanted to get a bike myself but after
seeing what the cyclists do here, and how drivers react both on and
off the road I say "No thanks, I don't need any more enemies!".
MICHAEL L. WICKS
Sun Microsystems
*****************************************
* ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday *
* but it's an OLD DAY now!.... *
*****************************************robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) (07/23/86)
In article <5348@sun.uucp>, mwicks@sun.uucp (Michael Wicks) writes: > > I realize that this subject may have been beaten to death long > before now but I wanted to add 2 cents from my end. Here in California > we of course do not have any helmet laws and motorcylists can do just > about anything they like, and they usually do. Some are safe and > courteous riders and others are reckless. I don't have any numbers or > percentages on that or for the number of safe or reckless drivers > either. I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY > seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to, > and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that > sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and > it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law. Michael, I have religiously worn a seatbelt for the past 6 years, and it has saved my head and face twice. However, I opposed the enaction of the mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body. Note that the seatbelt law was only enacted a few months ago, and we have yet to see a longterm study of whether people will obey it, or whether it will go the way of obeyance of the 55 mph speed limit. > Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though > their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an > enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers > have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the Yes there is. > persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a > helmet law? I don't have the answers but I do say that if you are on > a motorcycle on the freeway WITHOUT a helmet and decide to travel > between cars, you deserve to get you head mashed if that's all the > sense you have. I've always wanted to get a bike myself but after > seeing what the cyclists do here, and how drivers react both on and > off the road I say "No thanks, I don't need any more enemies!". I appreciate your keen sense of moral values, such that you can determine when it is and is not OK for me to get my head crushed by someone in an auto. Again, I always wear boots, helmet, gloves and leathers when riding my bike, but I respect others rights not to (although they have to be foolish). I'm fairly new to motorcycling, but already I've learned that the single biggest danger to the motorcylist is not his speed or agility, but the ignorance of auto drivers on the road. In fact, my speed and agility are the only ways of surviving when someone weaves across several lanes of traffic and cuts me off, without signaling. Given your concern for the survival of people on the roads, maybe you would like to contribute to my lobby to have HE warhead missles legalized for use by motorcylists. A well placed Stinger would go far to increasing the amount of respect and notice afforded motorcyclists on the roads of America. > > MICHAEL L. WICKS > Sun Microsystems > ***************************************** > * ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday * > * but it's an OLD DAY now!.... * > ***************************************** Robert Allen, robert@sri-spam.ARPA
mwicks@sun.uucp (Michael Wicks) (07/24/86)
>Michael, I have religiously worn a seatbelt for the past 6 years, and it > law was only enacted a few months ago, and we have yet to see a longterm > study of whether people will obey it, or whether it will go the way of > obeyance of the 55 mph speed limit. > > > Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though > > their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an > > enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers > > have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the > > I appreciate your keen sense of moral values, such that you can determine > when it is and is not OK for me to get my head crushed by someone in > an auto. Again, I always wear boots, helmet, gloves and leathers when > riding my bike, but I respect others rights not to (although they have > to be foolish). I'm fairly new to motorcycling, but already I've learned > that the single biggest danger to the motorcylist is not his speed or > agility, but the ignorance of auto drivers on the road. In fact, my > speed and agility are the only ways of surviving when someone weaves across > several lanes of traffic and cuts me off, without signaling. Given > your concern for the survival of people on the roads, maybe you would > like to contribute to my lobby to have HE warhead missles legalized for > use by motorcylists. A well placed Stinger would go far to increasing > the amount of respect and notice afforded motorcyclists on the roads > of America. > > > Robert Allen, > robert@sri-spam.ARPA I realize that many drivers have a "bad attitude" towards ANYONE on two wheels but I'm wondering if it's because the drivers are just plain ignorant jerks who don't pay attention to their surrroundings, or if the bikers who normally weave in and out of traffic and scare safe drivers cause motorists to cop their attitude towards motor- cyclists. I suspect it's some of both. Safe cyclists don't have a chance against incompetent drivers anymore than 'insane' bikers have a chance against safe drivers. As I've stated previously-- Laws are enacted because of worst-case scenarios and there is not a whole lot that can be done if most of the people comply with the law. I would like to see a 'free ' society where people could make their own choices about wearing seatbelt and helmets but as long as there are incompetents on 2 or 4 wheels then we're in for some CONTROL legislation. MICHAEL L. WICKS Sun Microsystems ***************************************** * ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday * * but it's an OLD DAY now!.... * *****************************************
junk@ur-tut.UUCP (Jan Vandenbrande) (07/25/86)
In article <6133@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: >has saved my head and face twice. However, I opposed the enaction of the >mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory >helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body. Note that the seatbelt > .... Indeed it is anyones business what they do with their body. But who pays for a person to be patched up after an accident? The insurance. And who pays the insurance? Right, we all do (so I hope). And now it becomes my business too. If I indirectly have to pay for you to be scraped from the pavement and be reassembled, I'd rather have your, mine and everyone's elses freedom diminished a bit by requiring everyone to wear protective devices such as helmets, seatbelts, etc. The small sacrifice is worth the benefit. Jan.
kpc@duke.UUCP (Kim P. Collins) (07/27/86)
this is a line of text wqucjhcj In article <543@ur-tut.UUCP> junk@ur-tut.UUCP (Jan Vandenbrande) writes: >In article <6133@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: >>has saved my head and face twice. However, I opposed the enaction of the >>mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory >>helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body. Note that the seatbelt >> .... > Indeed it is anyones business what they do with their body. >But who pays for a person to be patched up after an accident? The insurance. >And who pays the insurance? Right, we all do (so I hope). And now it >becomes my business too. If I indirectly have to pay for you to be >scraped from the pavement and be reassembled, I'd rather have your, >mine and everyone's elses freedom diminished a bit by requiring >everyone to wear protective devices such as helmets, seatbelts, etc. >The small sacrifice is worth the benefit. >Jan. Do you drink? It's therefore costing ME money if you do. And about that coffee you have every morning (for the sake of the arg.) -- your increased chances of heart disease (or whatever) will eventually end up increasing my taxes and insurance. And any cola you drink, and any time you do anything that is dangerous to yourself but not others. Do you eat red meat? Shall I declare the fact that you will have a much less healthy life, statistically speaking (AND rationally speaking, since researchers can s how how red meat hurts you) as grounds for mandatory no-red-meat law? You and I are staring at CRTs, in all likelihood. What do you think that's doing to our eyes? Would you "rather have [my], [your], and everyone else's freedom diminished a bit ..."? Etcetera. There is a reason for my going into those examples. I am trying to make it clear that there are two distinct kinds of cases -- those that affect others directly, and those that affect others through such things as taxes, insurance, etc. The latter, should you continue to think them grounds for limitations of individual liberties, are on what is called a SLIPPERY SLOPE; that is, if you hold that one thing is impermissible, then you really can't make the case that another thing (say, red meat) is not also impermissible. Cars themselves are dangerous! a 10-degree turn in the steering wheel for only a second could kill you. "For your own good" should not be a phrase heard in the lawmakers' chambers in this country. It was heard in many other countries, with results that you and I both know well. (I know that you didn't say that, but it is one thing that supporters of your general position would say.) Nor should the tax/insurance rationalization be heard. (well, _hear_ it, but DON'T MAKE LAWS FROM IT.) Our laws are necessary to protect people FROM OTHER PEOPLE. We are free men. this is a line of text
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (07/27/86)
In article <543@ur-tut.UUCP> junk@ur-tut.UUCP (Jan Vandenbrande) writes: >In article <6133@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: >>has saved my head and face twice. However, I opposed the enaction of the >>mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory >>helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body. Note that the seatbelt >> .... > Indeed it is anyones business what they do with their body. >But who pays for a person to be patched up after an accident? The insurance. >And who pays the insurance? Right, we all do (so I hope). And now it >becomes my business too. If I indirectly have to pay for you to be >scraped from the pavement and be reassembled, I'd rather have your, >mine and everyone's elses freedom diminished a bit by requiring >everyone to wear protective devices such as helmets, seatbelts, etc. >The small sacrifice is worth the benefit. in exchange for the PRIVILEGE of using public roads, you must exchange a little bit of your personal freedoms for the good of the many. if you don't want to wear a seatbelt, do it on private roads. this has been rehashed many times in net.auto and will continue to be talked about until people realize that public roads are different than private roads. are tollways considered private? if so, the people running them could impose just about any safety laws they wanted. Herb Chong, IBM Research... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie%ibm.com@csnet-relay ARPA: herbie@ibm.com, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
donn@oracle.UUCP (Kevin Donn) (07/29/86)
In article <5348@sun.uucp> mwicks@sun.uucp (Michael Wicks) writes: > > I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY > seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to, > and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that > sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and > it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law. > Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though > their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an > enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers > have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the > persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a > helmet law? First of all, there are plenty of people who object (and objected) to the passing of a seat belt law. The fact that it got passed anyway is not at all indicative of the people's will. What happened was one of the "those who know what's best for us" groups decided we needed to have air bags in our cars a couple years ago and pushed an airbag law through congress. Now the car manufacturers weren't too carried away with this because it would cost them money to develop and implement airbags, so they employed their own lobby to have the final draft of the bill say that airbags would be mandatory if by mmddyy, xx% of the driving populace weren't wearing seatbelts. This served to buy them time to start putting pressure on state legislatures to pass seat belt laws. California represented a lot of drivers so it got hit early on and was eventually won over, a victory for big business. But who got their rights walked all over? You got it, the only group without a lobby, the Joe "head up his hiney" American group, the voters (who never really got to vote on the whole deal). So don't think for a minute that the seat belt law (whether or not it can be considered a good thing) was called for by the people. As for helmet laws, you're absolutely right that there are lobbies of cyclists who are willing to defend their right to splatter their head all over the pavement. I personally am a helmet advocate, but I recognize that it should be the individual's decision to wear or not wear a helmet while riding a bike, to wear or not wear goggles while operating a circular saw, to wear or not wear a coat on a winter day. Kevin Donn
animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) (07/29/86)
<much, much redundant arguing deleted> > > ...are tollways considered private? if so, the people running them could > impose just about any safety laws they wanted. > > Herb Chong, IBM Research... > I don't know about California, but here in Illinois the Tollway system is considered a private road owned by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, a private corporation owned by the state of Illinois. The tollway is proud to remind us that no tax dollars are used in its construction or maintenance (but you still pay road tax on the gas you buy at its service plazas). So in theory they could raise the limit (and in practice, there is frequently very lax enforcement on several well-known stretches of the system--especially the stretch of Illinois 5 in the western part of the state, the one which is paralleled by non-toll I-80). This is unlikely, since our current (and probably future, since he is running unopposed) governor is a big fan of 55. An interesting item in the newspaper last week described a proposal to build a private tollway from Pueblo, Colorado to Denver to relieve the congestion on I-25. The backers of the plan stated that the road would have a speed limit of 80 mph, and could do so without fear of government reprisal because the road is private.
mojo@mp-mojo.UUCP (Mojo Jones) (07/29/86)
From: junk@ur-tut.UUCP (Jan Vandenbrande) > Indeed it is anyones business what they do with their body. > But who pays for a person to be patched up after an accident? The insurance. > And who pays the insurance? Right, we all do (so I hope). And now it > becomes my business too. When I'm approached with problems that I try to solve in my favorite libertarian paradise, the answer becomes simple. Insurance companies play a big role in a free society, and I'd love to see better competition and less regulation of them. If you could find an insurer whose insurance was only valid when the insured was wearing a seat belt or helmet (as appropriate), then you could be paying for insurance *without* paying for the problems of self-abusers. This is not a problem for legislation. (Almost nothing is.) Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Int'l Corp., Product Development {lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!mp-mojo!mojo
mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (07/29/86)
On the other hand, how many times have you seen Freddy Spencer or Eddie Lawson ride a motorcycle without a helmet ? I'm sure they could use the "added vision and hearing" that so many of the potential brain-donors out there boast of, but they prefer to wear restrictive headgear. I can't recall too many cases of seeing Mario Andretti get into a car and leave his seatbelt off, either. Of course, these dudes are going a lot faster than you and I (?) and don't have to cope with traffic. Of course, they don't have to worry about things falling off the semi-trailer in front of them and hitting them in the face, either... I wish you guys could see my buddy Fred's helmet after he slid face-first on the Washington beltway... I particularly like the teeth-marks in the styrofoam liner of the chin. The styrofoam is all that's left, after all the fiberglass wore off the way his face would have. Now, I hate the law, and laws in general (ask anyone) and I spit on no spitting signs just 'cuz they're there, but following the law of survival makes sense. If nobody exercised thier freedom of choice, the number of kidney donors would drop. if you think I'm kidding, ask your friends who work near an emergency room... -- *All opinions expressed aren't even mine, let alone those of Gould, Inc.*
mojo@mp-mojo.UUCP (Mojo Jones) (07/31/86)
From: mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) > If > nobody exercised thier freedom of choice, the number of > kidney donors would drop. if you think I'm kidding, ask > your friends who work near an emergency room... Item in the newspaper today: Italy recently passed a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists. The law was spawned by the fact that of Italy's first eight heart transplants, six of the donors were motorcyclists without helmets. (Maybe edg@micropro will post the whole item.) I won't tell you to wear a helmet (unless you're on my range taking my course). But if you don't, PLEASE sign the donor card on the back of your license. Thank you! "Think of it as evolution in action."
mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (07/31/86)
> This is the second such claim I have seen, and I'd love to have > someone explain it. My understanding is that the human head can > safely decellerate at about 80 gees, and that with a good helmet > a 200 gee decelleration can be reduced to below 80 for the head. > In other words, the only thing a helmet really can do is lessen > the severity of a decelleration. The relative accelleration of > the brain vs the skul has got to be proportional to the accelleration > being applied to the skull by the sidewalk, right? > > > -- > --Craig > ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good there are very delicate bundles of nerve fiber that connect the forebrain to the rest of the brain. These are not the *only* connections but they seem to be extremely important. when the brain receives a blow, these nerves can actually be cut by the impact. look at a picture of a brain someday. there's a big fissure that runs up the front. _____ / \ ( _ | (rear) -> T_____/ (most brains are slightly larger, but I made this drawing by tracing around mine) This is the reason a lot of old boxers suffer co-ordination problems. high-divers and other people who regularly take jarring impacts on the cranium also suffer from this form of slow brain damage. it's like a lobotomy. remember, your optics are all running through there, and they are vital to co-ordination and orientation. When you hit a street with your head, your skull may survive just fine, but the impact on your *BRAIN* is terrible. Nerve bundles can be torn in several areas (other than just the forebrain) even running hard, I seem to recall, can jar your brain enough to kill cells. remember that the brain is about the consistency of butter. (warm butter) and think about the tidal forces it's going to undergo when it decelerates quickly. at highway speeds every little bit is going to count a LOT. if you hit straight on, it is actually less damaging than if you bounce in such a way that your head skips. (like a stone) That will make a mini-milkshake out of your CPU, cause bleeding, and a nasty hangover. The upshot of all this is that you skull and bones can survive a lot of damage - damage that can in fact turn you into a vegetable. Severe shell-shock and pressure have been known to produce personality changes, memory disorders, and a drop of IQ as mesured with standard tests. While your skull may just get scraped and re-modeled, you may disqualify yourself as a brain donor. Wear your helmet: every G counts. Live Free. mjr -- *All opinions expressed aren't even mine, let alone those of Gould, Inc.*
root@shuksan.UUCP (Operator <often mikey>) (08/05/86)
> > I wish you guys could see my buddy Fred's helmet > after he slid face-first on the Washington beltway... > I particularly like the teeth-marks in the styrofoam > liner of the chin. The styrofoam is all that's left, > after all the fiberglass wore off the way his face would > have. > > Now, I hate the law, and laws in general (ask > anyone) and I spit on no spitting signs just 'cuz they're > there, but following the law of survival makes sense. If > nobody exercised thier freedom of choice, the number of > kidney donors would drop. if you think I'm kidding, ask > your friends who work near an emergency room... > > -- I second that .... several years ago, my wife was riding her little honda 350 with a helmet and a crash bar on the bike. A guy came out from a side street, looked right at her and pulled out (she thought she had eye contact - turns out he did not see her). She was doing the speed limit (35 mph on this street) , was merged with traffic (which was fairly heavy) and it was daylight and clear. Both she and the bike were thrown across 2 lanes of traffic, the bike was totaled (the crash bar took the whole blow - it was flattened against the engine saving her leg). The side of her helmet looked like I had used a power sander on it (she said it felt like someone used a hammer on her head). Total injuries were a skinned ankle and a bruised colar bone -- she did not even have a head ache! (the kirkland police cited the guy who hit her for "failure to yield" right on the spot). While we also do not like the manditory helmet law, we both feel that you are a fool if you do not wear one! (Our neighbors are both nurses - one of them works in an emergency room - they agree - helmets should be worn - They have told us about some of the cases that come in!) Mikey (yes "he likes it!") My job is so secret even I don't know what I'm doing =============================================================================== email: real person: Life: ssc-vax!fields (206) 251-4638 [work] Mike Fields ssc-vax!shuksan!mikey (206) 821-3492 [home] 12022 N.E. 138th Pl. Kirkland, Wa. 98034 ===============================================================================
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (08/09/86)
In article <196@shuksan.UUCP> root@shuksan.UUCP (Operator <often mikey>) writes: >> I wish you guys could see my buddy Fred's helmet >> after he slid face-first on the Washington beltway... >> -- >I second that .... several years ago, my wife was riding her >little honda 350 with a helmet and a crash bar on the bike. A >... The side of her helmet looked like I had >used a power sander on it (she said it felt like someone used a hammer >on her head). Total injuries were a skinned ankle and a bruised >colar bone -- she did not even have a head ache! (the kirkland police > > Mikey (yes "he likes it!") The most convincing argument I ever saw for the use of helmets involved my 10th grade bio teacher. An epileptic, he gave up driving for fear of killing someone else when he was 19 and took up bicycle riding instead. Naturally, he never rode anywhere without his Bell Biker. Well, he stopped showing up to class one day. It seems he had been riding along at about 35 mph when he had a seizure, bounced off a telephone pole and off the street. Fortunately, he did not get hit by a car (I think he glanced off one) but the helmet was totalled. The lexan shell split into three separate pieces and the styrofoam was almost completely worn through where it had been crushed. He was in a coma for a while, and recovered after about 10 months. Try to repeat that without a helmet. -dave -- David Hsu (301) 454-1433 || -8798 || -8715 "I know no-thing!" -eneevax Communications & Signal Processing Laboratory / EE Systems Staff Systems Research Center, Bldg 093 / Engineering Computer Facility The University of Maryland -~- College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: hsu@eneevax.umd.edu UUCP: [seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Evil...pure and simple!"
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (08/13/86)
In article <87@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: > >The most convincing argument I ever saw for the use of helmets involved >my 10th grade bio teacher. An epileptic, he gave up driving for fear >of killing someone else when he was 19 and took up bicycle riding >instead. Naturally, he never rode anywhere without his Bell Biker. > >Well, he stopped showing up to class one day. It seems he had been >riding along at about 35 mph when he had a seizure, bounced off a >telephone pole and off the street. Fortunately, he did not get hit by >a car (I think he glanced off one) but the helmet was totalled. The >lexan shell split into three separate pieces and the styrofoam was >almost completely worn through where it had been crushed. He was in a >coma for a while, and recovered after about 10 months. > >Try to repeat that without a helmet. I think that I'd rather die than wake up to 10 months of hospital bills. This story doesn't seem like a very good one to promote helmet-wearing. If the helmet did such a good job, why was he in the hospital for 10 months? By chance, were there any neck or collarbone injuries? Dave
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (08/16/86)
In article <1460@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >In article <87@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: >> >>[accident clobbers teacher, who eventually recovers] >> >>Try to repeat that without a helmet. > >I think that I'd rather die than wake up to 10 months of hospital bills. >This story doesn't seem like a very good one to promote helmet-wearing. >If the helmet did such a good job, why was he in the hospital for 10 months? >By chance, were there any neck or collarbone injuries? > >Dave Largely for rehabilitation. Needless to say, he looked a little like Frankenstein after the accident, but was able to resume teaching almost as soon as he returned. I don't know if he took up bicycle riding again. Without a helmet, the chances of returning to a (semi-)normal life are extremely low. At 35 mph, it is debatable whether or not you would die of your injuries; it would depend upon the circumstances. Odds are good you would live the rest of your life as a mental and physical vegetable, and your family would be burdened for life with hospital bills instead. I don't remember what other injuries he had, other than kidney trauma. -dave -- David Hsu (301) 454-1433 || -8798 || -8715 "I know no-thing!" -eneevax Communications & Signal Processing Laboratory / EE Systems Staff Systems Research Center, Bldg 093 / Engineering Computer Facility The University of Maryland -~- College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: hsu@eneevax.umd.edu UUCP: [seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Evil...pure and simple!"