HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 25 Dec 92 07:47:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <JMC.92Dec24180245@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <58002@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>   In article <JMC.92Dec23184831@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   >is unfortunate that so much land in the West is in the hands of the
>   >Federal Government.  The Federal Government should auction off 3/4
>   >of its land in the Western states including Alaska.
>
>   To what end? Instead the government should start acting to preserve the
>   property of the general public, instead of allowing it to be degraded for
>   the profit of a few well connected welfare ranchers, miners,
>   loggers, and tourist concessionaires.
>
>   Statist? Your logical deductions are not truth preserving.
>
>Well, Yodaiken wants to keep the land in Government hands, and he
>regards people who might buy the land as "a few well connected welfare
>ranchers, miners, loggers, and tourist concessionaires."  That's
>pretty statist.  Also his posting is as close to a howl as we commonly
>get on Usenet.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

In a land as rich in natural resources and poor in infrastructure as Alaska,
Yodaiken is probably correct in anticipating what the results of private land
ownership will be -- massive environmental destruction to exploit natural
resources. There certainly is a good deal of precedent for this. Perhaps
McCarthy thinks such an outcome would be a desirable result.

Note: I will be out of town until Jan 6; I might or might not get to read
news while I am gone, so please e-mail followups as well as posting (so I can
respond).

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13947 sci.econ:9540 sci.anthropology:1623
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:07:33 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec28.213800.3424@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
=>In article <BzxFn2.FIM@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
=>|> In the global economy, the rational self-interest of competitive
=>|> market agents has demonstrated itself by far the best method for 
=>|> growing the global economy while preserving the global environment.  
=>|> 
=>
=I would say that the democratic system of government under which
=the market economies exist have shown themselves to be better at
=preserving the global environment than the centralized economies.
=Whether this relative success is due to the market
=economies or is in spite of them is arguable.  Secondly, that this
=system has been better than centralized systems does not mean
=that it is good enough.  As to "growing the global economy" (never
=thought I'd see Carl using Clinton's phraseology),

You still haven't.  You were quoting Nick, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:40:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.183314.26932@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.182038.26674@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>
>>>I fail to see why efficiency improvements and shifts to non-fossil energy
>>>sources are mutually exclusive. Your slant seems to imply that it is 
>>>necessary to choose one of these approaches, but the use of the words
>>>"quite independent" shows that this is not the case.
>>>
>I just wanted to reiterate that if funds are limited, then priorities
>need to be made and decisions made about where those funds go.  If the
>goal is CO2 remediation, then the best strategy, according to this
>study, is to spend this money (or much of it) on efficiency.  If we
>have more money, we can also move away from fossil fuels.  Its a
>question of budgets and priorities.

To follow up *this* thought, CO2 remediation may be important, I think
it is, but it can't be our *only* goal in setting energy policy. Economic
growth has been historically  coupled tightly to energy consumption. I don't
think we know how to break that coupling, or even if breaking that coupling
is feasible or wise. Add to that the need to replace existing plant as
it wears out, and a new generation strategy is required despite any 
demand efficiencies we may be able to fund.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 28 Dec 1992 18:52:53 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <58025@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>Could you tell us specifically which "leftist theorists" you have in mind?
>As far as I know, most "leftist" theorists tend to take a very dim view of
>the world bank. And you have Marx backwards. He argued that it was
>capitalism which took from those who produce in favor of those who own.
>Read the Communist Manifesto some time. Or, if you like Orwell, try reading
>"Homage to Catalonia". 

Ah, yes,  Yackadamn again.  Victor, can't you see the difference between theory
and practice?  Sure, it SOUNDS good to say that Communism will eliminate the
parasites from society and ennoble the proletariat.  Now, how about hauling out
a few examples to compare the theory with the practice?

Geez.  The same moron who wants to evaluate nuclear powor on the basis of
worst-case scenarios wants to evaluate politics/economics based on the rosiest
of theories.  You'd think he could develop just a *LITTLE* consistency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: From radical to common sense (Was: ...paving moratorium)
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:03:52 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <2934821193.0.p00004@psilink.com> p00004@psilink.com writes:

 > >Once they hear it often enough, it will move from "radical" to
 > >"common sense". It is already happening. When I started talking about
 > >stopping highway construction 6 years ago, nobody would listen or
 > >seriously consider it. Now it is common sense, among a large segment
 > >of the world (well, large compared to before).
 >  
 > And getting larger, which is the important thing.

How about some normative statistics on the occurrence of innovation in
human populations? Dr Vandeman states that he is the one who initiated
a new idea about stopping highway construction, which within six years
became common sense "among a large segment of the world". Of around 5.5
billion people, how many is a large segment?

"Larger compared to before"? What was before? Dr Vandeman alone, or
other people? How many other people? Very many millions of people,
perhaps, who had similarly arrived at the same conclusions since the
benefits and limitations of cars have been known from the start?

Has it not occurred to either of you that the debate on highways has
carried on in a consistent and unbroken discourse since the automobile
first appeared on the streets? Among the first laws restricting their
use, indeed, someone had to walk in front carrying a red flag to warn
everyone of the arrival of the contraption in their midst. Even then,
at every development political campaigns have raged, and the most
heated debates pursued in legislative houses everywhere.

The idea that one person alone discovered the dreadful truth about
automobiles and must now campaign to warn the entire world of their
impending doom unless they *repent*, is no more than the very silliest
form of Cromwellian millenarianism, these days usually found far more
frequently among American Foreign Secretaries rather than scientists
as such.

Oh well. I guess the world is not perfect . . .

Gil
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NYT article on Japanese breeder
Date: 28 Dec 1992 18:16:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <louis.724993429@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
>
>>Perhaps this represents _The New York Times_ joining the Greenpeace
>>campaign to bully the Japanese into abandoning their breeder project,
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Gimme a break, nobody is going to bully the Japanese into *anything*.

You don't, then, consider ramming a ship to be "bullying."  Interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:55:18 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Dec23184831@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Victor Yodaiken's Massachusetts is in much better shape than Alaska in
>that almost all of the land in Massachusetts is in private hands.  It

This is such typical right-wing "my eyes are closed so you can't see me"
nonsense that it boggles the mind.  There is essentially no wilderness left
in Massachusetts, but there is an extensive state park system which
preserves much of what we have left. Of course the Feds have done a terrible
job managing our national parks, but it is foolish to draw from this the
lesson that private ownership is more likely to preserve wilderness and 
open space than public ownership.


>is unfortunate that so much land in the West is in the hands of the
>Federal Government.  The Federal Government should auction off 3/4
>of its land in the Western states including Alaska.

To what end? Instead the government should start acting to preserve the
property of the general public, instead of allowing it to be degraded for
the profit of a few well connected welfare ranchers, miners,
loggers, and tourist concessionaires.

>Alaskans should get their Congrressmen to introduce a bill to do that.
>Even if it doesn't pass the first time, it will be fun to hear the
>statists like Yodaiken howl.

Statist? Your logical deductions are not truth preserving.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Bandwidth burner
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:02:28 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec29113452@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> In article <2934731029.0.p00004@psilink.com> "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com> writes:
> 
>    >DATE:   29 Dec 92 11:56:42 GMT
>    >FROM:   nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
> 
>    >Me Im just a one time professional student, now out of work Active Duty Army
>    >Guardmember (I quit, needed a change). Who has a desire to know alot
>    >in different subjects, renaisance(sp) man?
> 
>    May I take the liberty of encouraging a policy of non-response to this 
>    poor soul? I ask this as a favor, since I don't have the equivalent of a 
>    kill file and no way of prefiltering posts; I have to get all in order 
>    to get any, at a clunky 9.6 kb/sec.
> 
>    Believe me, I hate that snippy net-police mentality as much as anybody; 
>    this is a cry for mercy.
> 
>    --Michael Smith
> 
> I doubt that Michael Smith hates the snippy net-police mentality as
> much as I do.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 

Was that all that I posted. Maybe I deserve a flame.. 
Well I need to stop posting soon, I have made most or all the points that I
wanted to.. After Im a right wing liberterian (odd animal?).

    Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:41:10 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>> First capital cost: If we postulate a scenario where the US
>> commits to an  all-out conversion to nuclear energy, it must
>> also be postulated that things that need to be done to
>> streamline the process will be done. 

>$250/kW seems awfully low -- that's even less than the capital cost of
>simple cycle combustion turbines.

That's because combustion turbines are low capacity compared to their
cost.  

>The recent USCEA study of the economics of nuclear vs. oil/gas/coal
>for the next decade used cost figures for ABB Combustion Engineering's
>new reactor design.  Even with its simplification, its "overnight
>capital cost" is around $1300/kW (for a 1200 MWe reactor).  I find it
>hard to believe that USCEA -- a pronuclear group -- would overestimate
>the cost of reactors by a factor of 5.

I quoted myself above again to reiterate my basis which should be 
the basis used in the study.  That USCEA is using the old, obsolete
model for nuclear generation to me shows they are about as competent
at that as they are in making nuclear power advertisements. (I've
never seen such horrendously bad ads.)  Sure a plant of 50s vintage design 
built under even "streamlined" regulations would cost at least $1300/kw.  
I would hope that in the almost 50 years of experience, the industry could 
come up with a more cost-effective design.  Since several have already
been proposed in the literature, I'm sure they can.  Of course, if
DOE is allowed to boondogle as usual, who knows.

Of course, this disucssion is academic since no power executive in his
right mind would even consider trying to construct another plant 
like what we have now.

Back to the study.  That the author used old, stale values on the nuclear
side while advocating radical social changes on the other shows the 
bogosity of the "study".  'Bout what I'd expect from RMI.  If the author
claims the right to postulate on the basis of radical conservation
and soft energy, I have an equal right to demand that nuclear figures
embrace at least the same level of radical change.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Corp Control, Shareholders.
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:50:52 GMT

>If people want to control the MEGA-Corps, then spend your money and buy some
>voting stocks and become a SHARE-HOLDER.. After all who does the corporations
>respect other than a high government official (maybe), the shareholders..
>At least when they vote. I have one share in ARCO, and I can vote for that one
>share.. IT might soon mean more than being able to vote in the US elections..

A very naive idea I once held. Try putting a resolution on the ballot of
the Annual Meeting! NOW show me where your power is!!! The SEC stands in
the way of democracy re corporations. Boycotts are more effective. At least
no one can tell you where to spend your money.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:46:54 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <58022@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.163305.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>>> Because many of us value the preservation of some wilderness on the
>>> north american continent, and we would like *our* public land to be used
>>> that way. 

>>Well many off don't care for your ideas of "public land" if you so much want
>>public land and parks, then spend some of your own money and buy land and make

>Sigh. We already own the land. You want to change the ownership, put up
>some money. It's really sickening how many people want to get something for
>nothing.

Victor, your lack of reading comprehension is truly amazing.  The
original proposal, which you, of course, deleted, was to auction off
the land.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Yet Another Anti-Greenpeace Scenario From Thin Air
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:04:21 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Jym.22Dec1992.1516@naughty-peahen>, Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>> Now add in the fact that a clearly hostile ship (don't go and
>> tell me that the GreenPeace ship was out there to protect the
>> Japanese ship) . . .
>
>=+= The Greenpeace ship was out there to (1) draw attention to
>the shipment and (2) find out the route that the shipment was
>taking (since such was being kept from the public).

Well, neither of these goals requires that the Greenhype ship be anywhere near
as close as three miles to the ship transporting the plutonium.  So why was the
Greenhype ship so close?  One has to suspect that they were going to try to
approach to an unsafe distance from the transport ship then bleat "If we did
it, terrorists could've done it."  In the process of trying some damned fool
stunt like that, they end up ramming the escort, and then bleat about the
escort moving erratically.  And of coiurse Jym Dyer buys into their win/win
claim:  If the escort prevents the Greenpeace ship from approaching the
transport vessel, Greenhype bitches, and bleeding hearts like Jym Dyer deny
that Greenpeace was doing anything wrong.  If the escort vessel allows the
Greenhype ship to approace the transport, Jym and other similarly credible
fools will be convinced that the transport was open to attack by terrorists.

>=+= This isn't being there "to protect the Japanese ship" (not
>that anyone ever claimed it was), but neither is it "clearly
>hostile" to do so.

Trying to evade the escort and approach the transport is damned well a "clearly
hostile" thing to do, you moron.

>> The bottom line . . . is that GreenPeace was testing the
>> Japanese escort ship much like the old Soviet Union naval
>> ships would test the US Navy's carrier defenses by trying
>> to purposely get their ships in our carrier's way.
>
>=+= As I said before, this is a scenario pulled from thin air.
>Repeating it over and over doesn't add substance to it.

OK. jackass:  Suppose you provide some even remotely plausible reason for
Greenhype's trying so diligently to approach the transport ship that they
rammed the escort vessel?  What the hell do you suppose they might've been
trying to do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: From radical to common sense (Was: ...paving moratorium)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:38:34 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:42:19 GMT
>FROM:   Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM>

>Once they hear it often enough, it will move from "radical" to
>"common sense". It is already happening. When I started talking about
>stopping highway construction 6 years ago, nobody would listen or
>seriously consider it. Now it is common sense, among a large segment
>of the world (well, large compared to before).

And getting larger, which is the important thing.

One incessantly hears Right-wingers whining about the cultural hegemony 
of crypto-Bolshevism, and bragging about their own bold, non-conformist, 
contrarian struggle to promote the views of the local Chamber of 
Commerce. I used to think this was just the usual propaganda technique 
of reversing the roles of David and Goliath -- after all, the Right  
has the boardrooms, the Pentagon, the White House, and the statehouse, 
while one or two city councils are arguably in the hands of something 
that might possibly be considered the Left.

But there's more to it than that. These crackpot market utopians and 
Colonel North buffs insist on their own beleaguerment with a level of 
intensity that cannot possibly be feigned. It isn't because the ideas 
they hate so much have, as yet, any wide currency; but on the other 
hand, I think they must sense, in some way, that these ideas have 
vitality and are gaining ground, while the intellectual weapons 
deployed to resist them are tired and threadbare in the extreme. How 
often can you repeat the increasingly hollow promise that everything 
will be fine if only rich people are taxed a little less, without 
involuntarily starting to gag on your own words? 

--Michael Smith