HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:23:09 -0400 
From: Jamieson Edward Schulte <jscw+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.talk.environment: 24-Aug-92 Re: ages Environmental
Show.. by Mike McCants@execu.execu 
>  
> My proposal is: get the US Government into full scale production and
> ownership of nuclear power plants ASAP.  Too bad the politics rule
> out such a good solution.

My immediate response to this proposal would be to question whether we
would be able to deal with the waste produced by such a program. After
all, we've proved ourselves sadly unable to dispose of the radioactive
waste that's been generated so far.

My question though, is how much of the material that we have stockpiled
so far is due to military programs, and how does it compare to the
amount of waste generated by commercial reactors? Would it be resonable
to expect that we could handle the waste of a national nuclear complex
now that military should be stepping down its production?

Jamie
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:35:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <l9n6j3INNhma@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>Only if one *knows* it's inadequate, and in this case we don't...

I thought we already agreed that we do!

>As I've shown above, that *would* be a constructive use of resources.

I did not see a convincing cost/benefit analysis.

What is proposed?  What would it cost?  Are there really likely to
be any benefits?  Other than learning that a 2% reduction can hardly
be measured, much less be considered to have any significant short term
or long term impact.

How much will we pay to learn that it didn't make any difference?

How much will we pay so that a CO2 level of 3.195% will be reached
in July, 2022 instead of June, 2022?

Who has that signature with a statement about numbers?
From: Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: SKILLS DATABASE?
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 12:06:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7101/20.0 - Unisa Editorial, Pretoria

On 08-20-92  22:41 rkummer@phillip.edu.au said to All

 rk> I met someone from Greenpeace the other day, and they said
 rk> they had  a need for a computer program (for an IBM compatible PC) that
 rk> would allow  them to search a database of member's skills. That is, if
 rk> a Greenpeace  member indicates that they are willing to volunteer their
 rk> services if  required at some point in the future, they can give a list
 rk> of their  professional/non-professional skills (e.g. computer
 rk> programmer, clerical,  transport), then Greenpeace could simply do a
 rk> key-word(s) search of the  database to get a list of potential helpers.

Virtually any general database program could be set up to do this, depending on the level of complexity required. 

One of the best for tracking peoples' skills is askSam, a freeform text database that also allows structured fields. This means that you can stroe structured and unstructured information in the same database, and you could set it up to find people with fairly diffuse combinations of skills.

They also announce that the manuals for the program are printed on recycled paper, if that's any help.

 
... Scrute the inscrutable; eff the ineffable

--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Mr. Magic)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:47:17 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

Well... that's a lot being said but just a few points I'd wish to pick up on



1) If we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere that means that we're continuing to
burn (or otherways oxidise and thus use up) fossil fuels (whether oil, gas) or other
carbon sources such as trees. I'm sure everybody will agree that 
   a) we can't place these as quickly as we burn/use them
   b) there, currently, is no widescale alternative to these sources
Therefore, if we continue as normal now then there will be no resources for tomorrow's
tomorrow. THEREFORE AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE WE WILL HAVE TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE
ON FOSSIL FUELS which, as we all agree, will result in less CO2 being emitted to the
atmosphere.


2) Mr. Coffman asks/states: 
  come back and tell me that economics can't kill. If you can guarantee
  that your CO2 reduction proposals won't have unintended economic side
  effects, if you can prove that the world's economy won't be toppled from
  recession into depression, then I say fine, go ahead

Nobody can guarantee anysuch thing! Can YOU promise the future?? Anyhow, there are
distinct possibilities that by investing in alternative energy sources and CO2
reduction techniques one can ensure there is no negative effect on the economy (no
loss of jobs, etc). We ARE going to have to do it soon (see point above) anyhow...


Michael
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.elections
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering followup
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:57:25 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <714236846@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|
|Also note: the "mysterioso" factor Ted seems to have so much trouble
|understanding is simply accouting for the added cross section and
|leverage that the ultrasaur would have if its legs were only 20 percent
|thicker than Kazmaier's.  It doesn't matter whether this is so for most
|animals or not: the point is, it is *possible* for the ultrasaur, and
|*if* the ultrasaur had legs and pelvis only 20 percent thicker than
|Kazmaier's, it could stand up.  Not having soft tissues, we don't
|know how much thicker they actually were: I'm working on getting
|actual figures on the best preserved specimines, and see about that.

Hmm, I'm betting that they are *substantially* more than 20% thicker than
Kazmaier's.  As I remember the sauropod leg bones I have seen, the *bones*
alone exceed the diameter of an average human leg.  Now allowing that a
muscle-bound hunk like Kazmaier has thicker than average legs, this still
makes a mere 20% excess a little unlikely once one adds flesh (a *little*?!?!).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:50:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


But then Drew himself went on to argue that the mind is required, not just
the senses. The argument stands no better: how do you know that it was
the holy spirit that popped into your head? Could be an imposter, some Hell-
spawn CLAIMING to be the HS....
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Antti Siivonen's evidence
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:12:45 GMT

bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:

	I've never written like that. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:09:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.004002.4893@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> In <1992Aug27.125924.21174@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> >}All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.
> 
> >Why?
>  What caused the origin of the very first cell?
>  Did God make the first cell?  Yes or No?  It is a binary question.

  How about: who knows?  How could we even empirically test for this?  Does
evolution make any claim on this subject?  No, of course not.  Could it: not
unless you can specifically offer a test that would determine such a thing.  If
there is no test it is outside the relm of scientific inquiry.

>  You cannot answer, god did, but it did it by itself too.
> 
>  God and evolution are contradicting theories.

  You seem to have confused "evolution" with "Vern's personal, and highly
unscientific, opinions".  I am almost willing to believe you are a Creationist
trying to make evolution look bad.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:36:12 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <BtpK05.FD8@cs.dal.ca*, hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
 
* 	Or to phrase it as Darwin himself did:
 
* 	"After life had been breathed by the Creator into a few
* 	forms or one...."
 
* 	(origins, last page, quoted from memory but I'm sure the substance
* 	is accurate).
 
* 	So Darwin, at least, did not see an evident contradiction
* 	between evolution and god.  And though his own beliefs "evolved"
* 	towards atheism/agnosticism in later life, he never claimed
* 	that such a contradiction existed.
 
* 	Amazing that a single quote from Darwin answers both Mr. Nelson
* 	and Mr. Larsen.
* 						Bill Hyde

That's a real slick answer there, Hyde.  So basically God figures "Gee,
I'm probably bright enough to create a single-celled organism but I wouldn't
have the talent to create anything higher than that, so I'll create the
one-celled organism and let evolution take care of the rest..."

You should start a new religion with that as the core idea.  There might
even be money in it.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.142014.14303@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.014954.18408@rhrk.uni-kl.de>kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.194458.7777@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>>>My point is that the origin of life is not directly observable
>>>and therefore dogmatic statements about origin are out of line
>>>on either side of the issue.
>>
>>Dogmatic statements are always out of line, about every subject, and we all
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>know that.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>[..]
>Should I take the above dogmatic statement as satire, ignorance, or 
>ignorant satire? 

Aha, you mean that's a self-condemning statement.  Well, I'm intolerant against
intolerance as well...
If I were dogmatic concerning my rejection of dogma, this were an exception
from the anti-dogma rule.  Therefore I am *not* dogmatic concerning dogma, since
dogmaticists don't make exceptions.  Hmmm...

>Thomas, are you having a bad day? Your response seemed a bit emotional.

Thanks for supposing I'm not always like that.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:54:56 GMT

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.230626.17809@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>
>>Well, the determining factor in deciding which is plausible is the
>>time duration it takes to mutate.  Now, the creationists believe that
>>the present genetic diversity has developed within the last 10 000 years,
>>right?  And most evolutionists would say that such diversity (if indeed
>>all humans have evolved from a common ancestor) would take a much longer
>>time.  Now, if there were some sort of mega radiation blast, I suppose
>>that the mutation could have occurred as quickly as the creationists claim.
>>

>Why are you limiting the developement to the last 10 000 years (where
>in the bible does it say that) and why do you assume that the billions
>of years of existance of this universe is sufficient time for life to
>evolve to its current state?  Although many "interpretations" of the
>Bible or other creation stories suggest that the developement time was
>much shorter, its quite clear that there has been life here much
>longer (of course, it was also quite clear that the Earth is flat).
>I'm also not convinced that this universe has been in existance
>sufficient time to evolve to this state on it's own.  Perhaps there
>was some help by someone from outside this universe to bring about
>life during those billions of years.

In the Bible, there is a list of many begats, etc., that lead one to believe
that if "Adam and Eve" existed at "day 1" then the Earth would be under 10k
years old.

Why do I assume that a billion years is long enough for the evolution of
life to its current state?  Well, we have fossil records that show the 
path of "evolution" through much of the Earth's history.  If it happened,
then there must have been enough time, right?  I don't know what drives the
timescale of evolution.  Does it take catastrophic events to force a species
to "change" (ie the ones that die don't lend their genes to the next
generation)?

Anyway, I suppose I cite the anthropic principle.  If all of the evidence
points to the fact that humans evolved within the last 15 billion years or
so, then this time period must have been long enough to allow this to happen.
It is all really simple, or am I missing something here?

What do you mean by "someone outside this universe"?

You feel that without outside intelligent intervention, the universe could
not have evolved to its present state?  Where is the hitch?  That is, what link
do you think is unbelievable?

keith
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)

In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof) writes:
>For you Creationists out there, a simple question:
>
>What is the purpose of mankind?  
>

Humans were created to feed cats. Ask any cat-owner.

>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>   CPT Dave Kristof USAF               COMM:  703-697-3576
>   dkristof@pafosu1.hq.af.mil          

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Other scrotal functions (for Greg Frazier)
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:31:42 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 265       


	I'm flaky at the end of the day...

	As Dr. Ruth would say:   (high-pitched voice on!)

	"Yes, Gleg, the scrutum may be shury-rigged, but it may also
act as a secondary eroo-genous zone!"

	Ah, the wonders of evolution!

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:44:33 GMT

In article <BtMGC3.CyG@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
writes:

|>Phill Hallam-Baker writes:
|>>This is the point I was trying to make, in order to accept creationism you
|>>have to come up with a convincing explanation of why evolution as a model
|>>works so well. Since the only version of creationism that has predicitve
|>>power would be to postulate that the agreement with the evolution model is
|>>deliberate, predictive creationism falls into the deamon category.
|>
|>Well said.  Fits right in to the arguments that a God powerful enough to
|>create the universe must have been omnicient enough to know what effects
|>it would have.  One cannot argue that God inadvertently created a world
|>where evolution only "seemed" to have occurred, as omnicience cannot do
|>anything inadvertently.  And this is why most creationists have backed
|>off the position that God may have created with the appearance of age,
|>as it distills down to a God who is either something less than completely
|>omnicient, or something less than completely truthful.

One side point, this argument took off on a question of whether one can actually
define PI "absolutely". I was pointing out that if one is obtuse enough one can
deny anything to be "proven". However the Bible does in fact give a value for
PI, so the creationist value of PI is :-

3.0

The relevant bit is in Kings where it refers to a "circle of 30 cubits in
circumference and 10 in diameter".

Wonder how they will square the circle?

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Proof: God wrote the Bible
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 02 Sep 92  02:57:00

 > From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
 > Message-ID: 1992Sep1.004050.9371@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu

 > In article <1992Aug31.134328.202589@uctvax.uct.ac.za>
 > fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
 >>======================================================================
 >>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):
 >>
 >>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT
 >>
 > [ridiculous numerology stuff deleted]

 > You know when I was still in Tucson last spring, I went to a
 > talk that was advertised to show the 'Mathematical Proof
 > for God.'  It was given by a Muslim student at the University
 > of Arizona who used a very similar analysis (of no
 > less the number seven among others) to show that the Koran was
 > the inspired word of God.  He had similar statistics, calculations,
 > arguments, etc., etc. as Payne's 'Seal of God.'

Nonsense, my own investigations have uncovered a very subtle numeric code that 
proves conclusively that Francis Bacon wrote both books!

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          |                                      |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Keeping time twice a day
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:57:55 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

Much like the stopped clock that shows the correct time twice a day,
even Ted Holden is right once in a while.

In article <1992Aug29.154509@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <2882@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>> Basically, at some point, everybody slips, falls, has to work under a
>> car, goes swimming, or does some fricking thing which will require that
>> he be able to lift his own weight off the ground.  The idea that sauropods
>> might have been an exception to this is ludicrous and warrants serious
>> consideration only by an idiot.

>  So, when a sauropod falls it dies.  Big deal.  Helps cull out the weak
>  anyway.  I have no problem with this (not that I'd want to live by it).

Come now.  Ted is surely right in claiming that Sauropods had to be able
to get up from a fall, or from lying down.  He errs only in assuming that
it has to lift its entire weight to do so.

Paranthetically, I find it hard to keep a straight face when Ted launches
into his weight-lifter/elephant shtick.  It's not that the argument is
false -- there are reasonable sounding arguments that turn out to be
false.  The thing is his argument is so blatently silly.  After all,
practically everybody has seen people lift weights.  Practically every
body has seen large four legged animals get up from lying down.  Any farm
child could tell you that a cow doesn't lift all its weight at once when
it gets up -- it pushes one leg up at a time and takes the load off the
leg while it's straightening the leg up.  It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out that a four legged animal standing up is a
different proposition from a two legged man lifting weights with his
arms while standing up.  All it takes is a good pair of eyes.

But the whole sauropod proposition is an interesting one.  I suspect
old bronty didn't lie down unless she had to -- the legs could support
her weight but that big belly couldn't.  [Free argument for Mr. Ted --
sauropods couldn't lie down without a reduced felt effect of gravity.]
And one wonders exactly how they managed producing the next generation.

I will give the Tedster some credit.  He may post some silly season stuff
but he does spark some interesting thoughts now and then.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins