HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.research,soc.history
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:32:44 -0400 
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: NEED HELP RESEARCHING BOF AND J&L STEEL

I've received an undergraduate research grant to pursue the history
behind the adoption of the Basic Oxygen Furnace by the American steel
industry, specifically by Jones & Laughlin (now part of LTV Steel), the
first major US producer to use the process.

If you know anybody who has been associated with the process,
particularly in management or research, or have any personal knowledge
on this topic, I'd appreciate conversing with you via email.

Thanks in advance,

Allan

-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.
From: sasha@maxc.technion.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Advices for Ralph
Date: 12 Apr 92 12:06:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: maxc.1992Apr12.140616.1
Organization: Mail to News Gateway

Hi,

I will soon go crazy from this dirty flow in sci.research.

Why sci.research at all?
I propose to create a new newsgroup:  

soc.culture.nazist
or
soc.culture.anti-semitic

Everyone interested will be free to share his information about the 
destructive and poisonous influence of jews in this newsgroup.
 
But please, not in sci.research !!!


Several useful comments for Ralph:

You forgot to mention that jews already partly succeeded in bringing Russia 
into chaos, exterminating millions of Russian people and transforming this
once reach and powerful country into a gang of beggars.

This may expect America, Ralph! Why not use the invaluable information 
about ex-USSR experience. This data can be readily provided to you and your
colleagues by the numerous national-patriotic organizations based in Moscow
and St. Petersburg. I read them and must acknowledge that the horrors of
Holocaust are nothing comparing to the terrifying picture of jewish genocide 
openly practicised in Russia during the last 75 years!
	According to the well-informed russian patriotic sources zionists 
choose Russia as an arena for the first large-scale experiment. America was
relatively untouched (for a while!) since zionists needed a rich and 
flourishing country for their future experiments.
	Ralph, why base your scientific discoveries on the theories of some
not very well-known engineer? Turn to Russia and you will find a collection 
of brilliant intellectuals: famous dissident, a member of the Academy of 
Science, well-known mathematician, author of classical books in complex 
analysis and abstract algebra Igor Shafarevich? A number of world-known 
writers and intellectuals? 
	Your Russian colleagues, Ralph, couldn't use computer networks,
zionists were against large-scale networks in Russia. So they had no choice 
but to distribute their newspapers and leaflets. After I read one of them 
on my house in Moscow (2 years ago) I decided to leave. And left to Israel.
	Unfortunately, Ralph you are not correct with the Holocaust: I have 
no choice but to confirm that it took place. All family and relatives of my 
father who stayed in Kiev during the WW2 were killed by nazists in "Baby Yar". 

------Alex

P.S. I wish you never put on a gas mask on your crying small son when 
missile alarm sounds around.
From: tcritchl@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Tod Critchlow)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Help!!!
Keywords: KILL FILES
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:38:54 GMT

I have heard a rumor that there are things
called "KILL FILES" that remove any postings with
a particular subject, header, ect...
Do such things really exist and can
I really use one to prevent Ralph Winston's Posts
form clutering up my computer?
If you can, please help.
Signed, 
Desperate.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Tod Critchlow                         |  What the Hell is a
tcritchl@ucsd.edu                     |  Signature anyways??
Scripps Institution of Oceanography   |
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Industrial Policy
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:01:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.o66uiB2w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> In article <Xm7PiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) w
> >Since scientific knowledge is nonproprietary under patent law, there 
> >should be no fear of market disruption from publicly funded research.  
> >Development, on the other hand, creates proprietary technologies which 
> >are properly the province of the marketplace.
> > 
> 
> The issue is, unfortunately, not as clear as you suggest.  For example, I for
> one would consider data on the base-pair sequence of DNA fragments in the hum
> genome to be scientific knowledge and nonproprietary.  But researchers at NIH
> our own lovable US Government, have applied for patents on mountains of this
> stuff.  In the end, I hope that the patent applications get thrown out, but
> the issue is not currently settled so far as I know.
> 
> -Scott

Laws aren't clear.  That's why the judiciary exists.

The case of the human genome project is a case of political
violence against science and technology.  What is going on
there is quite clear.  Bureaucratic insolence.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Industrial Policy
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:43:43 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <Xm7PiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...
>Since scientific knowledge is nonproprietary under patent law, there 
>should be no fear of market disruption from publicly funded research.  
>Development, on the other hand, creates proprietary technologies which 
>are properly the province of the marketplace.
> 

The issue is, unfortunately, not as clear as you suggest.  For example, I for
one would consider data on the base-pair sequence of DNA fragments in the human
genome to be scientific knowledge and nonproprietary.  But researchers at NIH,
our own lovable US Government, have applied for patents on mountains of this
stuff.  In the end, I hope that the patent applications get thrown out, but
the issue is not currently settled so far as I know.

-Scott
Newsgroups: sci.research
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:23:02 MDT
From: haibo@bones.caedm.byu.edu (haibo yu)
Subject: LeMont D-10 image analyzer
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA

Hello,

I need the infomation about LeMont D-10 image analyzer, such who sells
it and where I can get the technical info etc. 

Please send responce to

haibo@milo.ccl.byu.edu
haibo@cadem.byu.edu

thanx in advance

haibo yu
(801)378-7395
From: fayala@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Chemical senses
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:05:59 GMT
Reply-To: fayala@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx
Distribution: alt

I need info about smell and taste evaluation and its relationship with pollution.
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning) /  1:27 pm  Apr  8, 1992 /
In article <40911734@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan
McGowen) writes:

>/ hpindda:sci.environment / frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning):
>
>That's the key -- entrenched authority. And that's what worries me a little
>about environmentalists. What happens if they become the authorities and
>decide apriori that technology, biotechnology in particular, cannot ever
>solve particular problems, and is to be relegated to the realm of science
>fiction? Will environmental calamity become a self-fulfilling prophesy?

Biotechnology in the broad sense, including ecosystem restoration 
technologies, ecosystemically-integrated agriculture, varying degrees
of managment of ecosystems, as well as genetic engineering, is bound
to be important to an ecocentric technological culture. But let's 
distinguish that sharply from science fiction ideas about concocting 
whole new species and ecosystems to replace everything we in our 
imbecility are destroying today.

A modified bacterium capable of metabolizing dioxins, say, is "science
fiction" of the innocent variety: not technically feasible today, but
possibly feasible someday. The use of such bugs may in the end be the
only way to root some man-made toxins out of biosphere. 

But 1) it is moronic to act as if we know this to be possible, when we
don't. 2) even if possible it may not be developed in sufficient time,
and it is rash to assume that it will be, and 3) adding a few enzymes
to a bacterium is light-years away from regenerating extinct vertebrates,
or insects or even protists and in no way excuses or compensates for
the mass extinction crisis we are perpetrating: the idea that biotechnology 
will be able to do *that* is science fiction of the viscious, hubris-breeding 
sort. The sort many in this group are clearly addicted to. 

It is also moronic to think that such technofixes liberate us from all
need for biospheric responsibility. The fact that we may need to use 
them to clean up the mess we have made in no way absolves us of the
need to stop polluting the planet, to reduce our numbers and per capita
impact, and to get started at cleaning the place up, and restoring its
habitability for other species. If we do this, we may have some technology 
in a few centuries. If we don't, we'll be lucky if we are still around.

--------
Alan McGowen

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bp938@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey G. Thomas)
Subject: computer models of pollution damages
Reply-To: bp938@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey G. Thomas)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 04:11:10 GMT


I have a list of computer models which are available in the EPA
public access data base.  Are there any academics reading this
message who would like to comment on the design and performance of
these models?  I would like to apply probability theory to them
but I lack experience.  Please reply to this address.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: The Evil Man Is (Was: Re: Pigs in space)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:51:37 GMT

In article <40911811@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>The fact that we can imagine doing better proves that our destructiveness
>*is* evil, and not merely toxicity.

Let's see.  This means that if I can't swim, but can imagine knowing how to
swim, and see someone drowning, then the fact that I don't save him makes me
evil, right?  Alan, some of your rantings would seem less like rantings if
you'd acknowledge the fact that WE DON'T KNOW HOW to accomplish many of your
stated objections.  In particular, if you'd change your apparent attitude of
"OK, I've pointed out that a problem exists; all the rest is `just
implementation,' and if nobody does the implementation for me, or worse, they
point out difficulties in potential implementations, that means everyone else
is an ecocidal goon," you might have a chance of making a few converts.

>That we can envision ecocentrism is enough to make anthropocentrism wrong,
>just as the fact that it was possible to envision a world without slavery made
>slavery wrong.

I'm afraid that argument is fundamentally flawed.  I can imagine a world in
which NOBODY has enough to eat.  Does that make a world in which at least some
people are well-fed wrong?  You continue to assert, without proof, that
`ecocentrism' is somehow superior to `anthropocentrism.'

Purely as a rhetorical mechanism, I propose yet another paradigm: 
`ossocentrism.'  ROCKS have an inherent right to exist.  Since life is the
primary agent for destruction of rocks, we must reduce the impact that life has
on rocks.  Yes, this will require the sterilization of 90% of the surface of
the earth (we'll live only on glaciers), but what the hell, rocks have a moral
right to exist, too.  After all, rocks have been around a hell of a lot longer
than life.

>Moral insight is social evolution yet to occur. "Good" is the direction of the
>social future, the direction of increasing altruism, the direction of
>increasing symbiosis, of increasing coadaptation, of increasing stability.

A planet without life would certainly be stable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes 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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Worse case scenario
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: world,local
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:40:00

My own confidence that humanity will survive and progress is not based
on the development of entirely new species, although this may become
possible.  The present species will suffice, well enough managed.
Note I wrote "well enough" and not "optimally".
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:27:29 GMT
Subject: Re: N American Ozone Depletion?
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / dmocsny@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny) / 10:03 am  Mar 22, 1992 /

>The real threat from ozone depletion probably comes from its potential
>to damage plant life. I still haven't seen any solid predictions about
>what exactly are the potential threats to ocean phytoplankton, wild land
>plants, and food crops. 

This is because 1) nobody knows how strong the UV flux is going to get,
nor 2) how long it is going to stay that way. 

We do have good reasons to believe that the full UV complement of the 
solar constant, if continued for long at the surface, would be incompatible 
with the continuation of eukaryotic life, at least on land. UV activates 
primitive, slovenly DNA repair mechanisms that freely ad lib genetic 
nonsense. Apparantly that was just fine for early bacteria, but it makes 
hash out of large complicated eukaryotic genomes that have to regulate 
delicate affairs like mitosis and meiosis: there is an inverse relationship 
between mutation rate and stable genome size. It's thought that the movement 
of eukaryotic life onto land had to wait until enough of an ozone layer had 
built up to protect against this. Some 400+ million years ago the first land 
plants and insects appeared, so there must have been enough of a shield 
by then. 

----------
Alan McGowen

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Apr10113322@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <46453@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:23:46

In article <46453@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Apr10113322@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Someone, perhaps Victor Yodaiken, posted the rhetorical question:
   >
   >> How about, if the rest of the world produced the same amount of garbage
   >> per-capita as we do. Where would they put it? 
   >> 
   >
   >There would be no problem unless they wanted absolutely free dumping
   >grounds.  Do the arithmetic.  Starter: the U.S. produced 500 million
   >tons of waste per year some years back.  Countries with far higher
   >population density than the U.S. manage their waste without much fuss.
   > 

   500million/200million = 2.5 tons per person per year, times 6 billion
   is 15billion tons per year.Maybe someone has some averag volume per
   ton numbers, and we can see how long it would take to cover Palo
   Alto with a 20 foot thick layer.


   -- 


   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

If you assume a density of 1.0 (i.e. the same as water), you get
one ton (metric) per cubic meter.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism.d
From: mlbohn@mtu.edu (Michael L. Bohn)
Subject: Re: UNCED draft declaration
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.203510.25057@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.145807.20798@ctr.columbia.edu> mlbohn@mtu.edu (Michael L. Bohn) writes:
> >> I hope President Bush will stay away from Rio de Janeiro.
> >			     ^^^^^^^^^
> >> --
> 
> SAY WHAT ??????????   Where did this guy come from? Anybody know him?


When you do an include article, please check to see if you are quoting the right
person.  *I* was commenting on the same idiotic statement.  By the way, I come
from my mother's womb (originally, I now reside in Houghton, MI) and as a matter 
of fact, quite a few people know me...

Michael
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals)
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:55:55 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

You are missing the point, Victor.

Transportation doesn't mean personal transportation necessarily.
It could be the transportation required to move the raw and processed
materials that make up the computer systems you use (many of which
are probably far from UMass), the food you eat (far from UMass, especially
in winter), etc.

Ever seen all those trucks delivering food to supermarkets?

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: gbell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Greg Bell)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Food scrap recycling: Worm bins!
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:51:31 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr16.112515.3967@bb1t.monsanto.com> rehafe@bb1t.monsanto.com (Robert E. Hafer) writes:
>In article <31703@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, gbell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Greg Bell) writes:
>> Has anyone else started this radical-recycler system?  The idea is
>> this: The "Worm bin" is a composting system that uses redworms to
>> munch your kitchen scraps.  No bad odor, and it produces fantastic
>> "worm castings" for use in your garden, houseplants, etc.
>> 

>If the bin is outside, how do you keep the rats away from the scraps before
>they are digested? If inside, how do you keep it from atracting all manner
>of pest? 

You don't put meat in the bin.  Also, its got a lid, so rodents
wouldn't be able to get in.  I have mine outside, and its a good
thing, because the fruit flies love it.  I have read, several times,
that people have them inside, though.  I don't see how.  The
additional bugs are all part of the eco system in there.  There are
some "pests" like ants, which can be kept out by preventing them
from climbing up the bin's legs (use petroleum jelly. Just tried it
myself).  



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Who:  Greg Bell   Address:  gbell@ucsd.edu (UC San Diego)
"Beer!  Now there's a temporary solution." - H.Simpson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.environment:5948 talk.environment:1410 alt.sources.wanted:810 can.jobs:126
From: emdihfx@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.sources.wanted,can.jobs
Subject: ENVIRONMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY INSTRUCTION
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:18:49 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dear Netters,
Anybody on the net does bibliographical instruction to the students or
faculties on environment?
Is there any textbook or something like that ever published?
Any indication of clue will be very much appreciated?
Nick
From: jmichael@cod.NOSC.MIL (James A. Michael)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Soil Loss Worldwide
Keywords: soil, arable land, hunger
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:02:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cod.3747
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


The following article is reprinted (without permission) from the 
April 2, 1992 issue of _The San Diego Union-Tribune_:

Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS -- The future of the world's food supply is 
threatened by damage mankind has done to more than a tenth of the 
Earth's fertile soil since 1945, a U.N. report says.
    That's an area the size of China and India combined.
    The report, called an "early warning" for a world whose 
population is expected to double in about 50 years, is the first 
comprehensive look at the state of the Earth's arable land.
    Overgrazing by livestock, inefficient farming practices and 
deforestation are to blame for the loss of fertile land, the U.N. 
Environment Program study found.  Urbanization and pollution are 
other factors.
    Scientists fear that as the Earth's population grows from 
some 5.5 billion now to 10 billion by the year 2050, the loss of 
fertile land will lead to a permanent global food shortage.
    "As land becomes scarce, how are we going to make sure that 
the common man in a developing country is able to get the food 
that he needs?", asked Visvanathan Rajagopalan, a World Bank vice 
president who heads its group on agricultural research.
    The study was undertaken to establish benchmarks so the rate 
of soil deterioration can be measured more precisely.
    "We are going to have to feed an increasingly large 
population on a finite base of arable land," soil researcher Dirk 
Bryant of the World Resources Institute said yesterday.
    About 3 billion acres of land have suffered moderate to 
extreme degradation since 1945, accounting for 10.5 percent of 
the planet's fertile land, the study found.  Of that land, 740 
million acres are severely degraded and will be useless unless a 
"major international financial and technical" campaign is 
launched to reclaim them, Bryant said.
    "These findings are an early warning that we are losing 
potential agricultural productivity," said M. S. Swaminathan, an 
expert on food production who has helped India triple its wheat 
harvest since 1960.
    The damage to arable land is only measured in terms of 
deterioration since 1945; the report does not even attempt to 
include lands lost due to the practices of ancient civilizations 
or most of the colonial era.
    The report said the vast majority of the damaged land is in 
Asia, with 1.1 billion acres, and in Africa, with 792 million 
acres.
    Central America has the highest proportion of damaged land, 
24 percent of its total.  About 17 percent of Europe's land, 14 
percent of Africa's and 12 percent of Asia's soil is degraded.
    Only 4.4 percent of North America's soil has been damaged or 
lost, the report says.

End of Article.
Addresses:
ARPA: jmichael@cod.NOSC.MIL           (preferred)
UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax,dcdwest,seismo}!sdcsvax!nosc!cod!jmichael
AT&T: (619) 553-2416    (work)
      (619) 223-9405    (home)