HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Vitalis Tiknius <V.Tiknius@fermentas.elnet.lt>
Newsgroups: sci.classics
Subject: re: ex oriente lux
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:14:46 +0200
Distribution: world
Organization: FERMENTAS
Reply-To: V.Tiknius@fermentas.elnet.lt
Keywords: romantism

> In the early 19th century, it was a short-form description of why they believed
> that the Indo-European homeland was to be found near India, where existed what
> they believed was the language most similar to the Ursprache.  (See for example
> Schlegel's _Die Weisheit der Indier_.)  That is, the enlightened Indo-Europeans
>
plus various subtle culturological connotations... maybe main of these being
the romantism-borne nature: the same schlegel, but also schelling, the
psychopomp of these folks,- till hesse; recall his 'joseph knecht - karlo
ferromonte' from 'briefe an die freunde', it is almost psychedelic text.
by the way, his /hesse's/ notion about this is geographically not restricted
at all. also about +/- meanings of the sememe.

                       much joy --  vitalis
                                    V.Tiknius@fermentas.elnet.lt
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: sci.classics
Subject: Re: Nut, Egyptian sky goddess
Summary: Another source with an illustration of Nut.
Keywords: The Mummy
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:17:58 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <C14sC1.95y@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (B
Mike Morris) writes:

>[Professor E. A. Wallis] Budge also gives a description of the 
>Egyptian heaven (page cii), where we find:

>          Nut, the sky goddess, was the wife of Seb, the earth
>          god, from whose embrace she was separated by Shu, the
>          god of the air; when this separation was effected, earth,
>          air, and sky came into being. Signor Lanzone (_Dizionario
>          di Mitologia Egizia_) has collected a number of illustrations
>          of this event from papyri and other documents, wherein we
>          have Seb lying on the ground, and Shu uplifting Nut with
>          his outstretched hands. The feet of the goddess rested on
>          the east, and her hands on the west; this is shown by the
>          scene wherein Shu is accompanied by two females who have
>          on their heads ``east'' and ``west'' respectively. 
. . .
>And that's about all I have readily to hand on Nut. My memory has
>it that there may be a Dover edition of a work by Budge on Egyptian
>mythology that would probably tell you more,  [Mike Morris]

The illustration that Mr. Morris cites may also be found in Prof.
Budge's book, _The Mummy_, reprinted by Causeway Books (95 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, U.S.A.) in 1974.  It is on page
292.  Nut is wearing nothing but bracelets and anklets and possibly
a headdress.  The thumb and fingers of Seb's right hand are grasping
one of Nut's nipples.  The fingers of his left hand are touching
her groin.  Nut's torso is covered with stars.

On the facing page, Nut is illustrated in a standing posture,
which Prof. Budge describes:

    "Nut (hieroglyph omitted), the sky, the wife of Seb, and
  mother of Osiris, Isis, Set, Nephthys, Anubis, Shu, and Tefnut,
  was represented by a woman having a vase of water (hieroglyph 
  omitted) on her head, and holding (ankh, hieroglyph omitted)
  in her right hand and (another hieroglyph omitted) in her left.
  She was painted on the outside of coffins, and was supposed
  to protect with her wings the deceased within."


There are also paperback reprints of Prof. Budge's two-volume set,
_Osiris_.  Nut is mentioned a number of times in this set.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"This is the Scroll of Thoth,
 with which Isis raised Osiris
 from the dead."
    -- from the motion picture, "The Mummy"
Newsgroups: sci.classics
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:56:24 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
>>And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow?  Do you know of any city where there
>>is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system?  I've never seen one.
>
>No, and I know of no US comprehensively developed transportation based on
>the rickshaw or the pogo stick or for people who walk on their hands 
>either.

Of course, a large percentage of Americans own bikes. Can you say the same
for pogo sticks and rickshaws? Lots of Americans use bikes as transportation.
Is the same true for pogo sticks and rickshaws?

Would you like to return to a realistic discussion, John? Or are completely
ridiculous comparisons your only refuge?


>>It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
>>Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summer
>>they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.
>
>Might I suggest you avail yourself of some form of transportation more
>amenable to conditions extant?  Like, for  instance, a car.

So where is everyone going to drive those cars, John? Can they double the
number of lanes on I-75 through downtown Atlanta once more? Are you
willing to pay the bill for that project?

And what about the people who can't afford cars? You know, those same
working poor that will fair so badly under a gas tax. Since you are
proposing a transporation system that requires a car, are you willing to
provide a car to everyone that can't afford one? If not, how are they
going to get to work? Or do they just go on welfare instead?


And you never did say what you thought a cyclist's fair share of road costs
would be. I'd love to see your numbers.


--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC(?)
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7272 talk.environment:5775
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283)
Subject: Re: Are bikes really less polluting?
Organization: MDSSC
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:07:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.114423.9790@augustana.ab.ca>, petel@augustana.ab.ca writes:
> In response to the posting on "Are bikes really less polluting:"
> 
> I need to point something out in relation to the somewhat idealistic
> concept of having a world which doesn't seem to have any form of auto-
> mated transportation at all:
> WE LIVE IN CANADA, A SEMI-ARCTIC CLIMATE.

> This is just a little note to point out the dangers of going too far in our
> attempts to make the world more environmentally sound.  We need to take our
> climate and conditions into account as well.

  And on the flip side, here in Houston we have 95F temperatures and 95%
humidity for ~9 months.  This is quite a strain to many people.  I think
I'm driving one of the last cars around that lacks air conditioning!
  We live in an industrial society.  It is ridiculous for us to make
sacrifices like this.  I'm all for energy-efficient cars, more insulation
in homes, etc. but as soon as you try to change my lifestyle, I'm going
to plug my ears.

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
 "Money is never *mere*.  It separates the feasible                     |
    from the infeasible."                                               |
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7171 talk.environment:5674
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 10:07:10 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 <1993Jan20.151948.20009@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than 
>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
>
>To make the point, the Greenpeace spokesman shakes a pair of dice for 15
>seconds while stating the above information (visual crutch telegraphed from
>miles away), and then tosses the dice across the table.

I take it, then, that Greenhype, true to form, neglected to mention the
time-frame appropriate to their estimate.

For the innumerates like Jym Dyer among you, if I get to pick the timeframe, I
can get any probability I want for any event that's not 100% certain.  Say
we've got something that has a 10% chance of happening on any one trail.  That
means it's got a 19% chance of happening at least once in two trials, a 27%
chance of happening at least once in three trials, a 34% chance of happening at
least once in four trials, a 41% chance of happening at least once in 5 trials,
and so forth.  In other words, the chance of the event occurring at least once
in N trials is 1-.1^N.  So, if you pick a probability, P, we simply solve the
equation:
	P = 1 - .1^N
for N, getting N = -log(1-P) (logarithms to the base 10).  Thus, if I get to
pick the number of trials, I can get any probability I want.  Of course, Jym's
going to be falling all over himself excusing Greenhype for their latest piece
of bullshit.  Remember:  According to Jym, *YOU* are too stupid to understand
anything like this, so Greenhype *HAS* to "simplify" things in order for you to
understand them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.energy
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ? Why invert?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:04:35 GMT


regarding putting incandescants on 120V DC.  yep.  it works.

personal experience:  Here in NYC the electrical utlity company (Con
Edison) until recently supplied both 120V AC (or 220 via dual legs, but
that's another story)   
  AND...  also could supply, in SOME areas of town, 120V DC.  yep, that's
right, direct current.
  This was because way back when, DC was part of the original distribution
system.
  No new hookups were allowed after more or less 1970, but the buildings
that had it were allowed to keep it.
  The building I managed had DC coming into it, which was used for the
elevator motor. (for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion DC is
much more civilized for operating elevators).  
   For the hell of it, I hooked up a lighting circuit to it and the light
output from the INCANDESCANT bulbs was just about the same as on teh AC.
  
   More relevantly, a friend lived in an apartment building which had DC
outlets (yep, here in NYC, on 110th street near Columbia).  He and his
roomates had marked off which outlets wer DC and which were AC  (for some
reason, the outlets were physically the same.)  They could, and did, plug
incandescant lamps into the DC outlets, but nothing else.

  Flourescants CAN be designed to run on DC, but you need special
circuitry designed for it.  a common place you;ll find this is::: 
     On buses (they operate on the ?12v? ?24v? electrical system)
     On the NYC subway system:  third rail power is 600V DC, which gets
stepped down to something or another.

  Most other subway systems are also DC.  some use a very strange 25 Hz. 
others have gone to some pretty high voltage AC circuits...

  
  So yes, you can set up 120V DC with series battery units, and run stuff
off it.

Why not commonly done?  
  1) 120V is less forgiving than 12v for most stuff.  remember, we're
dealing with a lot of DYI types here.
  2) A LARGE number of electronic applainces are designed for (nominal)
12V dc, usually obtained via a transformer.  trying to kick 120VDC back
down to 12vdc ain't easy.
  3) You have LOTS of options on charging a 12volt system.  charging 12oV
is pretty diffcult in comparison.

  btw, if you want to see some strange things done with direct current,
take a look at a phonecompany central office.  you've got everything from
AC to 48V Dc to 12V DC and all sorts of other wierd stuff.

dannyb@panix.com

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Subject: Re: FEATURE: "Energy Without Oil" Executive Summary
Originator: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com
Keywords: energy environment oil press
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:46:47 GMT


I find a great deal of discomfort with some hypotheses required to support this
proposal:
 
     1)  96 mpg cars for the general case strike me as highly unrealistic

     2)  doubling of fuel efficiency of power plants seems unlikely

     3)  no mention is made for acomodating growth which barring intervention to
           ensure a no growth policy will occur at between 2% and 4% a year
           minimum

     4)  no mention is made regarding handling the developing countries which can
           potentially cause an explosion in the need for energy

Statments like these which presuppose fundamental change in worldwide wpolicy
without explicitly addressing these policy changes directly strike me as at best
misleading.  Why not come out and express the realities:
 
     1)  Population growth must be controlled world wide
     2)  Standards of living in the devleoped world will drop by perhaps as much
            as 1/3  to 1/2
     3)  Business will have to undergo major restructuriong to approach zero
            emmisions and massive recycling
     4)  progress in the devloping world will be slowed by a rigorous need to
             support the environemntal controls which are at least being 
             attempted in the developed world today
     5)  Nonfossile energy sources need to be the predominant energy sources in
             the developing world
     6)  Nuclear energy sources will become ever increasingly important

My list may not be complete, may overspecify some items etc., but these are the
classes of policy changes required world wide for visions such as the proposed
fossile free energy world to be achieved.   

-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:39:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.205334.4078@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>Two things:  1)  I'm allergic to wool.  (We use a fluffy comforter) and
>2)  My wife uses a heating pad for lower back pain.  I suppose I could
>have taken the time to clarify this, but wanted to avoid the wasted
>bytes.  But since the point was pressed, I'll waste em...  There is
>no way I'm going to get my wife off of her heating pad. (Endo...). 
>There a other folks who use electric blankets similarly...

1) Use synthetics. 
2) Tell the wife that low level electric fields raise the mother's
risk of leukemia 2X and raise the unborn's risk of brain tumor
4X. Source NBC news this morning. Also tell her to get off the
phone, increases risk of brain cancer. Ditto NBC news. Or stop
watching NBC news, should lower blood pressure at least 2X.

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     |                     | 
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7134 talk.environment:5650
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Energy Taxes (was Re: Gas Tax (was: Re: NEWS: True Costs ...))
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:08:39 GMT

dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>While Richard brings up may good points about drastically increasing the
>tax on gasoline, there is one huge negative here.  It is the people who live
>and work west of the Mississippi.  The vast majority of people who live and
>work in the rural west are extremely dependent on their vehicles for their
>livelyhood.  The farmers, ranchers, truckers, the people who live in 
>those areas that have very hard winters, and more.  The automobile is not a 
>luxury, it is a necessity.  Many of the people I have mentioned have a hard
>time making ends meet as it is, and raising the gas tax to the level many in 
>this group seem to want will probably force them into bankrupcy.  

>So while Richard may think that the gas prices might eventually come back down,
>how many people in the rural west will be ruined during the high price phase
>if these plans are enacted?  The last bout of artifically high gas prices
>(oil embargo) ruined sooo many people out here that it took years for some
>states to recover.  They cannot afford another such hammering especially if it
>is by our (the nation's) own hands.


>Plus I doubt if Congress would allocate the funds raised in the way Richard
>would want to see them spend.  Bottom line here: I do not trust Congress
>with such a large pot of money to pork out on.

>So you urbanites just remember, you are not the only ones in this country.
>Alot of this nation's wealth is located in the rural areas.  Placing them in
>economic ruin by artifically raising gas prices will come back and haunt you
>in more ways than at the pump.  Remember to take in the whole picture and
>not just the snap shot of your locality.

>Don Palmrose

This is a good point, however what if you have a general energy tax on
all forms of non-renewable energy carriers which replaces income and
other business taxes. If the energy is taxed at source (or point of
entry into the country), then the amount of administration would be
minimal.

The effect on rural areas would be softened, as they would gain through
having  no income taxes or business taxes to pay. They would only pay
tax everytime they bought fuel. Therefore any system which allows them
to tap reduces their tax bill, until the the government puts up the
energy tax to compensate, thus providing a further incentive towards
greater energy efficiency and the consumption of renewables.

Market forces would come into effect, as long as you pay for it you can
use as much energy as you like.

However, an energy tax is an indirect tax, and thus takes no regard of
ability to pay! A way round this would be an energy allowance, of so
many mega-joules per person per year which would be exempt from
taxation.
 
However this is only really viable for electricity or gas delivered
straight to the home. Otherwise a coupon system would have to be used
for petrol with all the bureaucracy etc that that would entail.

Chris
From: alany@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Alan Yelvington)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy from space Sustain Future
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:05:25 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

So help me, if one of those things ever get tried,
it'll turn a schoolyard into a fried chicken
exhibition.


Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: N-Plants in Eastern Europe
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:51:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.125537.6587@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>"I'm sorry, Jandik, we can't give your family any electricity or hot
>>water, but here's a nice solar cooker you can prop up in the snow."
>
>"Hey Jandik, instead of us building a new power station, we'll give you
>some energy efficient lights and a more efficient fridge. Also we'll
>insulate your house and put in double glazing. And guess what, this will
>half you energy bill!"

Having NO power plant will LESS than half you energy bill.

I thought they already had the plants built.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: RE: True Costs of French
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:28 GMT

In a previous article, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) wrote:
>In article <22JAN93.09072878@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca writes:
> 
> 
>>It is true that the SuperPheonix has had some technical problems, but it is
>>not obvious that they could not be overcome in that reactor or successors,
>>if there were still the same drive and commitment to the concept. 
> 
>Ahh, no it wasn't all.  So what were the technical problems?  I fully
>expect that breeders will be needed in my lifetime, so I'm more than
>a little interested in knowing if it was a trivial failure or if the
>technical issues ran deeper...  (in other words, mis-sizing a motor
>or faster than expected burnup wouldn't worry me; but a problem with
>the fundamental reprocessing technology requiring a whole new approach
>would argue for building a new research plant now.  (Given the lead times
>involved in R&D ...)).
> 
>-- 
> 
>E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
> 
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
> 
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

The scientific viability of fast reactor technology has, I feel, been 
adequately demonstrated.  High plutonium content, high burn-up fuels have 
been successfully made and used, the science and engineering of fuel
reprocessing is obviously doable, or else there would not be so many
nuclear weapons in existence, and the French do have a plant in operation
that vitrifies the high level waste from fuel reprocessing.

The problems with SuperPheonix are largely associated with the use
of liquid sodium as a coolant.  These problems are of an engineering
nature, rather than fundamental and should be soluble given enough 
effort.  I would refer you to a posting of 93/01/26 by Joseph Askew, who
originally raised this issue on the net, in which he gives further 
details of the technology and agrees with my view that the technical
issues can probably be overcome.

However, there is currently no strong economic incentive to push the 
technology.

Don Cameron