HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcb@druwa.ATT.COM (BakerRC)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:28:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.143141.26046@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul22.115302.11565@aoa.aoa.utc.com>, carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:
> :In article <1992Jul17.033605.20631@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
> :>In article <1992Jul16.125540.14085@sctc.com>, beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:
> :>>>The actual solution to the traffic problem is technological - which the
> :>>>social engineers will hate, because they like engineering people.  Namely,
> :>>>computer controlled cars will permit safe travel at 80 miles per hour,
> :>>>bumper to bumper, and with 6 foot lanes instead of 12 feet.
> :>>>The present roads and freeways will than be adequate.
> 
> :The Chicago Museum of Science and Industry had an exhibit showing the
> :proposed highway of the future, including computer-guided cars and
> :all that.  This exhibit was installed in 1961, +/- one year.  I
> :fail to see that we are any closer to a realistic plan to implement
> :such stuff now.
> 
.
.
.
> 
> 	One assistance to computer control would be a lack of
> less-than-predictable occurrences, like other cars sharing the road,
> or at least not other computer-controlled ones. For trains, that

This stuff about computer driven cars is bugging me too.
How does technology that's "just around the corner" figure out:

Is that a rock that I should avoid at all costs or is it an empty cardboard box?

Should I slow down for that deer ahead just on the side of the road
or is it just a tree?

Is that ice up there on the next bend?

How big IS that pothole?



I don't believe even artifical inteigence is that far advanced yet.
Heck, they can't even get a robot to go 5 MPH on mars yet.

Robin RADAR Baker
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:36:24 GMT

In article <311@ccscola.Columbia> kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt) writes:

>As a former advocate of the manual/standard/stick shift transmission, I used
>many remarks to prove my point.  Let's see: More control of the car in the
>mountains, better acceleration, better fuel mileage, quieter highway noise
>(engine turning over slower), and of course, more fun.
> ... [story about how it is difficult to resell a car with a standard]
>Both Toyota and Mercedes have run numerous tests and have declared the fuel
>efficiency of a manual vs automatic to be a moot point on a "properly-
>engineered" transmission.  My automatic Mercedes with the same engine as its
>manual predecessor gets the same fuel mileage.  Don't know about the Toyotas.

	Although I still prefer standards to automatics,  I think that the
quality of the automatic transmission makes a big difference.  One might find
a really awful automatic on a cheap subcompact,  or on many 70's vintage
American large cars.  The first time I drove an automatic,  I was really
horrified by the poor performance.  I think that better automatics can
be as (or almost as) good in perfomance as standards.  My mom drove a Lexus
Infiniti last year and was really impressed,  and a friend of mine who owns
a Saturn also likes the transmission.



-- 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:21:16 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Jul23.190516.9811@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.174542.9779@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.163028.6426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul23.150423.8028@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>>     As far as their planning,  no new capacity for 10 years sounds 
>>>     like the same recipe for disaster that have seen in the northeast
>>>     (Unless the new TI solar cell can somehow be rushed into economical
>>>     production over the next few years and it is 'shared' with PG&E).
>>>     Sounds more like a PR game.
>>
>>They plan on a lot of new capacity by what they call "negawatts", freeing
>>up current capacity through efficiency.
>
>     Let's at least get our terminology straight.  This is 'reduced
>     demand', not 'increased capacity'.  

While this is true, the resulting unused capacity is freed up for new
uses, so many in the industry refer to it as new capacity.
>
>>Most PUC pricing methods are not tied closely to market conditions,
>>which is why many utilities are not using renewables or efficiency
>>strategies as much as they could.  All of my suggestions are based
>>on EPRI studies (are they ecoterrorists?) and similar research.  Is
>>this what you call wishful thinking?  Or is wishful thinking any idea
>>that disagrees with your dogma?
>
>     I suspect that your reading of EPRI documents is somewhat
>     overoptimistic.

Always a possibility.  I suggest you get a copy and see if that is so.
There order number is 415-965-4212. The report is called "End-Use
Energy Efficiency".  The Scientific American issue is from 9-90.
>
>     On a more useful note. get together with 
>     Westinghouse and offer an option (whatever technology
>     you are currently charged about) for sale to Virginia Power at $5 
>     million under their newest coal-fired plant with the same or
>     reduced life-cycle costs and similar reliability.  I guarantee that 
>     they will accept.
>
The unfortunate exxample of Luz means that utilities will have to make
the effort themselves for the time being.
>                                dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10102 talk.environment:3009
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Ocean Warming and Rising
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:04:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <JMC.92Jul25120528@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I'll bite.  Why is a one millimeter per year raise in sea level
>important?  That's a meter in a thousand years.
>
>I remember some years ago there was a claim that the level in the
>deep ocean below which the temperature is 4 degrees C has been rising
>irreversibly for perhaps a few million years and that it would eventually
>have some catastrophic effect - I forget what.

From conversations with a friend of mine who is a grad student at UCB,
studies on ocean temperatures are in for a bit of a shock in the not
too distant future. The lab he works in has been doing studies on
coral beds and the temperature-sensitive accumulation of various
carbon isotopes. The results, which I don't know, are not the same as
everybody else has been claiming, and are, he claims, more robust.

-- paul

-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:23:30

In article <1992Jul21.205611.28158@news.iastate.edu> TW.MB8@isumvs.iastate.edu (craig trumbo) writes:

   >If anyone thinks they can make a case for pre-industrial revolution life
   >being better and/or easier than life today I would be interested to hear
   >it.
   >--

   Hardly. However, the better/easier which we were able to enjoy during the
   early part of the industrail period was possible, to at least some
   degree, because the full expense would not be realized until
   later generations. And here we are.

Read Mark Twain's _Roughing It_, which is very funny, for a comparison
of pre-railroad and post-railroad life.  The book was written in 1872,
i.e. post-railroad, and tells about his journey to Nevada in 1860,
which was pre-railroad.  Besides the journey hardships, it tells
incidentally about the hardships of the people he encountered.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
From: reynolds@physics.ucla.edu (Reynolds)
Subject: Re: ENSO vs. grammar (longish) (was Re: El Nino and the Greenhouse Effect)
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 00:47:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.071141.3874@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
>     CAUTION!!!  Grammar flame ahead!!!
>
>In article <1992Jul24.234800.176@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>
>>By the way, I despise the name ENSO. "El Nino" is poetic, and the "Southern
>>Oscillation" is sober and descriptive. "ENSO" is neither, and it's ugly.
>>I suppose this is a losing battle, and I should save my energy for more 
>>important things...
>> 
>     Your last comment is probably very true.  It also pokes a pet peeve
>of mine.  From numerous articles appearing here in the past year or so,
>I have saved bits and pieces that contain certain repetitive grammatical
>errors involving the terms "El Nino" and "La Nina", which I include here
>without attribution to protect the guilty:
>
[lots of examples deleted]

Unfortunately, When you bring words, especially proper nouns,
from other languages, they tend to change grammatical type.
In this instance, `El Nino' has become a noun in an of itself,
simply by virue of popular usage.  Therefore, an article in
front of it is perfectly correct.

That's how languages change in time, by popular usage changing.

Anthony Reynolds
reynolds@physics.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Ocean Warming and Rising
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:05:28

I'll bite.  Why is a one millimeter per year raise in sea level
important?  That's a meter in a thousand years.

I remember some years ago there was a claim that the level in the
deep ocean below which the temperature is 4 degrees C has been rising
irreversibly for perhaps a few million years and that it would eventually
have some catastrophic effect - I forget what.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.205614.11664@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <Bs13Bu.tJ@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>...
>>Again, it's another argument AGAINST subways.  In LA if the trains shut down
>>(and there are a couple of lines) there's no significant impact at all.
>..
>>--Brian
>
>Of course the main reason that there is no impact is that no one can
>go anywhere in LA anyway. The freeways are a parking lot. The trains
>are non-existant etc.
>
>I go out to go somewhere besides the two blocks to the local store
>and at almost any time of the day the freeway traffic is moving quite
>slowly.
>
>Give me a good public transportation system any day over the freeways
>of LA. I have lived here a long time and seen many billions of dollars
>spent on freeways and seen the traffic problems almost monotonically
>getting worse.

But you've seen the population grow monotonically as well, haven't you??

Whether the delays are in the long lines to the overcrowded train/subway
system, or in the traffic on the freeways, the delays will be there when
the travelling population overwhelms the transit system, *regardless* of
what that transit system is.

My (admittedly uninformed) opinion is that L.A. has transit problems because
it has population problems.

>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer



-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:21:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.230804.1294@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>In article <BruItw.9BD@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
::I guess that depends on how you define "long distance".  I usually fly when
::I want to go a "long distance" (more than about a three or four hour drive).
:On a private plane, no doubt.
:
::if you need a car on the other end?  Hail a cab?  What a mess.  Simply driving
::to where you want to be is much more simple, direct, convenient, and 
::comfortable.

	Not if a whole lot of other people are trying to do EXACTLY
the same thing.

:You are projecting your rural/suburban situation on urbanites. Anyone commuting
:into Paris would take twice as long driving as they would using the Metro. The
:strike in 87 showed that the city can't function normally without public
:transportation. I happened to be visiting there and rode with a collegue to his
:lab; it took 3 hrs compared to his usual 30 min commute. 

	I've lived in Paris for awhile, but I recall next to nothing
of it. I do recall LOTS of subways.

:And hailing a cab and giving your destination is surely simpler, and
:at least as direct and convenient (no parking) as driving, especially
:if the city is unfamiliar.

::So what have I done beyond your nose?  I am annoyed by the folks around LA
::who insist that I pay for a train system I hope I never have to use.  Such
::people are overstepping my "nose boundary".  If some people want to build
::a train and charge people to ride on it that's fine with me, but I don't want
::to have anything to do with such a waste of money, time, and resources.

:In a densely populated area, everyone benefits from public
:transportation.  Witness Paris, London or NYC. Drivers would certainly
:suffer in NYC if the subway shut down. Beyond the question of
:congestion, electric trains produce less polution and everyone
:benefits from that too. Similar justification (arguable, perhaps) is
:used for diesel buses.

	Diesel city buses don't turn out _too_ much better than cars,
on the _average_, for a number of reasons, but buses can be run by
electricity from overhead cables, adding to energy (and noise!)
savings.

	I once computed BART's energy efficiency and I discovered that
one starts getting close with a car only if one has a very small one
packed with people.

	Electric vehicles are absolutely clean, even if that cannot be
said of their powerplants; even so, it is easier to clean up a single
powerplant than a million cars.

:I'm not familiar with LA but there are cities where public transportation
:is not just safer and cleaner, but necessary, and for many purposes, simpler
:faster, more convenient, and if you like reading, more comfortable.

	I agree. This fellow should try riding BART for awhile to see
how good public transit could be :-)

	I've used public-transit systems for much of my life, and I'm
not about to complain :-)

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9999 sci.physics:11627 sci.energy:3670
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:36:06 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <23911@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <mcam3#+@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>
>>>That's only a third of the solution -- the technology providing the
>>>option.  Another third is social engineering -- persuading people to
>>>use it.  
>
>>NO!  That approach absolutely, positively WILL NOT work.
...
>>Over the long term Americans will NOT be coerced 
>
>Read what I said: I said "social engineering". You seem to think I
>said "co-ercion". 
...
>I certainly could make more sense of some of the postings in this
>group if I interpreted "social engineering" to mean "forced against my
>will to my considerable disadvantage." Is that what "social
>engineering" means in US-speak? If so, what is the proper US-speak
>term for planning how to co-ordinate resources and needs by means of
>appropriate pricing?

Free Market Forces.  Honestly. 

Read 'Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations'.  The 'Unseen hand' is alive
and well and living in America ...

Now, if you want to DISTORT the market to POLITICAL ends, then you
resort to Social Engineering and other forms of GOVERNMENTAL COERCION. ;-)

This is a bit overstated for the average American, but not far off
from true for a very significant fraction (40% ish?).

Please don't start flaming me about my lack of social awareness and
complete ignorance of non-market (externalized) costs ... I've got 
a Bachelors in Econ fer Crissakes ... I can do that stuff in my 
sleep.  I'm just reporting on what I perceive as being afoot with
the common man ... Heck, we elected Reagan AND Bush didn't we? 8-(

The strange thing is that the same folks who see the 'Unseen Hand'
as being God's gift to America often see nothing wrong with paying $100B
or so for a B2 bomber prototype and untold more for an S&L bailout ...
Or bailouts for Lockheed, or Chrysler, or ...

-- 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

"Nothing can keep an argument going like two persons who aren't
sure what they're arguing about."   O.A.Battista
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10266 sci.physics:11984
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:42:24 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <JYM.92Jul28184526@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=o= Auto/truck transportation exacts costs due to health and
>environmental damage.  People like Greg Finn routinely ignore
>these costs.  Ignoring these costs is completely absurd,
>especially in a posting to a newsgroup with the word "environ-
>ment" in it.

	As things stand now, a system like Metro Rail in LA does not
stand fiscal scrutiny on paper for direct costs per rider in dollars.
As a result it is heavily subsidized.  Yourself and others make
appeals about indirect costs, which you claim would balance the books
if only we paid attention to them.  If you are going to start
accounting for indirect costs, then if honest you must attempt to be
fair and account for them pro and con.

	I don't know how to fairly address the indirect costs because
I don't have a rational way of fairly measuring them, nor have I seen
one.  So I won't appeal to indirect costs when making my argument.
Saying that I ignore them is wrong.  Saying that I don't understand
them is accurate.

	I can measure the direct costs to me for operating an
automobile.  I judge the benefits to me to be worth more than those
costs.  As a result I pay them to obtain those benefits.  If I choose
not to use an automobile, then most of those costs are immediately
recoverable.  I no longer pay for the car, its insurance, upkeep, gas,
gas taxes, registration fees, and so on.

	I have no choice not to use a mass transit system to recover
my direct costs when that system is publicly financed as Metro Rail
is.  Most of the direct costs of the system are born by those who do
not use that system.  That lack of fairness, the lack of a choice in
determining where I spend my transportation dollars, is my primary
complaint about recent mass transit systems in the US.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.191203.1702@aoa.aoa.utc.com> carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:
>In any case, it would seem
>that nuke plants are the only type which are actively, rather than
>passively, dangerous when shut down.  That is, any building can 
>collapse on you, but only a nuke is full of bad stuff.

Havn't been to any asbestos mines lately, eh?  :-)  There are many many
old industrial sites chock full of chmical nasties that are 'actively'
dangerous...

-- 

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.
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: [transport] car versus bus/train (was: car pooling / carpooling)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:35:09 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.usa,sci.environment


     Some people like to drive because they do not *like* to walk
five or ten minutes to the bus station, or stick to a firm train schedule.
If it is not an expenditure of time, it is *good* excercise.
People are definitely spoilt.  If the U.S.A. does not have unreasonably cheap
petroleum (should be something like a U.S. dollar per litre), we
would all be "obediently" taking public transport.  Otherwise, the
would would hate us for wasting.

					Daniel Chung, U.S.A.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9730 sci.geo.meteorology:2519 sci.skeptic:13041
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:26:34 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

ENSO == "El Nino / Southern Oscillation"

Younger Dryas [sic] was a period of rapid climate change that was not
anthropogenic.

-- 
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   |
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic