HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpetty@rain.atms.purdue.edu (Grant W. Petty)
Subject: Re: Temperature vs Altitude
Organization: Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:39:30 GMT

>In article <1993Jan4.213715.20998@cc.umontreal.ca>, dignard@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Michel Dignard) writes:
>>Maybe this not exactly the rigth group for this, but :
>>
>>I just saw a diagram of Temperature vs Altitude for Earth.
>>I knew that temperature decreases with altitude, but I was
>>puzzled to see that as we go to the mesosphere, the thermosphere
>>and the exosphere, temperature then increases, then decreases again,
>>and then increases to very high figures.
>>
>>Here are the figures (visual interpolation and rounding up):
>>
>>  stratosphere   20000 m         -50 C
>>                 40000             0
>>  mesosphere     
>>  thermosphere   80000           -80
>>                100000          +165
>>                150000          +700
>>                200000          +900
>>                300000          +950
>>  exosphere     500000         +1000
>>
>>
>>Could someone confirm this pattern and explain it?
>>
>>Are the temperatures for the exosphere a measure of the
>>solar wind temperature?
>>
>>--
>>Michel Dignard                         Dignard@ERE.UMontreal.CA
>>Universite de Montreal  
>>

>First, remember that temperature is only a measure of average kinetic energy of
>whatever kind of particles you have around.  Also, in the upper atmosphere
>things are pretty scarce. Even though the particles are pretty energetic, there
>aren't enough of them to heat anything up.  You would freeze in the shade, cook
>in the sun.
>
>So, why are they so energetic?  Well, there isn't anything up there to absorb
>the high-energy radiation from the sun, so it just comes blasting right in and
>sends those particles flying.
>
>   Internet: preiser@cancer.unm.edu
>   Bitnet:   preiser@unmb



It's worth adding that the temperature in the thermosphere
varies drastically with solar activity.  When the sun is quiet, a
typical temperature might be 700 K,  when it is very active, it 
could be as much as 2000 K. 
-- 
Grant W. Petty                                gpetty@rain.atms.purdue.edu
Assistant Prof. of Atmospheric Science        (317) 494-2544
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences     FAX:(317) 496-1210
Purdue University, West Lafayette IN  47907-1397  
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: byab354@chpc.utexas.edu (Jim Xu)
Subject: Re: MeteoSat GIFs only B&W ?
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Distribution: sci.geo.meteorology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:11:07 GMT

In article <BANATI.93Jan12172239@anakonda.cc.lut.fi> banati@lut.fi (Jozsef Banati) writes:
>Hi,
>    This is a beginner's question...
>    I downloaded some MeteoSat GIF images and noticed that all of them
>are black and white. Do they exist in colour or just my GIF viewer is

  These images are only from single channel, generally are displayed in b/w.
  You can do image processing, edit palette, you will get color images.

  you also can mix 2 or 3 or 4 channel of data, than get a color one.


>wrong (WinGif 1.4) ? Where can I find some colour images ?
>
>Thanks for your time.         --Jozsef--
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>E-Mail: Jozsef.Banati@sisu.lut.fi
>Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
From: bkort@k12-nis.bbn.com (Barry Kort)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Need Formula for Dew Point as a function of Temp and Relative Humidity
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:18:10 GMT
Organization: /home/bkort/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: k12-nis.bbn.com

A young friend of mine is looking for a mathematical formula for Dew Point
as a function of Temperature and Relative Humidity.  I can find tables in
my old edition of the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry, but no
mathematical formulae.  If anyone knows this, please send him a response
by E-Mail to:  gandalf@michael.ai.mit.edu

Many thanks.

Barry Kort
bkort@bbn.com
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: keane@eng.umd.edu (Christopher Matthews Keane)
Subject: Re: Inquiry about Meteorology at University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 23:34:11 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

Though I am associated with the Department of Geology and the new
Department of Marine, Estuarine, and Environmental Science, I have a
bit of familiarity with METO.  All I can say is that they are very
active and energetic in research - and the DC area provides many
different opportunities - especially as Goddard Space Flight Center is
not even a 5 minute drive from campus... and NOAA, USGS, NWS, etc..
are all in easy reach and quite willing for collabarative research.
Cheers
Christopher Keane
keane@earthsun.umd.edu
From: gmmiller@mcs.drexel.edu (Michael R. Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.comp-aided
Subject: Applied Math - what do YOU do?
Summary: survey of applied mathematicians
Keywords: visualization, modeling, tools, applied math
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:56:11 GMT
Distribution: sci.comp-aided
Organization: Drexel University

I would like to gather information regarding some of the more 
interesting work done by applied mathematicians in industry and 
in academia.

I am especially interested in users of tools such as Mathematica, 
Maple, Matlab, et. al. in visualization, modeling, and data analysis work.

I welcome all responses, but am curious about the following areas:
     medical research
     image processing (esp. fractals)
     space, aeronautics
     weather forecasting
     physics (esp. lasers)
     signal processing
     information theory

Please e-mail your responses (short or long!) directly to me 
(gmmiller@mcs.drexel.edu).  The survey is for my own use (academic and 
career guidance).  If the responses warrant it, I will summarize and 
post the results.

If you love your job, here's a chance to brag about it!    :)

Thanks very much -- and happy 1993!

Mike Miller
(gmmiller@mcs.drexel.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: samuell@cis.uab.edu ('s)
Subject: Re: I Must Dispell this Nasty Rumour
Summary: ronology
Organization: CIS, Univ of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:47:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.103625.19122@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>booter@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>] 
>] Drieux is experiencing another random neuron firing episode.
>
>
>The Allegations that I am DownSizing are Not True!
>
>We have NO Intentions of Laying Off Any Neurons at this Time.

Actually, it makes NO Sense to Lay Off Any Neurons.  One Lays Off Old Rons
which Avoids the Problem of there being Morons in the Aggregate (Neural Net).  

's

PS:  Apologies to AnyOne Named "Ron" whether You be Old or Neu.
       And to Droo, too, and to hiser rons of All Varieties.
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Dumping Defined
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:00:01 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <ofAL0AG00WB5QVPG8v@andrew.cmu.edu> Stephen Sorensen <ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
 [---]
>Tariffs on these chips are going to make PC's more expensive. They might
>also send more US manufacturing jobs abroad. 
>
>IMHO, the most reasonable and probably verifiable definition of dumping
>is, as Ted suggested, selling at below marginal costs.

Broadly true, but to be more accurate, International competition involves
two margins: The "local" margin (Korea, in the example quoted in this thread),
and the "target" country margin.

The US typically accuses other country's of "dumping" when US firms can't
compete against the world price. When the US dumps products in which it has an 
international  competitive advantage (agriculture, patient monitoring 
equipment, aeropace, etc.), we call it "target pricing".

There is practically no justification  in the real world for "dumping", except
in the minds of whining US CEO's begging for trade protection, and the 
politicians willing to grant it to them (for a price).

--

Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Subject: "Fund Evolution" (WSJ 1-7-93 p.R-6)  ?!
Summary: "survivorship bias" in averaging
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:56:46 GMT


The Wall Street Journal has an article titled Fund Evolution.
It appears that in describing how mutual funds performed historically,
the common practice is to _drop_ from the averages any company that's
gone out of business subsequently.  The more successful ones remain
so the "average performance" is distorted; and distorted increasingly
as time goes by.

They actually drop the unfavorable trials and report only the favorable ones.

This bothers me.  Is it commonly done elsewere in economic reporting?
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:49:33 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <58219@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <38122@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>>The price stability of the U.S. began in the late 18th century. Check
>
>The revolutionary war starts in 1776 and the Constitution is only
>adopted at the end of the century, so that leaves precious little of the
>late 18th century.  Could you be a little more specific?

Basically the last decade, I believe. No, not much of it.

>>out the CPI for Britain, however, and you will see the stability go back
>>to the beginning of the 18th century
>
>Where are you getting these CPI figures? Are they adjusted for average
>wages?

The CPI I have seen starts at the end of the 18th century, so perhaps
I erred when I stated this, but, I have read elsewhere (not exactly sure
where) that the value of the pound remained essentially constant from
1694 to 1914, when Britain was on the gold standard. I'll check my sources
again.

I have seen the CPI in several books "The Case for Gold" by Ron Paul,
"Economics on Trial" by Mark Skousen, and "Secrets of the Temple" by
William Grieder.

I am not sure of how wages factor into it. Do you have data for this?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)




Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rizzo@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (anthony.r.rizzo)
Subject: Re: volatility of a stock.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:40:58 GMT


After reading Peters' book on Chaos in the capital markets,
I got the impression that the brokers and investment analysts
mean standard deviation when they say volatility.  I'm not
sure as to how they actually calculate it, though.  Perhaps
they adjust a stock's time history for inflation and then
calculate the summary statistics for the new set.

Tony Rizzo
From: cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Brief Mathematical Analysis of Taxation/Welfare Systems
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:20:35 GMT
Reply-To: cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave)
Organization: RAND, Santa Monica CA


The Canadians did a big NIT experiment in the late 70's.  It was called the
Manitoba Income Maintenance Experiment.  It showed nothing like the severe
disincentive effects you postulate.  I don't recall where the results came
out, but you can check with Prof. Mordecai Kurz, I.M.S.S.S., Stanford
University -- he was helping with the analysis while I was doing my
graduate work.

You can fiddle with the rates to avoid the dollar-for-dollar offset.

In any case, there are plenty of economic reasons to go on working even if
they don't show up in current pay.  They range from the trivial (less time
spent at home => lower living expenses) to the demonstrably important.  An
example of the latter is human capital: work experience does influence
current pay, even at the low end of the job spectrum.  This may be due to
life-cycle earnings/efficiency wage effects, or simply to the signalling
effect of being able to hold a job.  The fundamental point is that working
does increase the probability of being above the NIT cutoff at some future
date.

But I sense from the immediate followup to this post that this may be a
religious issue rather than an empirical or analytic one.

On the dfisincentive point, it does seem to matter whether unemployment is
viewed as temporary or permanent, and what kind of unemployment one has to
deal with.  Two minor points:

a) European attitudes seem to treat unemployment as temporary.  Maybe this
is why their much more generous unemployment compensation schemes (viz
Netherlands) are associated with lower rates of unemployment.

b) Unemployment and labor force participation rates don't tell the whole
story.  A 10% unemployment rate could range from everyone unemployed 10% of
the time to 10% of the labor force unemployed forever.  These are vastly
different in terms of social impact, rates of income/productivity/human
capital growth, and responsiveness to fiscal incentives.

All this is pretty familiar to labor economists.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:54:28 GMT

canright@convex.com (Robert Canright) writes:

>In <thompson.726422768@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:

>>>This is the
>>>philosophical underpinning of all sciences and engineering.  Unfortunately,
>>>economics tends to ignore it.

>>I disagree that conservatism is the "philosophical underpinning" of
>>all science.  Were Galileo or Copernicus's new models of the solar
>>system conservative?  How about Einstein's relativity theories?
>>Major advances in science have often occured through radical breaks
>>with the accepted wisdom, even when the new ideas went against the
>>"common sense" of their time.

>Galileo & Copernicus are not representative of average science.  Average
>science resists breakthroughs.  This is why Thomas Kuhn wrote "The 
>Structure of Scientific Revolutions" back in the 60's.  The buzzword
>"paradigm" has infiltrated the business community by way of consultants
>& authors, but the basic concepts from Kuhn's book still have a way to go,
>based on Thompson's comments.

>Disagree with me.  Disagree with the original poster (postee?).  But read
>Kuhn and then reconsider your position that science is not a conservative
>profession.

I did not say that "science is not a conservative profession."  I said
that conservatism is "not a philisophical underpinning of all
science," which is an altogether different thing.  I am aware of
Kuhn's book and had it in mind when I wrote the message.  
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
From: momtahan@bnr.ca (Parham Momtahan)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Herbert Simon's Theory of Bounded Rationality
Keywords: economics
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:38:20 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

I've just been reading Herbert Simon's autobiography ('Models of My
Life') , where he implied that his theory of 'bounded rationality'
is his major contribution to economics. I did not really get
good understanding of it from his autobiography though.

Can one of the economics pros provide a clear, brief explanation
for an amature? I'm particularly interested in getting
an appreciation of its practical implications.

Thanks,


Parham Momtahan (momtahan@bnr.ca).  
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Contents (if found) may not represent my employer's views.
 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Michael Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:37:35 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan12.001732.9038@samba.oit.unc.edu> Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:

|Sorry, David, but from my limited knowledge about it, "New Keynesian
|Economics" does not seem promising, judged from the standpoint of a
|formalization of a historically accurate interpretation of the General
|Theory. From what I understand, New Keynesians adopt rational
|expectations assumptions with the change that not all markets need
|clear. Instead "rationing" or some such assumption is introduced in some
|markets. This is still a model of perfect "certainty," as defined by
|Keynes.
|
[list deleted]

|  Axel Leijonhufvud, "On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of
|  Keynes," Oxford Univeristy Press, 1968. (Bad history, I claim.
|  Interesting economics in its own right. )
|

I liked his stuff, and his student Peter Howitt, who is probably a 
New-Keynesian. I liked his insistence that it is not wage rigidities
that make Keynes special. Many should read that book but don't. I
think his essential message was sound: that the absence of the
auctioneer and the dual decision hypothesis is enough to make
persistent inequlaity of plans.
-- 
"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that     
    distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            
                      Kenneth Boulding                             

					All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
						david@cats.ucsc.edu.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Surviving Hyper-Inflation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:58:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.155202.28783@Arco.COM> dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham) writes:
>Just finished reading the book "Bankruptcy 1995" written by a man
>named Figgie who was a (reluctant) member of the Grace Commission.
>
>In the book, he predicts that around 1995-96, the interest on the
>debt (including all "off-budget" items which must nevertheless
>receive debt-service) will exceed revenues.

Please note that Figgie points out that this situation is
implied by the Grace Commission Report; the Grace Commission
Report has tracked very closely to actual federal finances.
These are not his personal predictions; they have an
excellent pedigree.

>Then he projects:
>1. Unwillingness by investors to loan money to the government
>
>2. Government forced to monetize the debt
>
>3. Hyper-Inflation
>
>What do you think of this scenario?  Possible?  Unlikely?

He doesn't project that 1, 2 and 3 will necessarily happen;
it is a possible scenario.  Also, he doesn't project the 
timing; for example, he indicates that 1 is already occurring
(we are seeing it in long-term interest rates that are high
compared to current inflation).

The scenario is all too possible.

>I myself am more interested in how to survive personally in a
>hyper-inflationary period.  What to do?  Convert all currency
>and equivalents into (more) stable foreign currencies?  Convert
>currency into hard assets?  What about servicing loans?  Wait
>and pay them off with cheaper dollars?  I would be interested
>in your ideas.

Other Reading:  _The Great Reckoning_ by Davidson and ?

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:09:51 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada

In article <1992Dec29.034309.17334@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.163220.15747@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>[scenario deleted]
>>I'm keeping my spreadsheet handy and my hand near the panic
>>button.
>
>This kind of calculations is really scary:

The previous post required proof that growth
alone wouldn't solve the debt problem.  The scenario indicated
that (ignoring off-budget items), growth alone may just barely
do the job.  However, I made explicit note of the parameters
of the scenario and the omission of unfunded liabilities
(and other off-budget items).  You did not reply to the
request for proof; at least I demonstrated that there
are reasons to not be sanguine.

>  It's impossible to do a complete, accurate
>  and dependable analysis of anything in economics, which tells you
>  something about the "scientific" nature of economics and
>  why relying on calculations like these to *live on the edge* is
>  complete nonsense.

I did not suggest that anyone do any such thing.

>
>- Living on the edge till 1999 may be possible (not likely), but how close
>  to the edge are we after that?  How long will it be until we can handle
>  an emergency without getting close to bankruptcy again????
>
>My entire message has been: let's not risk our future by playing with
>this stuff.  Don't do speculative analysis.  

Any analysis of possible outcomes is speculative.

>Be proactive.  Prevent the
>crisis from happening in the first place.  Stay far from fiscal limits.

You have failed to provide your critics with a set of criteria
by which to determine what those fiscal limits may be, or
how far away the United States should stay.

>Balance the budget.

Whether or not a balanced budget is appropriate is a matter for
debate.

>
>The proper role of economics, in the first place, should have been to tell
>society to be conservative because it can only reliably do steady-state and
>not dynamic analysis.  But no, you guys choose to stay in your mathematically
                                ^^^^^^^^
I find this offensive.

>rigorous but nonsensible world of models based on unrealistic assumptions

Which of my assumptions were unrealistic?  By leaving
aside unfunded liabilities, I implied that they may not be met.

>and ignore to warn the public of this MAJOR PROBLEM in our economy!

It is not my patriotic duty to inform the public of the United
States of problems in the United States economy, except insofar
as it impinges upon my country.

However, in sci.econ, misc.invest, and alt.politics.economics, I
have chosen to sound cautionary notes.  In can.politics, I have
made similar noises about the Canadian situation.
-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu (Pawel Dobrowolski)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Computer Paradox
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:44:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan4.144434.18994
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


       HI FOLX!

  Does anyone know of any recent books, papers, etc on the
computer paradox  (The fact that no evidence exists to prove
increase in efficiency as result of introducing computers to
a business organization)?

Thanx a lot,

Pawel Dobrowolski
dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu