HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Re: where best air in U.S.?
Reply-To: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA (I am a terminator.)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:07:09 GMT

John McCarthy (jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU) says

> The fact that weather moves from West to East suggests the West Coast,
> i.e. the actual coast itself, not a city close to the coast.  This
> assumes you don't mind fairly constant fog.


I've read in Longevity (a long time ago) that the fog is acid fog.


Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
From: towolt@bunsen.lerc.nasa.gov (John Wolter)
Subject: Looking for ways to remove birds from an area gently
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:19:11 GMT

We have a major aeronautics facility in a building without doors.  
We have been having problems with birds all over.  They roost 
everywhere, leaving *presents* and getting into sensitive 
equipment.  We are planning on covering the openings of the 
building with netting to keep them out, but the question remains:

"How do we get the birds that are already in the building out 
after we cover the openings?"

I know there are other places where birds get trapped, such as
stadiums and malls, and usually the practice is to let the birds
die and just clean up the bodies.  I'd like to find a better way.
Already in trying to solve our bird problem we have learned many
ways to scare birds *that don't work*, such as the inflatable owl
eyes, ultrasonic noise sources (birds can't hear that apparently).

I can think of three ways to get the birds out, but don't know how
to accomplish any of them.

1) Scare 'em away.

2) Provide 'em with a one-way door so they can get out but not 
back in.

3) Live trap 'em.

I'd appreciate any methods for accomplishing the above or ideas I
may have missed.  

Thanks in advance.
-- 
================> John D. Wolter    NASA Lewis Research Center <===============
=======> (216) 433-3941    FTS 297-3941    towolt@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov <=======
=======================> "You can always pull the plug" <======================
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: u.s. national parks
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:58:03 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Here is a press release from the National Parks and Conservation Assn.
 Vail Report Says National Parks Have No Future; NPCA Repeats Call
for Independent National Park Service
 To: National Desk, Environment Writer
 Contact: Nick Clark, 202-223-6722, ext. 120, or
          Kathy Westra, 202-223-6722, ext. 121, of the
          National Parks and Conservation Association

   WASHINGTON, April 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The National Parks and
Conservation Association (NPCA) today praised a tough now report on
the future of the national parks, but said that all of the
recommendations in the "Vail Agenda" will come to nothing unless the
National Park Service is made independent of the U.S.  Department of
the Interior.
   "As long as the Park Service remains within the Interior
Department, our national parks have no future," said NPCA President
Paul C. Pritchard.  "While we applaud the recommendations of the Vail
steering committee, we believe that they cannot be implemented if the
Park Service remains within a cabinet department that is continually
buffeted by the extraordinary pressures of the administration, the
Congress, and special interest groups." The Park Service, Pritchard
stressed, must be an independent agency if it is to implement the
recommendations of the Vail report.
   "We agree with the Vail steering committee that the most
fundamental aspects of the Park Service's mission have been
compromised," Pritchard continued.  "We agree with all of the
committee's recommendations -- many of them are recommendations that
NPCA has put forward over the years." While NPCA is heartened that
the Park Service "was willing to use the occasion of its 75th
anniversary for such a critical self-examination, we're afraid that,
despite the thought and care that went into the Vail Agenda, our
national parks will be in even deeper trouble as we enter the 21st
century," Pritchard warned.  "The problem is systemic and the
solution must be systemic: we must remove the National Park Service
from the Interior Department."
   Pritchard announced that NPCA will urge its more than 285,000
members to write their representatives in Congress to request
legislative action to make the Park Service an independent agency.
"Unless we succeed in this one important mission, the Park Service's
hands will remain tied, and our precious national park resources will
be in even greater danger," he said.
   The National Parks and Conservation Association is America's only
national, nonprofit citizen organization dedicated to promoting the
protection, enhancement, and public understanding of the national
parks.  Founded in 1919, NPCA now has more than 285,000 members.
 -0-
 /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: kychen@chem.nthu.edu.tw (Kuang-Yu Chen (035)715131-3352)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: help!!!
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:28:39 GMT
Organization: National Tsing Hua University (HsinChu)

Dear Mr. & Mrs. :

I am applying for admission to Marine-Estuarine-Environmental
Science Graduate Program at the Univ. of Maryland. The Graduate
Admissions Committee informed me that it is not possible for me
to be admitted without a major advisor.

I want to contact some faculty members in MEES Program, but I
have no their email addr.. It's urgent for me.

The list of the professors is in the following :
(1) Dr. Bashore, Terry,   NATS/UMES
(2) Dr. Hoogland, John L.,  AEL/CEES
(3) Dr. Inouye, David W., ZOOL/UMCP
(4) Dr. Kuenzel, Wayne J., POUL/UMCP
(5) Dr. Mench, Joy A., POUL/UMCP
(6) Dr. Provine, Robert, PSYC/UMBC
(7) Dr. Rohwer, Frank C., AEL/CEES
(8) Dr. Costanza, Robert, CBL/CEES

If someone knows their email addr., please tell me or you can
give me other advices.

Thanks in advance.

______________________
kychen@y5.nthu.edu.tw
886-35-715131 ext3352
Room 265, Dept. of Chemistry, National Tsing Hua U., 
Hsinchu, Taiwan 300
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: chaos and order
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: na
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:39:40

In article <1992Apr16.011819.28157@athena.mit.edu> corey@athena.mit.edu (Corey L Lofdahl) writes:

   In article <1992Apr15.014729.9884@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.Usask.CA writes:
   >
   >Everything, even the most minor events, occurring in the universe can
   >affect the future profoundly. The mere lifting of a finger may cause
   >devastating hurricanes or droughts. A proposed way to ensure environmental
   >protection is to use machines on a global scale to regulate and condition
   >the state of the earth.
   >
   >Henry Choy
   >choy@skorpio.usask.ca

   Since you put it that way, what do you mean?

	   -- Corey

Like many other scientific developments, chaos theory is becoming the
subject of a cult.  Henry Choy exaggerates.  Some aspects of some
systems are chaotic in that small changes in initial conditions lead
to excursions into large parts of the state space.  Other aspects of
systems are servoed and small deviations damp out.  Come to think of
it negative feedback was the subject of cult science 40 years ago,
so perhaps it's only fair that positive feedback should be the subject
of a cult now.  Maybe there are some long lived popular science writers
who promoted both cults.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Subject: Re: Re: chaos and order
Reply-To: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:11:57 GMT


Allen Gordon (gordon@tramp.colorado.edu) replies

>>Everything, even the most minor events, occurring in the universe can
>>affect the future profoundly. The mere lifting of a finger may cause
>>devastating hurricanes or droughts. A proposed way to ensure environmental
>>protection is to use machines on a global scale to regulate and condition
>>the state of the earth.



>The problem here, as I've been told by Ed Lorenz is that we don't know what 
>would have happened if we don't lift a finger.  Then there is the compounding 
>effects of other people lifting there fingers.  Finally, a major consideration
>is the sensitivity of non-linear systems in a chaotic regime, is the 
>sensitivity to initial conditions.  We can not measure with absolute precision
>and therefore there will always be an uncertainty that accumulates with time.

>The moral here is that we cannot use a mechanistic approach to solve our 
>problems.


If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer.

Henry Choy
choy@skorpio.usask.ca
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: OMB prohibits EPA from including benefits in cost-benefit analyses
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:48:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <JMC.92Apr8193920@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.080602.19288@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt) writes:
>
>   I have learned that when the EPA conducts cost-benefit analyses of proposed
>   regulations (as they are required to do), the Office of Management and
>   Budget (an arm of the president's administration, more or less) does not
>   permit them to include the beneficial effects of improved health and of
>   jobs created, technology developed, and markets stimulated by the requirements
>   of the regulation. Thus, the figures always show cleaning up this or that
>   costs xxx dollars and "we're in a recession, we can't afford it", while the
>   reality is quite different. This is then reported in the press and it looks
>   to the public like all these regulations are economically harmful when in
>   some (or most) cases they are actually economically as well as ecologically
>   helpful. Promotion of this view, which helps polluting companies at the
>   expense of the benefit of society, is enforced by president Bush through his
>   administration, and the EPA is not given any say in the matter.
>
>   Stephen Jascourt    stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
>
>Allowing these hypothetical benefits to be included would permit the

The benefits are not hypothetical, rather their magnitudes are. So are the
magnitudes of the costs which are required to be included. While it may be
true that including such benefits would leave a lot of leeway in the final
outcome, it is clearly true that ignoring them produces a biased 
(statistically) outcome which is unrealistic and cannot serve the intended
function of a cost-benefit analysis.

>EPA enthusiasts for regulation to make any proposed regulation come
>out cost-beneficial, and they surely would do that.

The EPA has been charged with making regulatory decisions by acts of
Congress (such as the Clean Air Act, and many others) which the President
has signed into law. During the Reagan era, the EPA staff was cut so much that
they were unable to make regulations required by Congress years earlier. Bush
restored much of the cut staffing so that the EPA could make regulations
already charged to its duty by Congress. The EPA is *not* making extra,
independent regulations-- it is making only the regulations required by laws
which the President has signed, and is very far behind in doing that.

>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

By the way, I have been asked the source of the information in my original
post. It comes from a scientist who works for the EPA.

Stephen Jascourt    stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:01:07 -0400 
From: Student Enviro-Link <env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: The 1992 Pittsburgh Earth Day Celebration

This is just a message for everybody so that they can see what is
occurring in Pittsburgh, PA for Earth Day 1992.  This entire event has
been organized by students, and is expected to draw thousands!

On Wed, April 22- 8 pm.   DAVID BROWER will speak. (I hope that there is no 
        description needed for this environmental "God".)

        Location: Skibo Ballroom, Skibo Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, 
            Pittsburgh, PA.  

   ++Sponsored by the Environmental Resource Alliance of Pittsburgh++
    Call (412) 268-4572 for more info.

On Sun, April 26- 3 pm.   The 1992 Pittsburgh Earth Day Celebration

        Speakers to include:  Hal Linden, Josh Knauer, Roger Featherstone 
        other possible speakers: Jerry Brown, Senators Wofford and Tom Harkin

        Bands to include:  Mike Messer, Loch Gill, and the Bill Deasy Band

    There also will be info tables representing every environmental
group known that has contacted us: Environmental Resource Alliance of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Against Toxic Incineration, Mobilization for
Animals, Earthwise, National Wildlife Federation, Student Environmental
Action Coalition, Clean Water Action,
Save America's Forests, Sierra Club, Pugwash, CMU Vegetarians, Coolit!,
Earth Island Institute and many more!

If you would like to have a group represented or want more info, please call:

(412) 268-4572

Sponsored by the Environmental Resource Alliance of Pittsburgh,
Earthwise and the Copy Centers at CMU.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism,misc.activism.progressive
From: n9141932@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Doug Auerbach)
Subject: Forest Service to eliminate citizen's appeals process
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:18:10 GMT

This is reprinted from a flyer given to me today.

                            URGENT ACTION NEEDED

                TO SAVE CITIZEN'S RIGHTS ON NATIONAL FORESTS

Unless citizens like you write today, you could be shut out of the decision
making process on your own lands, the 156 National Forests.  If a Forest
Service proposed rule is adopted, the agency would eliminate administrative
appeals.  This means ALL citizens would lose their right to appeal agency
decisions like: timber sales, grazing permits, road building projects,
mining claims, and oil and gas leases.

BACKGROUND:  During his State of the Union Address, Bush vowed to eliminate
"unneeded" Federal Regulations.  Believing that appeals have become "a
time-consuming, procedurally onerous, confrontational and costly effort,
diverting resources and energies."  The Forest Service seized this opportunity
to declare that public appeal rights are also "unneeded."

At a March 19 press conference, Secretary of Agriculture Madigan unveiled the
Forest Service's plan to eliminate the appeal process, silencing citizens who
speak out in defense of wildlife habitat, water quality, and ecosystem
integrity.  THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THIS PROPOSAL ENDS APRIL 23, 1992.

You do not have to be an expert on the appeals process to help turn back this
all out attack on EVERYONE'S basic Democratic rights.  All you need to do is
write a letter today voicing your outrage at this proposed change.  Please
send a copy of your letter to your Representative in Congress to let them know
your concerns.

                                 WHAT YOU CAN DO!
               Write a letter to the Forest Service IMMEDIATELY.

Appeals Staff
Forest Service
USDA, PO Box 96090
Washington, DC  20090-6090

HERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT POINTS YOU CAN INCLUDE IN YOUR LETTER:

--The appeals process is critical to public participation.  This proposal is
an attack on our basic Democratic rights.

--Eliminating Democratic participation and threatening environmental
protection is too high a price to pay for potential short term economic
gains.

--In Fiscal Year 1990 the Forest Service's own data shows that only 15% of
all its proposed timber sales were appealed.

--Only 4% of the total timber harvest was delayed as a result of the appeals
in Fiscal Year 1990.

--A 1992 study by the government's Office of Technology Assessment concluded
appeals had "not significantly decreased the volume of timber for sale," and
"that appeals play a significant role in exposing inadequate environmental
analysis."


-- 
=============================================================================
 Doug Auerbach   Western Washington University  : "If you don't like the
 Student Representative, Computer Policy Board  |  games people play, 
 n9141932@henson.cc.wwu.edu                     :  make up your own games."
From: merrett@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: baltic sea clean up agreement: Anyone have a copy?
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:25:47 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

X-NEWS: dal1 sci.environment: 11150Path: ac.dal.ca!merrett
From: merrett@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Baltic sea clean-up: Anyone have a copy?
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:59:09 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

	Hello,

	We're looking for information on the baltic sea clean up agreement,
which might be part of the UNCLOS regional seas programme, signed last week
in helsinki, finland.  It's something like 25 billion dollars over the next
ten years or some such thing, has several signatories, probably all coastal
states of the baltic sea.  We would appreciate a copy of the agreement before
waiting for it to appear in the legal reference material (i.e. months to
year from now) and would also like information on non-governmental
organization input into background data and formulation of the final draft.


						Doug Merrett


Doug Merrett                                        (902) 429-2680 (voice)
#2-6227 Coburg Rd.,                                 (902) 494-3877 (fax)
Halifax, Nova Scotia                             merrett@ac.dal.ca (E-mail)
CANADA, B3H 1Z8
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:10:54 GMT

	I took the liberty of stuffing a fully grown elephant into my
freezer last night, to test its adaptation to cold. My findings were:

	Post mortem showed severe trauma in the form of broken bones
and ruptured organs. As well, there was evidence of anoxia. Most of
the critter was not frozen by morning, so I can deduce that elephants
are not adapted to the artic, provided the arctic is .5m by .5 m by .25 m,
but that non-thermal effects kill them before temperature comes into play.

								James Nicoll
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:05:45 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>That is, if you're trying to prove a theory or make a point, you're
>only going to display evidence that supports your position, this
>is natural for humans.

But unacceptable in science.

I pointed this out recently to Ted Holden (but perhaps you don't
follow those threads). A good theory must not only have supporting
evidence: it should also explain why the other evidence fails to be
evidence against.

For example, I can say that the moon is green cheese, and my evidence
is that it looks like green cheese. But I also have to explain how
the various lunar expeditions brought back bits of rock. The Cheese
Hypothesis (right or wrong) is incomplete until it addresses the Rock
Question.

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: three to four chambered heart transition
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:01:05 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <1151@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <83030@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>> 	A somewhat detailed discussion of heart ontogeny and
>> the evolutionary pathway leading from a three to a four chambered
>> heart can be found in:
>
>> Torrey and Feduccia, 1979, Morphogenesis of the Vertebrates:
>> Fourth edition, Wily, New York (pp 409-433)
>
>Ah, the joys of having a professional in the field posting to the net.

	Professional? Hey pal, that's "lowly graduate student peon
scum" to you 8-)

>Can we persuade you to give us a brief summary of the main points?

	Well... no. I don't want to sound like a dick or anything,
but who the hell cares? It's just a piddly detail. It can be found
in _any_ (probably) decent ontogeny/morphogenesis text. I really
doubt anyone's acceptance/rejection of evolution rests on this
information -- and if it does, one quick trip to the library could
supply them with the info. But, you and I both know creationists
don't give a crap about evidence. Once I post the material they
would just say "it's still a heart, where's the evidence for the
mutation from non-heart to heart" or something equally as brain
dead. 
 
>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
>US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272

	I hope I don't sound too cranky, but I really think there
are a lot more interesting biological issues than this one. (begin
inevitable digression 8-) Maybe when my hangover goes away, I'll
reconsider. You see I went to see Pearl Jam last night and forgot
all about moderation in imbibing and almost got in a fight and...

Chris Colby	##	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	##
"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental
movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the
biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about
it." - P.J. O'Rourke "Parliament of Whores"
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:11:45 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2711@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Ted (Proud to Ignore the Facts) Holden
> HTE
> 


	You didn't have to tell us, Ted.  We already knew.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: largest and oldest organism found?
Keywords: In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:08:37 GMT

   I though there were pine trees much older than 1500 years old?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)
Subject: Commie Evolutionists!
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:21:22 GMT


Jim Loucks says,

     "No flame for anyone here, but some evolutionists are godless, while
      others are atheists, some may even be communists, or a combination
      of the three, who am I to say? Something I will "judge" about
      everyone, is that they are scum, not!"

Gasp! You mean that there might be some people who accept evolution and are
also atheists and communists!!! Where are the bastards ... ? Do you suppose
that some of them evolutionists might also be socialists or (be still faint 
heart!) even liberals!!??? What is this world coming to? I bet that some of
them atheist evolutionists are even Democrats! 

Personally I take great comfort in knowing that only "some" of the several
hundred million communists may be evolutionists. I assume that the rest
are creationists, like Jim.  (-:  

No flame intended ..... (NOT!)

Laurence A. Moran (Larry)                 
     evolutionist, godless, atheist and socialist .... and proud of it!