HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:35:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.002243.25281@news.eng.convex.com> jjensen@convex.com (James Jensen) writes:
>Someone wrote: 
::::Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
::::airlines fly automated systems.

:That may be true, but the the environment that these systems deal with
:is orders of magnatudes simpler than surface streets.  A robo-car
:will have to be able to determine that a child that is about to run out
:into the street as well as a human driver. The last I heard computer vision 
:wasn't anywhere near to this.

	I did once see a demonstration of a computer system that did
manage to learn to drive -- a neural-net-based system. A (human)
driver drove a van containing the computer and various sensors around,
and the computer "learned" how to do it; it was then able to drive the
van around a bit. The demonstration was on a road where there were
nothing else there, however. On the documentary I saw, I didn't find
out if there was any effort to find out what cues the computer used
(it used input from a camera, among other things) to keep the van on
the road, although I'm sure that that could have been done.

	I certainly agree that driving on a road with other vehicles
or with people in it is a much more difficult problem, if one has to
actually identify the vehicles from visual input. Successful
automatically-controlled vehicles to date have usually avoided this
problem by using simplified version of other-vehicle detection;
airplanes have collision detectors that respond to any large object in
the airplane's path, for example. Automatic train control usually
works by dividing a trackway into "blocks", with a central scheduler
allowing only one train in a block at a time.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:41:07 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul28.172027.28257@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.144809.22935@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.171456.12988@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
::...The 
:::downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.
::
::	Tell that to anyone who has ever shopped at a shopping mall
:::-)

:The only good thing about malls is that they're air conditioned. The
:worst thing about malls is you have to walk through them to get to
:the store you want to patronize. I prefer strip shopping centers 
:where I can park close to the door of the store where I want to 
:make a purchase.

	IF you can find parking, that is.

	If you have to park far away, then you have to walk as long as
you would in a shopping mall -- probably longer -- and almost
certainly across a street or two.

	And is walking inside a typical shopping mall REALLY that
terrible a burden???
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul29.014145.20843@s1.gov>
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:10:23

I have driven in L.A. fairly recently and would not describe the
freeways as parking lots.  I wonder if the perception that they
are would be dispelled by actual timings or is gloom loving stronger
than that.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Followup-To: sci.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul27.101707.2485@cco.caltech.edu>
	<Jul.31.02.41.02.1992.28701@remus.rutgers.edu>
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:40:08

Suppose whales were capable of noticing the general
proposition that whaling ships hunt whales.  Suppose further
that they could communicate with each other about it.  Then
they could have sentries that would warn other whales that
ships were approaching.  As I understand it, whale hunting
depends on being able to sneak up on a surfaced whale.  A
whale that noticed that it was being hunted could dive
and come up a long way away.  This would be entirely effective
against whale hunting methods.

Maybe they wouldn't even need sentries.  They would just need
the idea of noticing ships and boats and not letting them get
close.  Many land animals have learned this.

This leads me to the opinion that whales can't be very smart
in the sense of being able to learn about a danger and
communicate it among themselves.

This doesn't settle the question of whether it is ok to hunt
whales.  However, it removes one argument against it.

The main objection to hunting whales is that many of my fellow
humans don't like it.
 
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:31:41 GMT


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.

	There are computer-controlled land vehicles currently in
operation, but they all run on railroads. Examples are BART and the
Washington Metro. Computer controls are straightforward for trains
because they move in only one dimension; flat-road vehicles move in
two dimensions -- and a computer control must have some way of finding
out the position of the vehicle on the road. This might be handled by
computer vision, but that field is not developed enough to be suitable
for the task on a typical road. One might also put special cables in
or above the road, but those would have to be installed. True,
airplanes move in three domensions, but they don't have to stay in
roads, so an autopilot is sufficient for them.

	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
problem can be handled very easily by fencing off the track and
eliminating grade crossings (where roads cross tracks).

	Isaac Asimov once wrote a science-fiction story about
computer-controlled cars called "Sally" (collected in _Nightfall and
Other Stories_).

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: What is Market Efficiency.  was Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.234655.2768@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Yes, that could be a canonical example.  However, we were discussing
>     cigarettes (like it matters).

	Well,  let's talk about cigarettes (instead of energy :-).  One of the
postulates of the market economy is that all of the participants are rational,
and act with their own economic self-interest in mind.  Yet,  cigarettes
contain nicotene,  which is a highly addictive (possible the most highly
addictaive) psychoactive drug.  Many people who smoke for a few months find
that their brain chemistry or something has been altered such that they
find it impossible to stop.  If the product is a psychoactive substance
that renders it's user irrational,  can we use the principle of the market
to explain this.  (And to some extent,  this argument can be expanded to
cover alcohol,  pot,  cocaine,  and even more pedestrian psychoactives
such as sugar and caffine (Which make a great team:  eat alot of sugar
for breakfast and you need coffee to stay awake,  eat more sugar at
lunch and need more coffee in the afternoon...  Sooner or later I found
that I needed a cup of tea at night (with a teaspoon of sugar :-) just
to be able to fall asleep!))

	Also,  the cigarette user inflicts a number of costs on himself,
some of which are immediately obvious,  such as the actual price of
a pack of cigarettes,  and some a little more distant,  like yellow
teeth,  and some that are far away,  such as lung cancer.  The cigarette
industry deliberately targets teenagers and other people who really
aren't in optimal condition to be able to make a decision that will
have far ranging effects on the rest of their lives.  A kid who decides
to smoke at age 15 quite possibly will keep smoking the same brand
for the rest of his life.  Beyond this,  cigarettes and their production
have large external costs.  Second-hand smoke is the most obvious,  but
tobacco is a particularly debilitating crop for the land,  and many
acres of land in latin america that could be used for growing local
food (ObEnergy: maybe even energy) crops,  that instead gets used to
produce tobacco,  coffee,  cocaine,  sugar and other crops that are
consumed to excess (defined by the level at which they cause personal
harm) in the US.

	The really sick thing about many of these things is that they
can be explained by the actions of "rational" actors who act
inflexibly towards self-destructive ends in a market system.


-- 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10222 sci.physics:11897
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:45:26
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: finn@isi.edu's message of 20 Jul 92 23:23:58 GMT

> Unlike auto/truck transportation and maintenance systems which
> primarily are paid by user fees and purchases, mass transit
> systems in most countries are extremely heavily subsidized.

=o= I've said it before.  No doubt I'll have to say it again.

=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.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:56:14 GMT

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.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9694 sci.geo.meteorology:2516 sci.skeptic:13012
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:41:46 GMT
Organization: SPS

In article <1992Jul20.164701.8222@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
|> 
|> No, this is not "quite clear" at all.  You haven't even come close to
|> demonstrating this.  All that has been shown is that some such impacts
|> are _possible_.  A CO2 doubling timespan of 300 years (including at 
|> least 100 years into the future) is being used for the theorized IPCC 
                                                                    ^^^^^ 
|> 2.5C warming; we have several decades to learn more about the phenomenon 
|> and several decades more to respond before most of the predicted temperature 
|> changes would come about.
...

ENSO is rare?  Ice age transitions are rare?  Pinatubo-sized volcanoes
^^^^^
...
|> From the numbers I have, this claim is nonsense.  Younger Dryas was a 
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

I assume the jargon is known to sci.environment & sci.geo.meteorology readers 
but could you please be a little less cryptic for the benefit of those who 
only read sci.skeptic.
-- 

Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

...the most important change which extensive government control produces 
is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.
                    Friedrich A. Von Hayek
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9687 sci.geo.meteorology:2513 sci.skeptic:12995
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:36:54 GMT
	<1992Jul20.164701.8222@techbook.com>
	<1992Jul21.043529.5592@meteor.wisc.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu's message of 21 Jul 92 04:35:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.043529.5592@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:


   The issue is not the doubling time of total CO2, but the doubling time
   of anthropogenic CO2, which has consistently been about 30 years. His

 ??? Surely not? What matters for the radiation budget is total CO2,
not anthropogenic contribution. The doubling time scale for that is
only relevant in so far as anthro CO2 is comparable to extant
atmospheric CO2 - even so, the anthro doubling time scale is clearly
always shorter than the total doubling time scale, which is the
relevant one for climate impact - the anthro time scale is relevant
for deciding policy.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10379 sci.physics:12124
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:49:55 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <22101@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.070451.26991@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
::In article <22089@venera.isi.edu: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
::If they improve the quality of the air, and reduce congestion, everyone
::benefits and subsidies are fair.

:	NO.  Why should Marvin Q. Public in Podunk pay for LA's Metro
:Rail?  Because Southern California has so much clout in Congress that
:it can lift a $billion from the Federal till?

:	Who primarily benefits from the cleaner LA air and lower LA
:congestion?  Farmers in the midwest?  Garment workers in NYC?  Primary
:benefits are to Angelenos.  Oddly enough, I think that the people that
:primarily benefit are those who should bear the most of the cost.

	But these same people have had to finance LA's freeways
through the subsidies that building them receive.

:::You build a fairly financed convenient system and people like myself
:::might use it.

::So you're waiting for a fare increase?

:	I'm waiting for the system to be financed in such a way that I
:and fellow Angelenos pay for it rather than farmers in the Dakotas.

	And for freeway enthusiasts to pay for freeways in their own
areas rather than depend on subsidies from other areas.

	Greg Finn, you have yet to demonstrate that our nation's roads
are an economically self-sufficient system.
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:28:07 GMT
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL

In article <1992Jul25.060358.10421@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

|> 
|> In NYC the subway is a necessity, but in cities like Los Angles, Atlanta,
|> Houston, and a host of others the density is not high enough across broad
|> areas of the city and population originations and destinations are too widely
|> spread in all directions to be served by fixed rail. Diesel bus systems are
|> only superior on limited routes at limited times. Thus they don't meet the
|> diverse needs of many people.
|> 
|> BART has the advantage of serving a small inner city core and a geographically
|> constrained bedroom population along the Bay penninsula. This "strip city"
|> approach is well suited to rail transit. Los Angles, and Atlanta, have
|> multiple cores dispersed about the area and bedroom populations scattered
|> widely in all directions. The hub and spoke systems that try to serve their
|> transit needs are woefully inefficient in travel time and energy efficiency.

You need to brush up on your geography, as well a look at a BART map sometime.  BART does *NOT* service 
the penninsula.  When BART was first being planned, the bay area counties were each given the option of 
whether to extend BART service into their county.  Counties that voted to have the service were required to 
"buy into" the system through an increase in the county sales tax.  Both San Mateo county (most of the 
penninsula) and Marin county (to the north of SF, across the Golden Gate) opted out, primarily, I believe, 
because they feared that the presence of BART would encourage further development.  As time has shown, however, 
development of both counties has proceded apace, and their mass transit problems have only gotten worse for 
their shortsightedness.

BART serves the San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties.  Only San Francisco Co. can be considered 
geographically constrained.  Both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties extend some 40 miles eastward from the 
east shore of the Bay.


-- 
Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
CIS: 76347,2523                        |
Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:41:25

In article <1992Jul27.145214.23048@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

   In article <1992Jul25.235844.24525@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe) writes:
   :
   : ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter)writes:
   : 
   :"USAnian cities have generally chosen to cater to demand for facilities
   :for automobiles and have progressively built more and more freeways,
   :parking etc.  This was done in the name of free choice and consumer
   :sovereignty.  Unfortunately it has ultimately led to cities in which
   :the basic choice in transport is to drive a car or to stay put!"
   : 
   :It was not entirely un-directed. Shortly after the end of World War II,
   :General Motors Co. and one of the major rubber tire manufacturers
   :formed a joint company called American City Lines. This company proceeded
   : to buy control of street railways in cities throughout the country, 
   :to 'run them into the ground' with no maintenance, to tear up and sell
   :the rails (quite profitable), and where profitable routes could be
   :maintained, to convert the lines to rubber-tired, General Motors-
   :manufactured busses. Subsequently, most of these lines were taken
   :over by the city governments under the treat from American City Lines
   :to close them down.

	   I think that the name was the _National_ City Lines. The
   GM-led consortium included Firestone Tire and Mack Truck. Firestone
   Tire's excuse is rather obvious :-), most rail vehicles run on steel
   wheels without rubber tires. However, there is less excuse for GM and
   Mack Truck, which could have gotten into the trolley business without
   too much trouble.

I suspect this is a tale that has grown in the telling.  Where is
the evidence.  Also did GM take over Adelaide too?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9896 sci.physics:11525 sci.energy:3603
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:41:39 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Jul23.171618.9386@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <BruLBA.KCp@watserv1.waterloo.edu> rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:
>>When you ecoterrorists (people who oppose what we have without offering
>>viable alternatives) tell us how to run an aluminum smelter off of photo-
>>voltaics, or wind generators.
>>
>Wow.  I tought a terrorist was someone who killed people in order to create
>fear.

No, a terrorist is someone who engages in the systematic use of terror,
especially as a means to coercion.  Examples are:
	o  Pointing to Chernobyl as an example of how dangerous the nuclear
	   reactors in the United States are, when the designs are entirely
	   different;
	o  Grossly overstating the amount and/or activity of spent fuel
	   elements from commercial power reactors in this country;
	o  Confusing the waste from nuclear weapons facilities (hell, they're
	   DESIGNED to produce lots of radioactive stuff;  small wonder that
	   they do) with the waste from commercial nuclear reactors;
	o  Grossly overstating the amount of radiation released at TMI.
In each of these examples, ecoterrorists misrepresent things in order to scare
the uninformed, in order to force their policies through.  Sure sounds like a
systematic use of terror to me.

>Your redefinition of this word, as many in this group do, certainly
>serves a rhetorical purpose but completely misrepresents the attitudes of
>those who disagree with you.

He didn't redefine it.  You did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9944 sci.psychology:3227