HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Mycenae
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:28:29 GMT

Uri Zakai <RPR1ZAK@TECHNION.BITNET> writes:

>im doing a work on the political structure of ancient greece (around 1250 
BC ).

>[...]
>a)greece was a land of several independent kingdoms (with no overlord)

>or-

>b)greece was a land ruled by the mycenea empire, which held all of the
>major palaces in ancient greece.

I would most compare it to the structure of old ireland, where there
was a 'high king' who commanded much respect and wielded some authority
(especially if he was a had a powerful personality), but did not
by any means command the unquestioning obedience of the local kings. 

josh
Newsgroups: sci.classics,comp.lang.perl
From: mgfrank@avernus.com (Marc G. Frank)
Subject: Roman numerals
Organization: Maryland Appreciation Society
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:42:28 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Summary: Missing digits


It has been pointed out that all the (Arabic) ones were deleted from the
script I recently posted.  This was either a Stupid Emacs Trick or a bug
in my port of C-News.  (I *sincerely* hope it was the former!  :-)  In
case someone wants to use the script and can't figure out where the
missing ones go, drop me a note and I'll mail you the script.

Sorry 'bout that, folks!

This is a test: 245245245245.  (If that comes out as
"245245245245" I'm in deep trouble.  :-)

Oh dear.  Naturally, the first part of that was supposed to say
"one-two-three-four-five" and the second part "two-three-four-five."
(At this point, I'm editing the article in the news spool directly.)  It
was saved in my outgoing mail file properly, so it isn't Pnews's fault.
Looks like it's time to go poking through inews.  Or, worse, something
that's in C.  :-(  If anyone's come across anything like this, feel free
to offer helpful advice...

--
Marc G. Frank        mgfrank@avernus.com        "Hey, you never know."
                                                  -- NYS Lotto slogan
From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: sci.classics
Subject: The Iliad an Anti War Poem?
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:20:36 GMT
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH



I wonder if anyone has references to the debate over the Iliad as a 
pro war or anti war poem. There is an interesting reference in Plato's 
republic pointing out the anti war examples in the Iliad, but I've heard
that some popele claim it is a pro war poem. 

-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: sci.classics
Subject: sacrifice
Date: 13 Sep 92 10:22:26 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.


What exactly does one do when one sacrifices something to one of the gods?
As a kid, I had the impression that it just meant one killed it and
maybe burned the flesh afterwards. It wasn't clear to me why the god
liked the animal dead and burned better than alive and how it got to 
the god, etc, but I just assumed that the ancients believed silly things
like that.

A few years ago, I was told that after an animal was sacrificed, the meat
was distributed among the poor who would eat it. But if so, then in principle
anyone could eat it.

This naturally presents a conflict of interests in case one sacrifices
one of one's own livestock. For example, even if one kills the beast
just to eat it, presumably one is supposed to offer some prayer of
thanks to the gods. Having done so, did that make it indistinguishable
from a sacrifice?

I am naturally very concerned about this as we approach the season during
which Americans traditionally sacrifice the turkey to the god and then
eat what the god decides not to eat.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: sci.classics
Subject: detailed studies of Euripedes IT
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:46:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: camelot.ARA.92Sep14214635
Distribution: sci
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.


I would like to know about scholarly editions of Euripedes' play
Iphegeneia in Tauris. The critical apparatus of the Loeb edition
isn't very good.

I would also be interested in looking at articles about the play,
especially about the difficulties of reading it in Greek or about
the different ways in which it can be translated (including the
different meanings arising from variations in the text).

If you have such references or if you know where I can conveniently find
them, please let me know.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.classics,alt.mythology
From: jdravk+@cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk)
Subject: Re: sacrifice
Organization: Barbie's Dream Dungeon
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:46:00 GMT

In article <p!znac-@lynx.unm.edu> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:

>	The point is that *humans* like it burned (cooked), and they
>	are offering a tithe to the gods.  There is a specific myth
>	that relates how some human tricked the gods into accepting
>	the bones and fat instead of the good meat.  Does anyone
>	recall which it is?  As for how it got to the god, I believe
>	that the standard scenario is that the smoke and smell of
>	the sacrifice ascend to the god.  But then, there were also
>	sacrifices of wine and grain.  How do these get to the god?
>	Well, how does a prayer get to God?  Same difference, but
>	the one is a little more material than the other.


The story involves Prometheus and the first humans.  After he stole fire
he tried to patch things up with Zeus and instructed the humans in how
to offer sacrifice.  When Zeus came to Earth (attracted by the smell)
Prometheus asked Zeus to choose his sacrifice from two piles -- one appeared
to be a pile of gristle, hide and bone, the other was covered in sleek
fat.  Obviously, Zeus chose the latter at which point he discovered there
was nothing underneath it but skin, bones and gristle while the really
tasty bits were hidden under the other pile.

This is noted as a story where humans are shown that Gods can be tricked.



j-
-- 
   "Ha! Mere flesh and blood desires mean *nothing* to Destructo-Kitty!"
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:37:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.154606.3812@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.232611.26187@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred) writes:
>>
>Several points. First, the US economy now employs more people than at
>any time in US history. Using jobs as a welfare program has never worked.

I would propose appropriate tax incentives and favorable legislation as
the main force behind PVication of the US.

>Only jobs that return an economic benefit higher than their cost are
>of benefit to the nation. No government jobs program has ever met this
>criteria. Spending government money (IE your money and my money) on an

The building of the highways during the depression hasn't benefitted the US?
How about Hoover dam, which has more than paid for itself and has halted
destructive flooding?  These are results of the so-called "jobs" programs.
What about research in medicine, which provide cures for disease?  Or into
science and technology?  These types of programs, while they may be called
"jobs" programs by some, provide a benefit to society which would not
occur in the private sector alone.

>energy source more expensive than other available alternatives is unwise
>and unsound. The loss of capital to the nation means that every other
>user of capital will see increased costs. This cascades through the
>entire economy costing jobs and competitiveness. 

True, but there are no fundamental barriers to PV energy being cheaper
than conventional sources except the fact that it isn't currently in
widespread use.  A nudge by the government should be enough to get the
ball rolling.

>Finally, the technology
>as monopoly argument is bogus. Name one major manufactured product in
>the US that depends on monopoly technology.  Businesses make money by
>delivering products to people at a price that is more than the cost
>of production. The difference is called profit. Monopoly is not required
>to produce a profit. If it were, the oil companies would all be broke
>since the technologies for digging wells and refining oil are well known
>and mostly in the public domain.

However, the government's policies WRT tax and legislation and leasing
of public land has a lot to do with whether a profit is made.  Besides,
I was referring to monopolies on a more local scale--the way things stand
now, I have no choice but to buy my electric power from the one electric
utility that servers me, at a rate I have no control over.

>However, the horseless carriage was hailed at the turn of the century
>as the salvation of the city because of reduced pollution versus the
>horses then in use. We can't be sure that large areas of solar collectors 

Can you imagine all the s*** if we still used horses?

	- Dan
Newsgroups: pdx.consumer,sci.energy
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:49:23 GMT

In article <10273@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
(Hal F Lillywhite) writes:

> In article <1992Aug26.195524.25813@athena.cs.uga.edu>
> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
> 
> >Much of the otherwise educated populace views radioactivity in a
> >superstitious way, with numinous awe, as if it were witchcraft.
> 
> Amen!  In fact "radioactivity" and "radiation" are what I like to
> call "witchwords."  They carry such an emotional load that it is

Isn't this one of the reasons they renamed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
to Magnetic Resonance Imaging for medical use?  The had to get rid of
that "N" word... ;-)  Obviously PET and CAT scans are of no danger,
since they don't have that evil "N" word...  (P is for Positron... :-)
Making those nuclei do spin flips is more dangerous than having two
511 keV photons shoot through your head.

> Of course radiation can be dangerous.  However there is a great
> difference between a nuclear weapon and a smoke detector.  I find it

I always found it amusing to see stores where they sell Coleman
lantern mantles right by the cash register.  Everyone's food
cruising along underneath all the Thorium... ;-)  Good thing
many of those meals are from the "Nuke" section...

> ironic that many people get upset about the amount of radiation in a
> smoke detector but are not at all bothered by the possibility of a
> house fire (which is *much* more dangerous).  In fact many of these
> same people then go and sunbathe thus deliberately exposing
> themselves to radiation.

Or live in brick houses...

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:27:00 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep8.160122.1237@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <53037@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>[...] it is factually incorrect to argue that opposition
>>to nuclear power is a symptom of hatred of science and technology or that
>>the anti-nuclear movement is created by and kept alive by some machiavellian
>>plot. 
>
>I don't recall anyone saying this.  I've argued that *some* anti-nuclear 
>protestors are motivated by fear of technology, and that *some* spokesmen
>might be corrupt.  

I must have misread the following passage. If so, I apologize.

|>Come on now.  Of course if you walked into an anti-nuke demonstration and 
|>asked around if anyone was a Luddite, or if anyone had a fear of technology, 
|>you'd find no-one.  If you asked the anti-automobile crowd at the turn of the
|>century you'd also find no-one.  If you asked the anti-vaccination,      
|>anti-airplane, anti-immunization, anti-genetic engineering, anti-steam power,
|>anti-electric light bulb, anti-pasteurization, anti-space travel,     
|>anti-blood transfusion, anti-X-ray, or any anti-<new technology> crowd over
|>the last century of so, you'd likewise find few who outright expressed a
|>fear of technology.  Unless, of course, you looked deeper.

>
>>I note that it requires a certain willful ignorance to claim that
>>either George Kendall or Lovins is anti-scientific 
>>or against technology.
>
>"[Soft energy systems] are ...relatively low technology...easy to understand
>and use..."


>Lovins is not anti-technology; he's anti-high-technology.  (his obvious
>ignorance of the high-tech nature of "soft" energy systems notwithstanding).


So, you think that Lovins believes that fluidized coal, active glass, and
photo-electron equipment are "low tech"? That would be rather an odd
thing to believe.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Cheap PV cells
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193

TB>Does anybody have a list of suppliers for cheap solar cells?
TB>Thanks.

Try "Home Power Magazine", POB 130, Hornbrook, CA 96044-0130
Area code 916-475-3179
$10 for 6 bi-monthly issues
full of ads with all brands of PV cells
full of do-it-yourself articles and tutorials
they do product testing
real bargin
real fun

Late 1993 Texas Instruments and Southern California Edison will be
marketing a new photovoltaic technology known as Spheral Solar(TM).
It will use ordinary metalurgical silcon and will not be extremely
efficient (10%), but promises to be dirt cheap. 10% efficiency is about
on a par with most of the cells on the market today. They claim that a
100 square foot panel on a south facing roof will produce about two
megawatt/hours per year which is enough to run many homes, using
efficient lighting and appliances. They have not announced the actual
price.

hhs

(415)494-2915, Palo Alto
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Hello, I am part number ................
                                                          
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.160508.13743@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I know of one that *almost* works near Americus Ga. The farmer who
>owns it got a little tired, not to mention a little scared, of climbing
>a 70 foot tower to repair the balky thing. He installed a cheap, reliable,
>and completely controllable electric pump instead. Now he can have water
>when he needs it, not when the wind happens to be blowing strongly enough.
>And he can fix it at ground level when necessary. The average age of
>farmers in the US is 57. Most don't like to climb anymore.

	There certainly are many applications where electric pumping has
advantages over wind pumping.  If the pump is within,  say 100 feet of an
electric connection,  then it makes sense to use an electric pump.  If
the only way to the pump is to drive five miles up a BLM "primitive road"
(or walk or ride your bike),  I think that wind pumping has a clear
advantage.  Of course this will also depend on the price of electricity and
the availibility of wind in an area.  The only wind pumps that I have seen
have been installed to fill stock tanks,  which are ususally pretty big,
so that the system has a great deal of storage capacity.  (Easily more than
a week)

	I doubt that electric pumps would never have caught on in the more
remote areas if it were not for the REA;  the only argument for running
a transmission line 20 miles just to fill a stock tank (and you can
actually ~find~ such a place if you drive off route 380 before the
turnoff to WSMR and drive south through 25 miles of dirt roads.  This is a
really fun drive which takes you to an abandoned ranch house near Black Mesa,
in the vicinity of a ghost town and the site of a civil war battle.  Highly
reccomended,  but I have a friend who got his truck stuck out there and
had to walk back!) is that the power line could be used to power something
else in the future.

	Then again,  with today's decentralized energy technology,  there
must be some point where the capital expense of putting up a wind or solar
or other decentralized system is less than that of stringing the wires.
It's important to realize that wind and electric (and also diesel and solar)
pumping technologies are not directly competitive.  For a African village,
the solar-electric pump might be the best,  where for a larger installation,
deisel might be desirable -- the wind pump might be the best to fill a
remote stock tank,  where a farmer in Georgia might find that an electric
pump powered from the mains is the best.



--
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:42:01 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep9.142608.21114@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <53089@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>So, you think that Lovins believes that fluidized coal, active glass, and
>>photo-electron equipment are "low tech"? That would be rather an odd
>>thing to believe.
>
>I believe he is hyprocritical, and you've pointed out the hypocrisy nicely.

>Surely you noted the "aside" in my previous post? :  "(his obvious ignorance
>of the high-tech nature of "soft" energy systems notwithstanding)"

I believe you've misread him. Lovins writes:
   [soft technologies] ... are flexible and relatively low technology
   --- which does not mean unsophisticated, but rather easy to understand
   and use without esoteric skills, acessible rather than arcane.

In the context of "Sfot Energy paths" it is clear that he wants to contrast
the centralized operation of nuclear power plants with the operation of
small scale solar, wind, and biomass energy sources. It does not seem
to me that he is arguing that the materials science of photovoltaics
is simpler and less technological than reactor enegineering.

>
>As a further note -- I know you don't believe that someone who receives 
>$600 an hour for energy managment consultation could possibly have "deeper
>motives", but in the light of some of the statments he's made, I'd say that
>"having deeper motives" is giving him the benefit of the doubt.  The  
>alternative is that he is a blithering idiot.

I'm skeptical of all sources of information, but Lovins clearly did not
write the book that started him out on the road to his current living standard
with money in mind.  In 1976 energy efficiency was not a very lucrative
field.

>
>>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
>
>
>-- 
>Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>Dept. Engineering Physics
>McMaster University
>Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: File Distribution Coordinator <ecixfiles@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 06 Sep 92 12:44 PDT
Subject: ECIX File Distribution Update
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300080:000:1531
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecixfiles    Sep  6 12:44:00 1992


From: File Distribution Coordinator <ecixfiles>
Subject: ECIX File Distribution Update

 
ECIX File Distribution Service Update
 
For those of you who have thought about retrieving back issues of
ECO, the ECIX Newsletter, the ECIX Climate Digest, or Tiempo
via ftp from igc.org.....
 
Now available - the tables of contents ONLY for these publications
so that you can scan them before retrieving the much larger complete
files.
 
All of these files are available via anonymous ftp from igc.org, or
via email from ecixfiles@igc.apc.org.  I will be updating them as new
issues are published.
 
 
In the subdirectory /pub/ECIX
 
ecixtc      - Tables of contents for the ECIX project newsletter
climdigtc   - Tables of contents for the ECIX Climate Digest
tiempotc    - Tables of contents for Tiempo
 
In the subdirectory /pub/ECO
 
ecotc       - Tables of contents for all issues of ECO to date
 
 
If you are not familiar with our file distribution service, send a
note to ecixfiles@igc.apc.org and I will send you an information
file.
 
 
******************************************************************
Lelani Arris                            * Project Director 
EcoNet:    larris                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  larris@igc.apc.org   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 1061 
Telephone: 403-852-4057                 * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0 
Fax:       403-852-5173                 * Canada
******************************************************************
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:07:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep4.160508.13743@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Remember, you said *most* farms and ranches.  I have no doubt that
>>remote farms and ranches may find wind useful.  I have never seen a
>>working windmill on an eastern farm.

>I know of one that *almost* works near Americus Ga. The farmer who
>owns it got a little tired, not to mention a little scared, of climbing
>a 70 foot tower to repair the balky thing. He installed a cheap, reliable,
>and completely controllable electric pump instead.


Some additional information: I just drove ~ 300 miles (round trip)
through western NY for a camping trip, through mixed forests and
farmland.  I saw very few windmills.  The only ones that were turning
were clearly antiques, not powering anything.  I saw three two-bladed
turbines on the ends of towers, but none were turning (even though one
was in a 20 mph wind).

The vast majority of farms I passed had no wind turbines.  Since any
application of wind to water pumping would require storage, the wind
is competing against off-peak electric power (pump at night and
store), which, even here in this part of the Vampire State, costs only
$.05/kWh.  The same holds for electric systems with battery banks.

Renewables do better for remote users in low density areas, but the
total energy used by such people is, almost by definition, small.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu