HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: Adaptive Optics Associates
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:53:02 GMT

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.
x
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.
I also fail to see the utility of setting this up for private
cars, vs. some sort of segmentable automatic bus routing system.
(Which reminds me, some airline planners want to build a modular
plane, and each passenger section can be buckled into a different
drive frame at hub&spoke airports. Cute, eh?)

-- 
Bobby Newmark, aka  Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
aoa!carl@bbn.com  carl@aoa.utc.com
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
**Just say NO to HMOs**
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10316 sci.physics:12060 sci.energy:3807
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Kill file tuning (was Re: What is Market Efficiency....)
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:17:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul29.030006.5762@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.023623.20043@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>I give up.  Anyone know how to put this guy in a kill file?  
>>I've never resorted to a kill file yet, but I'm willing to learn...
>
>     Yes.  /dale bass/aK.

This did a nice job of creating the KILL file, but editing
the file $HOME/News/sci/energy/KILL to change it to:

/Cameron Randale Bass/h:j

was much more effective ( the 'h' says just search the header, where the
'a' in Cameron's suggestion searched the whole body of the postings.  Very
inefficient...)  

Also, Cameron left out the 'j' in his command, which is critical since
does the junking ... I'm sure it was just an oversight ...

But the 'K' was what I needed.  It creates the KILL file and gets it 
ready to use.

/dale bass/a:j

would also work, but would kill all articles with that search string
at any place in the article, without reguard for poster.

I've also put in 

/crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU/h:j

just to be on the safe side ...

Mike
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:59:17 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Jul25.044333.9776@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In article <50719@dime.cs.umass.edu:, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>: for nuclear wastes to have real value a working nuclear fuel cycle must
>: be developed. As the French have shown, this is not a solved problem.
>: Assuming that such a cycle exists, while the waste inventory continues
>: to build, is simply wishful thinking.
>
>Such a cycle can not be done without nuclear recycling, which can not be
>done until the government reverses the decision by President Carter to
>freeze the nuclear recycling program.  In this case, it is not a technical
>barrier, it is a political one.

President Carter's authority over France was somewhat limited, and the
French went ahead with a fast-breeder program. This program has
met with many very expensive techical problems. Real world 
engineering is often more difficult than corporate planners wish it
to be.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:53:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.200847.11123@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.183503.9094@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.173642.9571@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul23.160604.5987@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     I repeat again.  There was no increase in generating capacity
>>     in CA in the 80's?
>
>Primary new capacity came from efficiency. 

     How much is 'primary' how much from actual new capacity?   Keep in mind
     that you said that there was 'no increase in generating capacity'.

     Also can't pump that well forever.  What now?  75% from 'efficiency'
     over a decade seems a bit steep to my skeptical engineering-trained
     mind.

>>     As far as 'demand side management' goes, there is only so much we can
>>     do economically as some seem to always forget. 
>
>And just how much do you think we can do?  

     Not better than no power generation (of course we will have
     lapsed into socioeconomic chaos long before then).

                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Jul27164005@topaz.ucsc.edu> <50981@dime.cs.umass.edu>
	<govender.712319731@shannon>
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:05:25

Actually, I don't believe Nader made any comparative argument.  He
raised the bogey of low level microwave radiation, demanded that
the ovens be banned, and that was it.

I should have been more careful in my original statement.  What I had
in mind is that no-one has ever been injured in the way Nader
postulated - by the microwave radiation generated in the oven.  I knew
about injuries caused by non-homogeneous heating.  Hospitals warn
against heating baby bottles in microwave ovens, because they don't
trust the parents to obey the instruction to shake the bottle after
heating it and check the temperature.

Would Yodaiken agree that Nader should have done a comparative
analysis?  That's my main point - that environmentalists are outraged
by any suggestion that they should think about possible bad
consequences of getting their way.  We have seen expressions
of this outrage on this newsgroup.

--
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?)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.133521.23168@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.163426.25940@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
::The first one is better electronic communications. With video telephones
::electronic mail etc. in many cases people won't have to move as much as
::today. One may e.g. work at home or in a small, local office. 

:Good solution for office workers. A better solution is to eliminate 
:much of the useless paper shuffling, most of it government inspired. 
:Then there are automatically fewer commuting office workers. Then the 
:workers who produce real wealth by manufacturing real products can keep 
:using their cars to get back and forth to work. The unemployable office 
:workers can be shipped off to a rural commune to plant rice. 
:(Worked for Pol Pot.) 1/2 :-)

	I hope that this will include every white-collar worker who is
more than happy to smear white-collar workers in that kind of fashion.

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:43:23

In spite of all the errors in Blazing Tattles, the promoters of these
stories still have a pretty good chance of saving Saddam Hussein's
ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Keywords: whale brain
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 09:26:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul8.172713.23846@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In article <1992Jul7.205831.21483@newstand.syr.edu> mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Mark D. Kline) writes:
>	< beginning of post deleted >
>>
>>Perhaps the question of intelligence is irrelevant to the question of whether
>>whales have "rights."  
>
>	< stuff deleted>
>>
>>Is somebody here arguing that whales should only be afforded protection from
>>extinction if they are sufficiently intelligent?  Does anyone earnestly
>>believe that according whales "rights" will protect them from extinction?
>>Human rights are not universally respected.  Whales don't need
>>rights to be protected from extinction.  They need humans -- their only
>>significant predators -- to be suffienctly intelligent.
>
>While I applaud your sentiment the issue here goes beyond extinction.  Is
>it "right", from an environmental viewpoint, to allow even small scale
>whaling to continue?  Suppose that whales are intelligent.  Imagine how much
>more we could learn about the earth!  The sea is as much a mystery to man
>in many ways as outer space.  Can you imagine the return that could be ours
>if we would only recognize that the intelligence exists?  If whales are not
>intelligent, then there is no need to be any more concerned about small
>scale whaling then there is about cattle ranching.  
>
>-- Brett
>
Sounds to me like you've been reading a good deal of science fiction...;-)

Thor
edmtl@fiol.uib.no


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:02:57 GMT

In article <WFINNERT.92Jul20172026@larry.shearson.com>, wfinnert@larry.shearson.com (Warren Finnerty) writes:
>
>I find this thread most amusing, the ideas that are offered as practical
>are so removed from reality today that I would suggest that we all use 
>personal nuke-powered hovercrafts ( the sky is a big place ) to get to
>work :-). 
>
>     In a point in time when the interstate highway system (bridges,
>tunnels, roads and all ) is rapidly falling apart these Mega-projects
>will never see the light of day (at least not in time to solve any 
>problems we face in the next 20 years).

Why not?  It seems to me that the best time to add navigational aids to
highways would be when you're already working on them anyway.  The marginal
cost of adding such a system, given that you're already shutting down lanes of
the highway and repairing/resurfacing them is a lot less than it otherwise
would be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:10353 sci.psychology:3372
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 16 Jul 92 19:51:53 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <7z-m4mm@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>[...], to my proposal for "car caterpiller" concept that is
>quite similar to yours.  Mine involves the use of light rail (rolling
>resistance of steel on steel is much less than rubber on pavement),
>cars mounting smart "caterpillar segments" when entering the thoroughfair,
>and clusters of segments grouping together to form caterpillers propelled
>by electricity and only from the rear-most unit.  The intelligence is
>there to break the caterpillers up, eject a car at its exit and then recluster

Actually technology exists to have vehicles use metal wheels or rubber wheels;
While in Paris in 1979 I saw a section of the Metro where this was done
to reduce noise and vibrations. The train (?) used metal strips and
regular looking tires.

I was quite young at the time so I may have got a detail or two wrong but
the idea worked then. The difference going from metal to tire was,
well, astonishing. 

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Bowen)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:40:06 GMT

In <k1-m61m@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Bowen) writes:
>>I'm off to the city centre now. The station is about five minutes walk
>>away. I won't hurry; if I miss the next train, there's another one in
>>ten minutes.

>>Get the picture?

>No, I don't.  A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make, as is

A five minute walk is unreasonable? Lemme guess, you park in your lounge
room? And you drive up to your office in the elevator?

A five minute walk is just a quick stroll - in this case, across my
university campus. Like the Europeans, I found this statement pretty
incredible.

>a 10 minute wait.  I rarely travel more than 15 minutes from my house.
>While you're waiting and walking, I'm already where I want to go.

Wrong in this case at least. Say the average waiting time for a train is
five minutes (as in this example; Caulfield station to the city, in
Melbourne, Australia, on a weekday.) Add to this the generous travelling
time of 15 minutes by train, lands me in the city in about 25 minutes.

Meanwhile, someone going by car will have had to walk down to his car
(given the same position as me; on the fourth floor of my faculty
building).. let's make that 3 minutes - the driver, unless a member of
staff here, will have to have parked in the middle of campus, at least a
couple of minutes away. Now the travel time.. and no matter how you look
at it, I can't see a way of getting from Caulfield to the city by car
in less than 15 minutes. Then you have to find parking.

Parking in the city of Melbourne is not easy. A friend's husband once
spent over 40 minutes looking for a place to park one evening. I presume
he didn't want to have to go to a paid parking spot. Anyway, I digress.

Anyway, what I'm eventually getting to here is that trains can be just
as fast and convenient as driving, if not more so. Given the right
circumstances, it can work. It's cheaper, it's safer, and it's
environmentally friendlier.

>I will personally NEVER give up my personal mobility. If that mobility 
>comes someday in the form of some gadget that runs on matter-anti-matter
>generated farts, so be it.  But it WILL be personal mobility.

Well, my personal mobility is my feet. Clean, natural, safe, and cheap.
I'll stick with them.


Daniel Bowen
-- 
Daniel Bowen, Monash University |        What I want to know is...
            Melbourne Australia |          did Elvis wear Levis?
   daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |
      TCWF: tcwf@gnu.ai.mit.edu |                                    [TCWF]
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9662 sci.energy:3462 sci.physics:11236
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:45:36 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article<10904@cis.rand.org:, Rodger_Madison@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
: While your sharpening your knives please relate to the uninformed among
: us the current status of nuclear waste management in this country and the
: world.  The layman's (I count myself among them in this subject area) view
: of this is that there are vast quantities of highly radioactive materials
: in temporary storage waiting for a long term disposal stategy to be
: developed.
: How does this differ from reality?

Here is one time that environmentalists and myself switch sides.  I favor
*RECYCLING* nuclear wastes, while "environmentalists" are very against
recycling.  Why?  Because you drop the volume by over an order of magnitude
(roughly, I've got the exact numbers around here somewhere).  And, by the
way, the grand bulk of the temporary storage is from the nuclear *WEAPONS*
programs, not the civilian nuke programs.  Contrary to popular opinion,
the civilian and military programs are not more related than saying that
burglers and policemen are both law enforcement officers because they
both use guns.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
From: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Careers in environmental science--Science magazine
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:52:01 GMT
Reply-To: jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Distribution: sci
Organization: Boston University

Since this worked well for me, my colleague will try a posting....

attenion environmental scientists

My name is Richard Stone and I'm a staffwriter at Science Magazine. The 
reason I'm hailing you is to ask for help with an article on careers in
environmental careers. But I'm hung on a few minor details:

--how do you define "environmental science"
--in what durection is the field moving
--where are the jobs? inn industry? governement? academia?
--are there subdisciplines in envir. science that are vastly
undersatffed or overstaffed.

I'm interested in hearing your answers to these and any others questions
I've neglected to ask. please call me ASAP at 202-326-6593 or fax me reply
at 202-371-9227. You can also email a friend of mine at
 jstravis@bu-pub.bu.edu

Thanks for the help and feel free to circulate this among your colleagues
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Interstate Freeway System (was: Cost of public vs. ...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:42:10 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: blagdon@engin.umich.edu's message of Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:43:08 EDT

In article <=mR-8C#@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:


   In article <1992Jul22.135049.25666@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

   >As I recall (sorry, no references), part of the justification for the 
   >interstate freeway system was military:  to facilitate the rapid 
   >deployment of troops anywhere in the country.  That would partially
   >justify the expenditure of general funds to build it.

   As I recall, that was the *main* justification.  Of course, General Dynamics,
   a division of GM, builds the nation's tanks.  The highways were built
   after a major world war and during the cold war, when we were afraid of
   being invaded (Is anyone still afraid of the threat of invasion?).

Arguably the cross-country railway backbone (two major east-west
trunks? or are there three?) were built in response to mid 19th
century wars... 
	most of Europes' rail was built for military movement,
as was a significant part of the motorway network.

   the military ever used the Highway System to move large amounts of 
   personnel and equipment large distances?  Maybe this is part of 
   Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" bogeyman.

Don't know about "large" but there were a lot of convoys on the I10
heading for pacific coast harbours about 21 months ago.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:38:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.150741.6797@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.203511.10207@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Jul24.145601.1101@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>turbine with the waste heat used to power a steam turbine.  In fact, when
>>utilities reduce peak demand by shifting some of the use to off-peak hours 
>>indicate a need for MORE baseload capacity, not less as you've claimed.
>
>Efficiency reduces total use and peak demand.  Why do you think _only_
>peak demand is the issue?  If you will read the article, you will see 
>that shifting use is not a factor.

You're the one who:
	a)  Cited an article which said that SoCalEdison had reduced it's
	    estimated requirements for increased peak capacity by some amount;
	b)  Claimed that this reduction provided evidence that we don't need
	    more nuclear and/or coal-fired plants
You're the one who's been claiming that peak demand has something to do with
coal and nuclear plants.  I've been trying to tell you otherwise.  Apparently,
I've finally convinced you to the extent that you're now trying to deny your
previous position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy