HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip)
Subject: Re: cogsci vs ai
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:26:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.161208.28266@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
> In article <C0Jtrw.H6r@athena.cs.uga.edu> jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]) writes:
> >Can someone explain the difference between the fields of AI and CogSci???
> 
> AI is but one subdiscipline in CogSci, which is essentially interdisciplinary.
> Other component disciplines include psychology, philosophy, linguistics,
> and -- depending on who you talk to -- neuroscience and anthropology.
> 

I think it would be more realistic to say that CogSci is the "intersection"
or "lowest common ground" or optimistically "highest common something-or-other"
of various other disciplines. It's role is a bit like statistics -
abstracting and exploring analytical and modelling tools common to one or
more discipline's (including AI).

Philip Swann
From: jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI])
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: cogsci vs ai
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:52:43 GMT
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens

Can someone explain the difference between the fields of AI and CogSci???
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: jsahasi@aisun1.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI])
Subject: Re: word frequency database results
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:56:29 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: cogsci vs ai
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan9.161208.28266@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <C0Jtrw.H6r@athena.cs.uga.edu> jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]) writes:
>>Can someone explain the difference between the fields of AI and CogSci???
>
>AI is but one subdiscipline in CogSci, which is essentially interdisciplinary.
>Other component disciplines include psychology, philosophy, linguistics,
>and -- depending on who you talk to -- neuroscience and anthropology.
>
>-- 
>Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
>Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
>University of Toronto
>Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1


In AI, I've seen Cogsci described as a subdiscipline,...which was my original
reason for asking this question....and AI is defined as an interdiscipinary
.....including linguistics, Computer Sc., philosophy, psych,..etc..

WELL, SO,...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COGSCI AND AI??
















Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth)
Subject: Re: cogsci vs ai
Organization: The World
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:07:05 GMT

In article <C0Jtrw.H6r@athena.cs.uga.edu> jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]) writes:

   Can someone explain the difference between the fields of AI and CogSci???

Hmm...Them's fightin' words, pardner. :-)

Layne




-- 
  Layne Ainsworth | lains@world.std.com <or> ...!{xylogics,uunet}!world!lains
	  The truth can't hurt you; it's just like the dark.
From: mackd@Sol28.essex.ac.uk (Mack D P)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: word frequency database results
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:27:12 GMT
Reply-To: mackd@essex.ac.uk (Mack D P)
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <C0pp26.Bu9@athena.cs.uga.edu> jsahasi@aisun1.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]) writes:
>
>In AI, I've seen Cogsci described as a subdiscipline,...which was my original
>reason for asking this question....and AI is defined as an interdiscipinary
>.....including linguistics, Computer Sc., philosophy, psych,..etc..
>
>WELL, SO,...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COGSCI AND AI??

I suspect there isn't any "agreed" difference, but I would say that AI
is concerned with how we can make computers do tasks that previously
only people could do, and are regarded as requiring "intelligence".
Cognitive Science seems to be more about building computational models
of how humans actually do the tasks we describe as "intelligent".  For
this reason, cognitive science needs to be closer to the range of other
disciplines mentioned, as it is really interested in modelling people.
AI is also close to the other disciplines, but only uses what is known
about people as one possible approach: any approach that yields the
correct results is acceptable.

Daniel
From: inunn@hpb.hwc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Definitions Required
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:24:09 EST
Organization: Health and Welfare, Canada

I would appreciate comment on current definition for the following
terms:  concept
        category
        kind (as in natural, nominal, etc.)
        class (the result of classification)

Thanks.

Ian Nunn
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: max@currawong.bhs.mq.edu.au (Max Coltheart)
Subject: Re: word frequency database results
Organization: School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University, Australia
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:34:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.193950.22100@burrhus.harvard.edu> aminoff@isr.harvard.edu (Alexander G. Aminoff) writes:
>My search for a database of word frequency norms turned up one substantial
>file, the MRC Psycholinguistic Database Machine Readable Dictionary.
>Thanks to all those who sent me pointers.
>

BE AWARE: this database does not contain word frequency information for
inflected or derived words such as plurals or past tenses *except*
when these are irregular forms. So it gives you the frequency of MICE
but not of TREES. The frequencies of completely regular inflected or
derived words are all set to zero. I'm sorry about this, but when I
put the MRC database together in 1978-79 this was the only file of
word frequencies I could get hold of.

MaxC

......................................
From: chrisley@oxford.ac.uk (Ronald L Chrisley)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: cogsci vs ai
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:00:26 GMT
Organization: School of Cognitive & Computing Sciences, Univ. of Sussex
In-reply-to: jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 18:52:43 GMT

In article <C0Jtrw.H6r@athena.cs.uga.edu> jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI]) writes:

   Can someone explain the difference between the fields of AI and CogSci???

I suppose a very simplistic answer is this: CogSci is science; AI is
technology (engineering).

CS wants explanations; AI wants working systems.

Of course, working systems help provide explanantions, and
explanations help one design working systems, so there's plenty of
room for interaction!
--
Ronald L. Chrisley  ronc@cogs.susx.ac.uk
COGS, University of Sussex
Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK
From: dmp@cs.bham.ac.uk (Donald Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Minds and Computers
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:16:04 GMT
Organization: Cognitive Science, Birmingham, UK


To set up a seminar I have to collect literature on the question:

"In what ways is it *useful* to think of the mind as a computer",

written by people roughly opposed to the position taken in John
Searle's new book --- i.e. by people who think that it is useful to do
so.

I'd be grateful for references --- please email directly to
D.M.Peterson@cs.bham.ac.uk as well as posting to the net.

Donald Peterson.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:37:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.173933.12320@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.181829.13714@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
Clarke) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan7.152456.25477@mksol.dseg.ti.com>  
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com  
> >(Dillon Pyron) writes:
> >> BTW, the STS [Space Transporation System/the Shuttle]
> >> is the safest transportation system we have, based on fatalities
> >> per passenger mile.  But who would pay $1 billion apiece for a 747?   
(Please
> >> attach a smiley to the safety record).
> >
> >Does anyone have any idea how various means of transport rate 
> >according to probability of exit.  Is the private car better than
> >a commerical airliner?  {Lots of safe little trips would up the
> >exit probability.}
> 
>  So we have about 1 million exits per 
> fatality on aircraft, probably quite a bit better. Using your measure, 
> aircraft and autos are about equally safe, a non-intuitive result.
> 
Good analysis!  So cars and planes are about equally exit-safe.
I was trying to get at something like this in my original comments.
Rationally, planes are the safest way to go from A to B, but
people are not rational or else there wouldn't be lotteries.
My guess is that the percieved safety on which people base
their behavior is something like exit-probability.

Corollary:  DC should strive for 1/million fatalties/entry.  
Maybe since its space 1/ten-thousand would do :-)
Even 1/million is not good enough for some - like John
Madden and Issac Asimov who refuse to fly.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: handy@subpac.enet.dec.com (Howard Handy)
Subject: A request from Massachusetts Amatuer Astronomers
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:57:37 GMT


 Hello all Amatuer and Professionals reading this,


  As the recently elected Vice President of The Amherst Area Amatuer
Astronomers Association (5A's). I am looking for professional and amatuers
who have a knowledge of or expertise of some subject You would like to share
in a presentation to our club.

  We regularly invite folks to give talks, and they are well recieved and
appreciated by the club body. We meet on the 2nd and 4th Friday of the month
at Bassett Planetarium on the Campus of Amherst College at 8pm. This is in
Massachusetts. So obviously only local people need respond unless you are
vacationing or just want to visit...All are welcome.

  So I am looking forward to hearing all you astronomy affectionados who would
like to share some aspect of your knowledge you find fascinating or educational.
I find there are some thousands of topics related to our experience of the sky
and want to extend everyone's appreciation of it, So who wants to help me out??

 Thanks in advance,
Dark Skies,
 Howard Handy
From: ejhof@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Hoffman Eric J.SDO 5186 )
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:43:02 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

    Those interested in RTGs on the Moon and elsewhere in space
may want to chase down a copy of:

               "Atomic Power in Space: a History"
           U.S. Department of Energy  DOE/NE/32117-H1
                           March 1987

    This 180 pp paperback book deals with the entire history of
nuclear powered spacecraft and experiments, beginning with the
first nuclear-powered satellite, the Johns Hopkins Applied
Physics Laboratory's TRANSIT 4A for the Navy.  The coverage is
mostly U.S. history, with some Soviet information.  The lunar
ALSEP RTGs are discussed.  Plutonium fuel took various forms over
the years: metal, cermet, and oxide.

    I found my copy in a used book store, but it says inside that
copies can be obtained from:

             National Technical Information Service
                   U.S. Department of Commerce
                  Springfield, Virginia   22161

                                              -- Eric Hoffman
                                         JHU/APL Space Department
Xref: sparky sci.space:18984 sci.astro:13757 alt.sci.planetary:480
Organization: Johannes Kepler University Linz - Computing Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:54:02 CET
From: <K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)

Why buy 1gramm moondust for about $4000.- (or 1 pound for $2'000'000)
when I bought 4g Mars rock for $350.- two years ago???

To get the Mars rock I'm talking of down to earth didn't cost a single cent,
by the way. The 18kg SNC-meteorit simply fell out of the sky in October, 1962
near Zagami rock in Nigeria.

Taking all the known SNC meteorites known, there are hardly more than 100pounds
of mars rock available. Thus, $100.000 for a two inch tape of moondust is quite
a high price|| I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down
somwhere...

So kepp watching out for these space rocks|
  Herbert
From: dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave Garnett)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:45:16 GMT
Reply-To: dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave Garnett)
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England

Peering at a cut-away drawing of the Lunar Module the other day
I noticed what appears to be a Radioisotope Thermal Generator
mounted on the outside low down.

Was this intended to power some experiment - I don't think
that they generate very much power (order 80 watts ?)

What are the radiation hazards (to the crew) associated
with such a thing, as I understand that they comprise an
unshielded lump of plutonium ?

Dave
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:11:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan5.215441.21415@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>And nothing better *is* online yet. So Shuttle remains the *cheapest* manned 
>western launcher since all the others have infinite costs (*any* non-zero 
>cost divided by zero availability is still infinite).

The Shuttle also has zero availability, if your time frame is the
next few days.  Your car has zero availability, if your time frame
is the next 30 seconds.  (I'm assuming you're not a track star.)
Soyuz spacecraft/launchers purchased from the Russians have zero
availability, if your time frame is the next six months.  DC-1
has zero availability, if your time frame is the next four years.

Even using this rather peculiar accounting system, the Shuttle's
cost doesn't seem any better than the alternatives.  All you can
really say is that it's availability sooner than some, perhaps
all, of the alternatives.  But not immediately.  Not tommorow
morning.  The question is, must we reject any alternative that
would result in *any* delay in *any* program.  

Switching from the Shuttle to Vehicle X would certainly delay
some payloads and missions currently planned to fly aboard the
Shuttle.  But remaining with the Shuttle might delay other 
payloads and missions that are not yet planned but could be
flown on Vehicle X.  You can't just look at one side of the
equation; you need to do a complete cost-benefit analysis.

But there's another aspect you need to consider.  The people
running the Shuttle program have engaged in guerilla warfare
against anyone trying to develop an alternative launcher, and
there is every reason to believe they will continue to do so 
as long as the Shuttle keeps flying.  So the very existance
of the Shuttle may prevent us from *ever* developing an alternative
launch vehicle.

(Oh, and just to be picky about it, division by zero does not
produce infinity as a result.  The result is undefined.)





Newsgroups: sci.space
From: PAUL@DCS.Prime.COM (Paul van Harn)
Subject: pub/SPACE/GIF at ames.arc.nasa.gov EMPTY ???
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:23:00 GMT

Can someone please enlighten me as to what has happened with the FTP site
ames.arc.nasa.gov, directory pub/SPACE/GIF ? I tried to get some of the
Galileo images as described in one of Ron Baalke's messages, but I couldn't
find ANY files in that directory, and I'm sure there used to be LOTS of them !

Thx in advance, regards,

  Paul.

===============================================================================
Paul van Harn                                      Internet: paul@dcs.prime.com
Databasix Information Systems B.V.                 Voice:         +31-340662455
Rijnzathe 8, 3454 PV De Meern or                   Telefax:       +31-340665033
P.O. Box 179, 3454 ZK De Meern,
The Netherlands
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Keywords: DC,toilet,high-cost,long duration orbital logistics for astronauts
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:30:05 GMT

In article <1ige15INN30a@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>Well, it occured to me after being subjected to a little CNN Headline News
>peice this evening regarding the new $23 MILLION DOLLAR toilet that will
>be flying aboard the shuttle Endeavour (GAO is somewhat concerned about
>this btw) 

The GAO report concluded that the 'extended duration toilet' costs about
ten times more than it needed to because of NASA procurement practices.
Other examples of this abound; the Wake Shield Facility would cost
NASA $93 million to build (according to NASA's cost model) yet a private
company is building the exact same thing for $11M.

>that no mention has been made regarding this sort of thing
>with respect to the proposed manned, operational Delta Clipper program...
>and what comes as a result of eating).  A great deal of time, effort, and money
>has been spent on STS to accomodate humans living in space during
>week long missions in this regard.

I don't know exactly what the DC1 will do. However, I point out that
the cost will not be as great. SDIO is buying DC in a very un-NASA like
manner. There are only two government people overseeing activities (I
have worked on smaller government programs which had more government
people on it than contractor people doing the work.

That is why the program is coming in at such a low cost. that is also why
SSTO supporters worked so hard to find a new home which would execute
the contract in a streamlined manner.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:43:25 GMT

In article <ida.726295295@atomic> ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt) writes:
>  There is a race being planned by the World Space Foundation (Federation?)
>from geosynchronous orbit to the moon.  (At least it was planned as of
>November.)  They were hoping to get it off by 1995.  As of November they had
>3 entrants, I think the French, the Japanese, and the WSF itself.  The 
>Russians were trying to get together a team.

The World Space Foundation has been around for at least ten years.  They're
based in Pasadena and a substantial fraction of the membership of this
non-profit organization are JPL employees.  Their main (only?) objective is
to get a solar sail into orbit and prove the concept in practice.
 
Just in case anyone was wondering.
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:02:16 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>> In article <ewright.725666125@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward  
>V. Wright) writes:
>> >
>> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
>> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
>> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
>> fabrication done by tradesmen.

Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman!

>I think engineering must consider how something is to be made.  The
>most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured.  
>Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or
>at least by interacting with those who do.

Indeed, G. Harry Stine has an article on this very subject in
the current Analog.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:17:53 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan5.031431.14514@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>>If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site,
>>does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle?

>No, it's an aircraft _I_ am using to support my research activities.

No, it's an aircraft you and hundred other passengers are using
to support a wide range of activities.


>Ditto, mutatis mutandis.  Likewise, when NASA flies Spacelab, TSS or a
>TDRS on the shuttle, the latter is used to support NASA's research
>activities, pursuant to its charter.  

So, if your lab bought its own Airbus, hired its own flight crew,
sold flights to paying customer, constructed its own communications
facilities and rented those to commercial customers, all of that
would be research and development?


>It is my understanding that this thread originated when someone 
>claimed that NASA was not respecting its charter by operating the 
>shuttle, which is admittedly not an experimental craft anymore.  I 
>disagree, as long as the shuttle manifest contains only genuine R&D.

Which hasn't been the case for many years now.




Newsgroups: sci.space