HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:38:42 GMT

In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>In article <1625@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes:
>That's what I thought ABS did too until an ME friend corrected me.  The
>ABS system just mechanically pumps the brakes, test systems monitor the
>wheel motion, but the production systems just pump the brakes.
>
>Note that ABS (like power steering and power brakes) are passive systems.

Passive systems?  I don't think so.  There's probably a proper term for such
systems, but "passive" certainly isn't it.

>They only augment the driver's decision to brake or steer.

True, but that doesn't make them passive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: rtp1@quads.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Reply-To: rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:45:29 GMT


>[... argument that climate changes of magnitude of 2xCO2 warming
are not unprecidented, nor is rapidity of warming.  Comparisons
with ENSO, Pinatubo and Younger-Dryas given]

ENSO is a red-herring in this context.  Not only is the resulting
warming not global, but since the cycle lasts 3-5 years, the
net effects of ENSO average out over the decadal time scale. In
contrast, with 2xCO2 warming, we are talking about a warmer climate
year-in, year-out.  The fluctuations like ENSO would be superposed
(probably not linearly) on top of this generally warmer climate.

As for Younger-Dryas, I pose the question:  What would have happened
if this was initiated in an atmosphere already "primed" by 
anthropogenic warming?  Would the event have been aborted ("atmosphere
warm enough already, don't need a younger-dryas just now.") or
would the YD warming be added in addition to the anthropogenic
warming.  Do we know enough about climate to rule out the
second possibility?
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:10:47 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Jul27.065946.20057@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
#
#For once you are absolutely right Victor. Government interference in
#the power market *has* been a disaster. TVA should be sold. The NRC
#scaled back. Military and civilian nuclear programs should be
#totally separated. And all lawyers should be shot. Unfortunately, it's
#not a perfect world, and we have to deal with what we've got.
#
#Gary

I wonder what you would do after all lawyers were shot, and someone burned 
your house down because of your political views.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10070 sci.physics:11710
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:28:26 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul24.211601.7258@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.082656.6584@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.000116.4102@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>In article <JMC.92Jul22091522@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>:::The Interstate system is financed by the gasoline tax, more than 100
>:::percent, I believe.  In fact the lawyers want to tap the gasoline
>:::tax to finance their public transit boondoggles.
>::
>::	If one does some VERY clever accounting, then just MAYBE. But
>::total costs are:
>::
>::	1979 US government agencies on highways:
>::
>::	$71.2 billion total
>::
>::which breaks down to
>::
>::	$44.3 billion in "user fees"
>::
>::and
>::
>::	$26.9 billion in subsidies.
>::
>::The "user fees" include vehicle registration fees, fuel taxes, and
>::tolls.
>::
>::The subsidies are all sums whose sources are something other than user
>::fees -- income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, bond-issue
>::proceeds, etc.
>::
>::	Thus, highways are 38% subsidized.
>:
>:Something's not right here...
>
>	[A long attempt to demonstrate that my figures have to be
>off]...
>
>	These figures are derived from official publications.
>
>	It might be interesting to look at them more closely, and see
>if there was any "creative accounting" going in -- and in what direction.

I think that if you'll look at my post again you will see that the direct
Federal *motor fuel tax*, as I calculated it from first principles, closely 
matched what you are calling total user fee revenues. Since vehicle 
registration fees, tolls, and other State and local fuel taxes and wheel 
taxes weren't included in that part of the calculation, I'd say they weren't 
counted in the publication you quote either. 

But, in addition, I also made the case that sales tax on fuel, sales tax
on vehicles, and property tax on vehicles are also properly counted as
income to the government due to vehicle ownership and use. Thus they
are legitimately offsets to government spending on highways and not
pure subsidies as you intimate.

Gary
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:59:13 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Jul28110525@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>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.

I don't really give a damn about microwave ovens. But, if you are
going to make such a serious accusation, i.e. that Nader "killed children"
by his activities, you should do a little research first.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
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
	<1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu>
	<1992Jul22.200320.7520@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Jul23.034645.2791@nmt.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:39:29

Imagine that after World War II, the Government had gotten out of
the nuclear business entirely.  My guess is that private industry
would have plunged in and built power reactors.  They would not
have had the safety standards of present Western reactors.  Edward
Teller is responsible for the fact that present reactors have
containment domes and was much criticized when the committee he
chaired recommended requiring them.

There probably would have been some accidents but probably not
of the scale of Chernobyl, because that design, optimized so that
the reactor could produce military plutonium, would not have
been used.  The CANDU reactor, which doesn't require enriched
uranium would have been used, because it is easier to produce
heavy water in quantity than to separate uranium isotopes.

The accidents would have led to regulation.  However, the world would
have much more nuclear power today than we do.

All this assumes away the cold war and even assumes away any
ambitions of anyone to make nuclear weapons.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:25:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.014224.24971@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <BruItw.9BD@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>
>>>	As the saying goes, your rights stop where my nose begins.
>>
>>So what have I done beyond your nose?  

Maybe the smog thats going up it?

>>I am annoyed by the folks around LA
>>who insist that I pay for a train system I hope I never have to use.  Such
>>people are overstepping my "nose boundary".  If some people want to build
>>a train and charge people to ride on it that's fine with me, but I don't want
>>to have anything to do with such a waste of money, time, and resources.

As a former Angelino, I knew plenty of people who never expected to use
mass transit who supported it.  The idea was that lessened smog and
traffic would help those who still drove.  Given the enormous sprawl of
LA, it will be a LONG time until metro has any noticable effect but the
feeling was that we have to start sometime.  Also, the choice of heavy
rail was a questionable one because the cost and time to build the system
are so high.
>
>I can't agree more.
>
>Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of people in the "coercion" crowd, who
>seem willing to enforce the building of public transit, presumably because
>it will be "better" for us in the "long run", when the real reason for such
>willingness is probably simply that they want a good public transit system
>and don't give a damn how much it will cost as long as *they* don't have to
>foot most of the bill.

Considering the number of people I knew who supported it but didn't expect
to use it because its in a different part of town, your assumptions
above is questionable.  I would say that a lot of people are looking
at "the long run".

>>--Brian
>
>
>-- 
>				Kevin Brown
>
>			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
>			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:15:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.004842.28615@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.183503.9094@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>The Cajon pass in Southern California is such a place.  Winds between the Los
>Angeles basin and the other side of the pass are funneled through the pass. 
>Anybody for constructing an artificial mountain chain across Nebraska so that
>they can get the same advantage?

Scientific studies have shown that 90% of the available wind energy in
the U.S. is in the plains, especially the upper plains.  The fact that
90% of current wind generating capacity comes from CAlifornia shows
how underused the capacity is in the plains.
>
>>>Energy use does not need to increase with economic growth.  This has been
>>>well demonstrated in CA in the 80's.
>
>Which CA are you talking about?  If you're talking about Canada, I don't know
>anything about that.  If you're talking about California, then you might want
>to take a look at things now.  Remember:  A business doesn't pack up and move
>overnight.  It takes a while before they've got new facilities to move to.  At
>the moment California seems to be experiencing a mass exodus of industry out of
>the state.  Perhaps your "demonstration" has backfired?
>
CALIFORNIA had tremendous growth during the 80's.  The huge mass of people
going there to take advantage of the job opportunities has caused an
overload on services.  I am well aware of conditions there now. There are
numerous reasons why people and industry are leaving CA.  You are
generalizing on efficiency without substantiation.  I left because of
the cost of living and the transportation system.  I have seen many
company owners who left because of regulatory red tape.  They uniformly
complained about redundancy of regulatory jurisdiction in what I saw and
read.  Many went to great lengths to say the problem was the bad
implementation, not the content, of the regulation.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<311@ccscola.Columbia> <1992Jul27.213624.3303@nmt.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:43:06

In article <1992Jul27.213624.3303@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

   In article <311@ccscola.Columbia> kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt) writes:

   >As a former advocate of the manual/standard/stick shift transmission, I used
   >many remarks to prove my point.  Let's see: More control of the car in the
   >mountains, better acceleration, better fuel mileage, quieter highway noise
   >(engine turning over slower), and of course, more fun.
   > ... [story about how it is difficult to resell a car with a standard]
   >Both Toyota and Mercedes have run numerous tests and have declared the fuel
   >efficiency of a manual vs automatic to be a moot point on a "properly-
   >engineered" transmission.  My automatic Mercedes with the same engine as its
   >manual predecessor gets the same fuel mileage.  Don't know about the Toyotas.

	   Although I still prefer standards to automatics,  I think that the
   quality of the automatic transmission makes a big difference.  One might find
   a really awful automatic on a cheap subcompact,  or on many 70's vintage
   American large cars.  The first time I drove an automatic,  I was really
   horrified by the poor performance.  I think that better automatics can
   be as (or almost as) good in perfomance as standards.  My mom drove a Lexus
   Infiniti last year and was really impressed,  and a friend of mine who owns
   a Saturn also likes the transmission.

Isn't a Lexus Infiniti a bit like an IBM VAX?

The first automatic transmission I owned was on a 1953 Chevy.  It had
two speeds.  The fanciest automatics today have 5 speeds.  That
makes a considerable difference, although 5 speeds may be gilding
the lily.  There is room for further improvement until automatics
get better mileage than standards.  Some years ago, automatic
transmisisons were tried out in some racing cars.  I don't know
whether that was a success.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:02:57 GMT

swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.163959.2414@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> orf@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Leigh Orf) writes:
>|In article <1992Jul25.210755.21103@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick
>|Szabo) writes:
>| 
>|>We already know that there are _benefits_ of CO2 itself, such as the 
>|>fertilization effect which increases the productivity of agriculture 
>|>and most ecosystems.
>|
>|Increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase agricultural productivity? Hmmm. I
>|would be interested in reading documentation about this. I have always been
>|under the impression that most plants are very efficient CO2 engines, and
>|that, unlike phosphorus, CO2 is not a biolimiting compound.

>True, but other, related, factors often are biolimiting.

>For instance, there is a very large amount of land near the Arctic Circle
>(All of Alaska, Northwest Territories, the northern parts of Saskatchewan,
>and Alberta, and most of Siberia - many millions of square miles).
>With any significant warming these frigid lands become part of the
>wheat belt.  Voila, at least a doubling of available wheat acerage.
>(Think - Siberia as fertile as Kansas! - that's lots of wheat)
 
   Of course, if global warming does occur within the next 60 years
or so, we are *not* going to see these higher-latitude areas showing
any degree of agricultural productivity. It takes a lot longer than
that for soil fertility to develop. Kansas has had grasses growing
for thousands of years (I expect) and switching to grain is pretty
easy. Alaska, the Northwest Territories, etc., have very little that
could be called "soil suitable for agriculture".
 
 
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:50:04 GMT

In article <Bs11I8.q3@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>Ten Billion dollars from air pollution?  Where did they get that kind of
>figure from?  Sounds more like a Greenpeace number than one from the
>Lung association.  I wonder how they could compute the cases and where
>they thought the worst problems came from.  Even if that figure is accurate
>though, I would much rather have a few billion in extra medical bills
>from some air pollution than go without all the things that cause the air
>pollution.  To put it more concretely, if I could choose between having 100%
>clan air and having a car (and breathing the pollution present in LA), the
>choice would be the car and the pollution rather than the no car and clean air.
>How about you?
>
>--Brian
>

Probably not, but a choice of such absolutes does not do the issue justice.
The air isn't going to be 100% clean and there won't ever be no cars at all.
There could be less acrs and less use of the cars that are there, and then
there might be less air pollution.  How does that sound to you?

If those who want the cars are willing to pay for the medical bills for
those who are willing to do without, then there would not only be a more
fair situation, but the actual cost of such consumption would be passed
on to the actual users and we would see just how much they want to pay
for their conveniences.  I think that if people (the end users) who love
their conveniences had to actually pay for them rather than leaving the
costs for future generations to pay, there would be a market incentive
for cleaner technologies AND habits.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:43:23 GMT
	<131129@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <50720@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu's message of 22 Jul 92 19:44:09 GMT

In article <50720@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:


   Many utilities put aside some fund for decomissioning costs, but these funds
   are not necessarily anywhere near sufficient. The first retired commericial
   plant, the Yankee Rowe plant has just started the paperwork for
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   decomissioning and the estimated cost is already twice the value of the
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   set-aside fund.

Am I the only one to suspect a causal effect here ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
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
	<1992Jul26.080450.13473@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
	<1992Jul27.091911.21202@ke4zv.uucp>
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:38:20

In article <1992Jul27.091911.21202@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <1992Jul26.080450.13473@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
   >I much prefer the vibrant, social atmosphere of the pedestrian
   >oriented European cities (or some older N.American cities like Quebec
   >City) to the impersonal 6-lane downtown of most American cities
   >(including mine).

   Your preference is noted. Now how many trillion dollars are you willing
   to spend of *your* money to convert it. It's easy to say "there ought to
   be a law", but it always winds up costing somebody money. I'm not willing
   to subsidize conversion to your preference. (And I've already dealt with
   the question of whether the auto culture generates sufficient revenue to
   pay for it's modality. 1/4th of the GDP is auto related.)

   Gary

I wonder how much effort ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Sorry I missed the name)
will make to move to Quebec or other pedestrian oriented city.
I've never been to Manitoba, but I would guess that it is less
likely to convert its cities to pedestrianism than almost any place.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.