HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rkummer@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: SKILLS DATABASE?
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:14:42 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

Hello there,
	I met someone from Greenpeace the other day, and they said they had 
a need for a computer program (for an IBM compatible PC) that would allow 
them to search a database of member's skills. That is, if a Greenpeace 
member indicates that they are willing to volunteer their services if 
required at some point in the future, they can give a list of their 
professional/non-professional skills (e.g. computer programmer, clerical, 
transport), then Greenpeace could simply do a key-word(s) search of the 
database to get a list of potential helpers. Before launching into the task 
of writing a program to do this, I would like to know if anyone out there 
has a program to do this, or something similar. Any suggestions are 
welcome.


Thanking you in advance,

Ross Kummer
Melbourne, Australia
Internet address    RKUMMER@PHILLIP.EDU.AU
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:52:15

All of Dean Alaska's article consists of flat assertion and
speculation with no quantitative information.  He cites certain
causes that perhaps qualitatively tend to have certain effects
ignoring anything that may have the opposite effect.

Let's take just one item, perhaps the most important.
Alaska says:

     Commodities will be stably priced because they are produced
     by cheaper and cheaper labor and because fewer and fewer
     people will be in the market to buy them.  More poeple will
     go without.

Is he asserting that in the ten years covered by the bet, world
per capita consumption declined for important commodities?
Which commodities?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: "david widmann" <david.widmann@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: recycling in milwauke
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:59:39 EST
Reply-To: "david widmann" <david.widmann@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

DA> as a side note: recycling is a good idea but I wish it was easier; when I
DA> had moved several years ago my roommate and I needed to do something about
DA> our six bags of newspapers.  I called up several recyclers and they said
DA> they weren't taking newspapers because it was "unprofitable" ??  We ended
DA> up throwing them in the dumpster! :-(

There is a company that makes a recycling kit.  I don't know the details
on it, but they're in just about any one of those trendy mall environment/
nature stores.  It doesn't make fine quality paper, but what it does make
is good for wrapping paper, doodle pads or crafts.

I'm also pretty sure that what is in that little box would handle SIX
bags of newspapers a once |:-)  Just a little thought for those people who
like green gimicks!
---
  DeLuxe 1.12 #9632  Genuine Saskatchewan Sealskin Tagline!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:25:03 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

In <1992Aug12.002637.4864@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:


>The "choices that individuals make" are a reflection of their
>attitudes, and Gore's claim is that the attitudes need to change.
>That, in fact, is why Gore claims that government canNOT solve the
>problem (contrary to the writer's claim in the last paragraph).
>Changing an attitude requires developing new frameworks of
>interpretation.  Gore's argument about what needs to change when an
>attitude is being changed is "quite complex" making is possibly
>difficult to follow.

I also have not yet read the book, only leafed through a "remove this
on pain of death :-)" copy in the Goddard library.  But does Gore
anywhere in the book (or anywhere else) say what type of car(s) he
drives and how many miles per year or how he heats his houses?  It's
always much easier for me to listen to preaching about how other
people should change their lifestyles if the person doing the
preaching has already changed his in the ways he recommends.  Gore
himself, in the book, recognized the hypocracy of driving a car with
A/C to a meeting where he was going to deplore the effects of CFC's.

>(Of course, now I'm kind of obligating myself to read the damn thing.
>Ah well.  I'll probably end up agreeing with JHartley; that'd be
>amusing.)

I'm a little suprised that the book hasn't been rushed into paperback,
considering that Gore is now a VP candidate.
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:01:31 GMT

In <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.223509.7577@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap writes:
>>
>>     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
>>following questions:

	The original question was, I believe, perfectly valid for t.o.  The
following bullshit, however, belongs in dev.null.  While many others have 
flamed, er, responded to it more lucidly than I, I'm bored today.

>I will leave it to the evolutionists to come up with a `just-so'
>story to explain this scientifically. Meanwhile while we are on
>this subject I would like to raise a point.

>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species. So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis. How are whites and blacks
>considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
>speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
>two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
>habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
>two distinct species. This can be extended to human society if
>social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.

	Not only is the above pure bullshit from a scientific basis (the phrase
'evolutionary thinking', the attempt to classify different races as different
species).  What Lionel is really trying to do is raise an ad-hoc attack on
the 'morality' of evolutionary theory since he has no way of attacking the
science of it.  Unfortanately, evolutionary studies (like biologists) work
with SCIENCE, not philosophy.

>>KAMCHATKA CHARLIE          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu

>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.

	What you THINK is entirely irrelevant.  Provide EVIDENCE, predict some
obeservable phenomena.  In other words, do some SCIENCE.

>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)

In article <1992Aug20.040108.4819@trl.oz.au>, jbm@hal (Jacques Guy) writes:
>>}Yes, Arabic calendar is Lunar calendar which has 355 days per year.

>>Interesting.  Then The Arabic portion of earth currently orbits the sun in
>>355 days while the rest orbits in just over 365 days.

>Not only that, but some years the earth orbits the sun in 384 or 385 days,
>when a 13th month is inserted.

Small clarification: there are no leap months in the Muslim calender.
You are referring to the Jewish calander.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bgarwood@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
	<julian.714081750@sfu.ca> <94145@bu.edu> <julian.714326918@sfu.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:10:55 GMT

julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>>In article <julian.714081750@sfu.ca> julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>>>I could
>>>imagine God affecting in some supernatural way the evolution of life
>>>(or any other property of the physical world) in a unique way so that
>>>it showed up in a historical manner but beyond the reach of scientifc
>>>verification (because of its uniqueness).

>>And I could imagine a giant purple bunny sitting on my head reciting
>>Shakespeare, but only I could see or hear him. We all have little
>>grey blobs inside our skulls. Recently it has been determined that

>But said purple bunny would not show up in a historical way,
>or did it actually write shakespeare?  

Oh, I think it would "show up in a historical way".  If you had an
invisible purple bunny on your head reciting Shakespeare don't you think
it would affect how you interacted with the rest of the world as well as
the thoughts that you had and communicated with the rest of the world.

I think this offers the potential for some useful insights into Chris.


--
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: fedde@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Fedde Engler)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:18:12 GMT

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.

Well...that is if you bring in religion...and in this case it doesn't
really make sence. There are traces of races and cultures from before
that time...
I just don't understand how religion can have som much power over humans,
but then again...who am I to say so :)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: "Whites First?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:59:15 GMT

In article <2857@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <BssJ2K.3tp@world.std.com*, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
[..]
>* Some rough numbers would be really helpful here to show your thinking,
>* along with evidence for them. I'd like to see something a little more
>* concrete than "a few" or "a while later" to see if we're talking about
>* a dozen people or a million over periods of days or centuries.
>* 
>* After all, if your theory is so much more stunningly elegant than all
>* of modern physics and history,
>
>Modern physics IS elegant when describing things within its realm of 
>competence, lasars, strength of materials, relativity.

Or planetary systems.  That's how it began, you know.  Galilei.  Brahe.
Kepler.  Newton.

>  It's only when 
>scientists try to go outside their realm, as in the case of these origins
>questions, that they start to sound like idiots.

Now that he mentions it - *does* Ted have a "realm"?  It definitely is not
physics, astronomy or biology, or he wouldn't sound like an idiot when he
tries to go there.

>My theory doesn't have to be worked out to the n'th detail or thoroughly
>evolved to be better than the standard bullshit;  just basically sound,
>which it is.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

Correction:  which it appears to be (if you happen to be ignorant of a lot of
topics).

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:56:59 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution



Do a scientist's views against divine intervention in nature
arise from an anti-religious worldview or from sound scientific
reasoning ?

If divine intervention means abrogation of a normally operating
physical law, then the scientist would love to see evidence of it,
but hasn't found it so far. It might be that these events are very
rare, non-reproducible. In any case, they go against the scientific
paradigm that what one figures out in the laboratory under carefully
controlled conditions also operates out in the rest of the universe.

If divine intervention is in the fact that physical laws exist, then
there is no scientific way to approach this possibility, unless we
can find something that would operate differently depending on the
existence or non-existence of a God. We haven't found any such thing
so far; and it seems rather perverse to reason that there must exist
a God because there exist     physical laws that operate without his
intervention.

At one time, it might have been arguable that the existence of the mind
and sentience was beyond the reach of science. But to me at least,
computers and the neurosciences, seem to indicate that a scientific
explanation is possible (though perhaps it won't be complete for a
very long time. think about the long time it took for atomic theory
to be perfected. the important thing is that we must now take the
possibility of scientific explanation seriously, even if we don't
have a complete explanation.)

That is why God seems superfluous. It stems both from the assumptions
underlying science as well as the lack of things for which scientific
explanations seem far-fetched in the current state of knowledge.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:16:21 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <omv7ocs@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
writes:
> 	What chance is there that the correct amino acids would
> 	come together to form a protein molecule?  It could be
> 	likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing
> 	equal numbers of red beans and white beans.  There are
> 	also over 100 different varieties of beans.  Now, if you
> 	plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you
> 	would get?  To get the beans that represent the basic
> 	components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only
> 	red ones-- no white ones at all!  Also, your scoop must
> 	contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one
> 	must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. 
> 	In the world of proteins, a single mistake in any one of
> 	these requirements would cause the protein that is
> 	produced to fail to function properly.  Would any amount
> 	of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile
> 	have given the right combination?  No.  Then how would it
> 	have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?
> 
> Comments about how well the analogy fits are also welcome.

  Well, this ignores many of the problems I commented on earlier.  Just to
reiterate the most obvious:

  Chemical reactions are not random.  Chemical reactions follow many specific
rules, some reactions are encouraged, some are impossible.  The model assumes
all reactions are equally likely.

  There is more than one set of reactions going on at once.  The organic soup
would have thousands (millions, billions) of reactions occurring simultaneously,
and at a high rate too.

  The molecule does not have to combine all at once.  Proteins can be
constructed piece by piece, there is no need for it to happen in one scoop.

  There is more than one possible solution.  There are many different types of
proteins.  This oversight is kindred to the "what are the odds evolution would
produce humans?" argument.  If we had been glsjfds we would be saying "what were
the odd evolution would produce glsjfds?"

  Positioning is not just a random event.  The position of the amino acids as
the protein forms is partially controlled by the existing part of the protein,
most positions would be impossible.

  Also, even if the odds are low, it only has to happen once.  Assuming the even
only happens once, and the self replication molecule is incredibly slow (say
averaging 1 month between replications) in just a short ten years there would be
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:08:38 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>In article <julian.714081750@sfu.ca> julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>>I could
>>imagine God affecting in some supernatural way the evolution of life
>>(or any other property of the physical world) in a unique way so that
>>it showed up in a historical manner but beyond the reach of scientifc
>>verification (because of its uniqueness).

>And I could imagine a giant purple bunny sitting on my head reciting
>Shakespeare, but only I could see or hear him. We all have little
>grey blobs inside our skulls. Recently it has been determined that

But said purple bunny would not show up in a historical way,
or did it actually write shakespeare?  

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Creation FAQ?!? was: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.121213.7377@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>>
>>>	Humility is another thing entirely -- it means considering all
>>>others as better than yourself, 
>>
>>	If this is true, then why is giving them YOUR religion necessary?
> 
> Its not really _his_ religion, more like _God_'s.

   You are claiming that God has a religion?  Who does _he_ worship?

> Again, it is _God_ who has `decided that we 'need' to be saved'.
> Jim is merely passing on God's message of Good News to all who
> have ears to hear. If he had no compassion for the lost he would
> not even bother.

   No, it is Jim (one of 'em at least) who has decided we need to be saved.  I
cite as my proof of this fact the same authority you assert in the above
paragraph.  This lesson in logic has been brought to you free of charge by the
religious tollerance network who wants _you_ to know that you're almost
certianly wrong about God, no matter who you are.  :-}

   Can we start discussing why the evidence for creation-science fails to be
lame by failing to exist at all and leave the irrelevant Christian philosophy
out of it?  For that matter, why the heck to Loucks and Tun always end up
talking about Christan philosophy when we ask then to clarify their biology?
Also: WHERE IN THE NAME OF ISIS, THOR, AND SHIVA IS THE THEORY OF CREATION FAQ?

   I recall predicting, after Jim quoted that third hand biased creationist
source about a lawyers position on a scientific issue that it would get to be
August and there would still be no FAQ but lots-o-drivel from Mr. Loucks.  Do I
get a scooby snack?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:08:40 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)

In article <1992Aug18.131753@IASTATE.EDU>, btd@IASTATE (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>       Jim, you have said before that there are many areas of
>discussion which you are not technically competent to discuss, like
>ice cores or something.  Not that anyone expects you to know
>everything, but you should think about it and understand the
>magnitude of the evidence you're up against.

But how can understanding of magnitude exist in such a small space?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:47:49 GMT

In article <75Ch030z62.E00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
  jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>Most likely, Lubenow will discuss Lucy. But human evolution is only
>"pretty well documented" if you favor a certain worldview or bias.
>Of course the t.o regulars who hold that worldview will disagree with
>the information in the book, I still think it will be quite interesting.

Jesus God on a Harley Jim, *grvaity* is only pretty well documented
if you favor a certain world view.  The point of view of the 
creationists is "It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks
like a duck...... but no one was around when it was born so it
could be a small amputee elephant that someone painted white....
well it *could* be".

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

C Frog
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9810 soc.culture.african.american:8946 alt.rap:4150
From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:35:09 GMT
Reply-To: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Organization: Kamchatka Charlie


     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
following questions:

1) Following that the darker colors for humans are generally dominant vis-a-vis
the lighter colors
2) That the darker the skin color, the better the protection from UV radiation

    Then what would be the evolutionary mechanism that would select for lighter
skin towards the northern climates?  There's little I can see that would
actively select against the darker skins/for the lighter skins, and I do not
believe that a lack of evolutionary pressure is evolutionary pressure in, by,
and of itself.
    Please do not post (or email) any Yacub-esque anti-whitey conspiracy
theories please.  I ask only for something reasonably scientific and plausible
(i.e. what would actively select against darker skins/for lighter skins the
further north one gets?).

    As for the distribution matrix:
    talk.origins would seem to be the place where the knowledge is
    soc.culture.african.american would seem to be a group heavily involved with
skin color from what I've heard
    alt.rap--same as s.c.af.a, and I happen to read this group regularly.

later, and thanx in advance

KAMCHATKA CHARLIE          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins