HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <3KR-qx_@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark) writes:

<the attribution appears to be messed up, hope I picked the right one>

>>You know I actually believed until recently that freedom of movement (ie.
>>travel how, when, and where you please) was a constitutionally protected
>>right (it's not there folks).  Amazing how you get programmed living in
>>our society that cars are a necessity.

I am sorry to be the one to tell you that you are 100% incorrect.  The
Constitution originally lacked any exhaustive listing of rights, for fear
that any such listing would be interpreted to mean that any "right" not
listed could not be presumed to be a "right".  This is precisely the fallacy
into which you have just fallen with a loud *thud*.

The Founding Fathers finally decided to accept the Bill of Rights, and to
make them the first ten amendments, as a compromise.  The Bill of Rights
enumerates some rights but it explicitly states in no uncertain terms
that the listed rights were *not* the only rights protected by that
Constitution.  The ninth amendment specifically reserves and *protects*
all rights not specifically mentioned or reserved to the states.  That
specifically protects the right to free movement.  That is the entire
purpose of that amendment, and anyone who claims otherwise simply has no
understanding of what the Constitution is or why it was written.

The Founding Fathers *knew* they had not enumerated all rights.  Freedom
of movement is a case in point, it *never* *occurred* to them that any
democratic government might attempt to restrict it, just as it never
occurred to them that the gov't might put listening devices into people's
bedrooms.  The 9th protects your right to freedom of movement.  But it is
not, of course, in the gov't interests for that to become a common view, as
it restricts and limits the gov't's power.  But that is just the point of
it, you see.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9897 sci.energy:3604
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:32:20 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <18560@drutx.ATT.COM>, rcb@druwa.ATT.COM (BakerRC) writes:
>This stuff about computer driven cars is bugging me too.
>How does technology that's "just around the corner" figure out:
>
>Is that a rock that I should avoid at all costs or is it an empty cardboard
>box?

Avoid either.  And report either ASAP.  Enough reports, and you might get
someone from Caltrans to remove the obstacle.  Not enough reports, and
apparently it was a cardboard box that eventually blew away.

>Should I slow down for that deer ahead just on the side of the road
>or is it just a tree?

Ask the passenger.  Or, if it's a frequently-travelled route, add it to your
database of things to ignore.

>Is that ice up there on the next bend?

Treat it as if it is.  If there's a car already travelling on it, ask it what
IT thinks.

>How big IS that pothole?

If it's a frequently travelled road, look it up in your database of travel
advisories.  If it's NOT a frequently-travelled road, assume it's big and avoid
it or slow down.  In either case, report it ASAP.

>I don't believe even artifical inteigence is that far advanced yet.
>Heck, they can't even get a robot to go 5 MPH on mars yet.

Well, if your objections are any indication, perhaps natural intelligence isn't
very far advanced yet either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:23:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <62876@cup.portal.com> <1992Jul27.101553.21727@ke4zv.uucp>

> Either you misunderstood the World Book entry, or the World Book's
> editors have gotten better advice from munitions experts since 
> 1955. According to the 1981 edition of the World Book, blast,
> fragmentation, shock, and "vacuum" pressure cause the effects of
> the explosion. Blast is far and away the largest contributor
> in a GP bomb. If you ever saw one dropped on a building, you
> would immediately notice the walls of the building blow *outward*
> from the tremendous blast overpressure. The residual damage done
> by the air returning to the center after the blast can't exceed
> 14 PSI even if the bomb blast created a *perfect* vacuum at sea
> level, which it doesn't.

Quoting from the World Book Encyclopedia, 1955 edition,
volume 2, page 873:

"Vacuum pressure is the suction effect caused as the air rushes
back into the partial vacuum crated by the blast."

"General purpose bombs may be used to cause blast and vacuum
pressure, or to cause earth shock.  When one of these bombs is
exploded above ground it causes destruction by blast and vacuum
pressure."

And on page 876:

"The first effects of a general purpose bomb landing between two
structures breaks windows and kills people within a wide range.
The terrific blast wave expands and almost instantly blows the walls
in, shattering both buildings.  As the air rushes back into the partial
vacuum created, suction draws the walls down to the ground."

The point I originally made was not to suggest that vacuum pressure
effects exceed blast effects.  Merely that the naive and simple-
minded analysis which concluded that no negative pressure results
from an explosion is wrong.

(Of course, the "rips lungs out" characterization reflects an equally
ignorant understanding of how things work.)
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:17:57 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.184413.3868@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Jul26224246@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>A Hertz rental got me there.  The point is that the
>>availability of cars gives the transportation system important
>>flexibility in emergencies.

>Neither I nor anyone I know is against the AVAILABILITY of cars for purposes
>such as that.

And anyone can see that trashing the national highway system and bankrupting
the entire automobile industry does *nothing* to damage the AVAILABILITY of
cars for purposes such as that.  After all, those fanatic personal-rights
people will still need some rusted hulk to worship, won't they?

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9678 sci.energy:3473 sci.physics:11258
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:44:02 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:

>In article <BrJIr0.F7z@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com:, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>: But you seem to be able to ignore that the fuel isotopes
>: are RADIOACTIVE (the main gripe you seem to have with the
>: products), have been for billions of years, and will continue
>: to be for billions more, unless they are used to make energy.
>: Then they are only radioactive for a few tens or hundreds
>: of years.

>In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
>the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
>years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
>you would think).  Therefore, I've often said to some of my environmentalist
>friends that nuclear power is really cleaning up the planet on a long
>term basis :-).

Absolutely true.  I think it a mistake to even use the term "nuclear waste".
Only a tiny bit of what comes out of a reactor is truly waste.  Most
isotopes have potentially great value.  Sr-90 as a heat source, Cs-137 as
a radiation source for industrial processes and food sterilization, 
concentrated spent fuel waste as both a heat and a radiation source and 
so on.  I consider what gets pulled out of the reactor at the end of
each fuel cycle to be valuable raw material whose use is being 
blocked by the very zealots who claim to care for the environment and
who believe in recycling.  So typical.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:56:30 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In 1979 there was a conference on what might be done in a possible
>energy emergency, and the representative of Westinghouse said that
>nuclear plants could be built in two years without wartime priorities
>but also without regulatory delays.

Most renewable technologies can be implemented in less than a year.
While they may not have the same high capacity as nuclear plants,
I doubt emergency capacity would need to be on the level of GW.
Renewables may be sensitive to location but don't nuclear plants 
need to be near large supplies of water?  
>
>The early turnkey nuclear plants - before the legal guerrila warfare -
>were built in something like five years.

I assume you support the one-step processing plan that appears likely
to get federal approval.  Do you believe that this post-construction
review process is not needed?  Are there no issues to examine after
construction?  Are there no examples of falsified x-ray safety
inspections?
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<Jym.24Jul1992.9am6@naughty-peahen.org>
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:05:18

In article <Jym.24Jul1992.9am6@naughty-peahen.org> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

   >> In Boston (with 1/4-decent public transport system) people
   >> can get along fine without a car if they are near a T line.
   >> If not, they need a car.
   > But, of course, if the population density is somewhat lower,
   > mass transit doesn't work nearly as well.

   =o= You speak of "mass transit" as if it's all the same.
   Different types of mass transit serve different needs.  Think
   of the _status_quo_, for example:  big roads for heavily-
   travelled routes and smaller roads for lightly-travelled routes.

   =o= It's not hard to apply this to, say, heavy- and light-rail
   passenger trains.  The better mass transit systems follow this
   approach.  The best one I've been on was in Munich, which let me
   get almost anywhere I wanted to in Bavaria -- especially if I
   brought a bicycle along.

   =o= The system in Boston isn't that bad.  Heavy rail commuter
   trains supplanted the highway spurs in and out of the city.
   A not-quite-light-rail system handled the higher population
   density within the city.  The outlying towns usually only had
   buses, which are of course not so great -- but a series of
   light rail lines would make the system almost ideal.
       <_Jym_>

I spent Fall 1991 at Harvard living in Brookline.  For a long time,
Harvard bureaucrats wouldn't let me buy $4 per day parking stickers
for a convenient lot.  For most of this time I took a bus.  Not
bad as buses go.  I had to walk to Cleveland Circle from where I
lived and walk from Harvard Square to the Aiken Center.  The
alternative was commercial parking at $12 per day which wasn't
always available or parking in Somerville which wasn't always
available.  When Harvard relented and sold me the parking stickers,
I switched entirely to driving.

I am supposing that my reactions are typical of someone of my age
and level of athleticism and environmentalism (very low).
If you want to get people to take public transportation, you have
to do better than that.  Note that I had no children with me
and rarely had much to carry.
--
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: dens@flammulated.rice.edu (dens)
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors (was Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? )
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<JMC.92Jul25193152@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <20309@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:54:58 GMT

In article <20309@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

   However, I can't fault Carter for terminating Clinch River.  The breeder
   program was predicated on the assumption that there would be an aggressive,
   world-wide nuclear program that would lead to a shortage of uranium in the
   near term.  That hasn't happened, and likely won't happen soon.  Breeder
   reactors make little sense in a world of $20/lb uranium.

But reprocessing does make sense in terms of reducing high level waste.

Later,
den
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 13:50:49 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul22.011736.16716@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <21985@venera.isi.edu> finn@atomic.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>
>:	My understanding is that they were primarily paid for out of
>:	user fees.  Those who use it pay for it directly, or at
>:	least, used to, until mass transit began removing money
>:	from the program.  A substantial portion of federal gas tax
>:	money is now used to subsidize mass transit rather than
>:	being used to support the road system (see below SCRTD
>:	projected cost figures).  I wrote my Senator to confirm
>:	this at the time.
>
>	Your _understanding_?
>
>	The freeways were paid for out of general funds. I hope I can
>get Joseph Vranich's _Supertrains_ on hand for details.
>

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "The best thing about rain forests is they never suffer
                 from drought."   ---VP Dan Quayle
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9888 sci.physics:11518
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:11:12 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Jul23164910@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I think I have crossed the Bay by BART at least once, and it was ok.
>However, once I was going to Berkeley to be interviewed for some
>radio show, so I asked the interviewer should I take BART from
>South San Francisco or should I drive.  He said that he often takes
>BART, but he wanted me to be sure to be on time, so I had better
>drive.

	I don't think BART is _that_ bad :-).

	One can always get there a bit early. BART is comfortable
enough to get a lot of reading done on the way.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9871 sci.physics:11501 sci.energy:3584
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:05:21 GMT
	<1992Jul22.200320.7520@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<BruLBA.KCp@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <1992Jul23.171618.9386@vexcel.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 23 Jul 92 17:16:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.171618.9386@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <BruLBA.KCp@watserv1.waterloo.edu> rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:
   >>In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

   >>>	If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
   >>>apprehension towards sustainable technologies,  then we might actually
   >>>start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.

   >When you ecoterrorists (people who oppose what we have without offering
   >viable alternatives) tell us how to run an aluminum smelter off of photo-
   >voltaics, or wind generators.

   Wow.  I tought a terrorist was someone who killed people in order to create
   fear.  Your redefinition of this word, as many in this group do, certainly
   serves a rhetorical purpose but completely misrepresents the attitudes of
   those who disagree with you.  It makes about as much sense as referring to
   nuclear supporters as destroyers of the earth.

   >As for the economics of going solar, even if it will last forever, the bank
   >will want it to pay back the loan in five years.

   The bank is willing to wait 30 years for me to pay off my house.  Why do
   they insist on 5 years for energy plants?

I don't know if 5 years is an exact number, but banks will provide
loans at different rates and terms depending on how the loan is
secured, a large capacity hydroelectric plant is usually finance on
very low interest and 40-50 year terms, as they are reasonably
expected to last 100+ years, are a very well understood technology
and have a well defined rate of return. Residential housing
similarly has a well understood life expectancy and a relatively
stable market, plus the bank no doubt demanded you take out
insurance? New energy technologies are less well understood,
may fail and are therefore capitalised in the "free market" 
at short term and high rates.
	Arguably why public subsidies and research are appropriate.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10341 sci.physics:12087
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:11:25 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul29.223430.6269@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	And if one drives, one's time is occupied controlling the car,
>while if one travels by public transit, or is driven by someone else,
>one is free to do other things. Is _that_ ever figured?

I can tell you aren't a veteran auto commuter. We eat breakfast, shave,
drink coffee, talk on the phone, sing along with the radio (real loud), 
and think about what we're going to do during the day. Driving to a veteran
is a purely automatic process. I often notice after the fact that I've
slowed or stopped, or changed lanes, or even gotten off at my exit. The
subconscious has been doing the work while my conscious mind is focused
on other things. About the only thing you can't do safely in a car is
read the paper, though I've seen commuters doing that too. 

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10256 sci.energy:3781 sci.physics:11962
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:41:15 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 The spark voltage depends on the rate of change in the current (V=L dI/dt)
as the partial inclusion states. The reason the spark is greater on the
collapsing-field transition is not due to direction per se. It is due to
the limitations on the rise time of the current (ballast resistor, coil
resistance, only 12V to charge with). The ignition system actually switches
topologies, with the charging cycle being a V-R-L network and the discharge
cycle being a much larger inductor with its field excited and some air gaps.
The inductor appears smaller during the charging phase because the 
secondary appears to be open until sufficient voltage is present to break
down the air gaps in the distributor and spark plugs (or arc over somewhere
else).

 The I -> 0 transition is much sharper, being the introduction of an open
circuit, than the I -> i(coil) transition which has the LR time constant.
If you had sufficient voltage and low enough series resistance to force the
same dI/dt on the charging transition you would see a spark on that edge too
(if not for the fact that the distributor rotor was between posts instead of 
at the one for a particular cylinder). But the object is to generate a 
limited level of stored magnetic energy for later discharge, and this 
limiting forces the charge to be a slower event than the discharge.
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9816 sci.physics:11427 sci.energy:3553