HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:39:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec31.072458.19360@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>and writes:
>and writes:
>and writes:
>and writes:

>>No.  I contend I have won the argument because you cannot state what
>>topics a 100 year plan should cover.  For example, 2 years ago I did
>>not know how to write a business plan.  I did know what the major
>>topics that belonged in it were - most are obvious.  What belongs ina
>>100 year plan?

>Michael you're a little to caught up in yourself for me to be bothered
>but if you can't come up with a 22 year plan then you're plainly a
>dope.  Can you do a 25 year one ?  Can you do a 30 year one ?

Excuse me, but in many situations a 22 year plan is clerly impossible.
For example, do you think that Germany in 1939 could have come up
with a 22 year campaign plan?

>Where is the limit again ?

Depends on what you are doing.

I ask again... what topics should be covered in a company's 100 year
plan?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject:  Environmental waste management
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:56:28 GMT


I am trying to help a friend who is a fourth year business student at
the University of Prince Edward Island in Canada.  He is required to
do a feasibility study for his strategic management course.  The
hypothetical situation in which his group is considering involves the
feasibility of residential garbage and then marketing the end product
to potential buyers.  They are also considering the possibility of
composting in conjunction with recycling.

What he would like to know is the address and fax # of organizations that have
operations very similar to that described above, or any references to
studies that may have dealt with this topic.

Please send any answers via e-mail to my account:

hanus@epas.utoronto.ca

Thanks,
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13934 talk.politics.misc:65437 alt.activism:19853
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Off Thoughts. Sheep!?
Date: 27 Dec 92 04:25:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec26.202500.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Well land and such.. 

Well maybe get the land the same way my fthers and their father got the land by
homesteading and then going and risking life to win it. Probably the same way
most of your family once did. Maybe by some conquest. Main question is why must
the FED own land? A governemtn that has financial independence from its people
has no fealty to its members(people)..  Best way to keep a government in check
it to provide counter ballances to its power.. Be they states (individual
states) or be it people willing to look into and ferret out information and to
not let the government get away with things that they are not legally allowed
to.. One of the founding priniplas of this nation was freedom for a man (or
women) to find his fortune and to persue it, and to have that right to persue
it in knowing that he is equal in that search to others.. equal right to aspire
and equal right to fall..(or folly).. 

But we are finding that the FED is forgetting who they serve. The people and
their individual states..

Well I just want for others to have the right to find their fortune with as
little interferance by busy bodies who have their fortune or little niche and
who think that others should be like them. Who think that all who live
elsewhere than east coast or big cities are crazy.. Well I like my life here in
a small town on the edge of the world. But we have collected alot of baggage in
the US.. Pledge of Alliegence, US Flag above all other states flags. There once
was a day when there was no pledge, when all who lived here were taken as being
patriotic and not nationalistic.. When Social Security was a choice and not
forcesd on us.. 

Well we shall see how it all works out in the end..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:18:10 GMT

In <1992Dec22.005642.16130@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

>-:      The answer is simple. We already know that the automobile and
>-: its relatives and accoutrements (e.g. roads, CFC-containing air
>-: conditioners, used tires, etc.) constitute the world's greatest
>-: threat to our environment and quality of life. We also know that
>-: the rich own and operate motor vehicles more than the poor. 
>-
>-	In the discussion of the gas tax, it was noted that it's
>-not an equitable tax because the poor- and middle-class are more
>-constrained to use their cars than the upper class.   

>Not if you read the census reports. The poor have fewer cars
>available, & use them less. Isn't that obvious?

Not only is it un-obvious, it's untrue.  There are many more poor
and middle class people than there are rich people, so despite a
lower per capita car ownership among the poor, the number of cars
owned and driven by poor people is larger than the number of cars
owned and driven by rich people.  A tax on cars will take more
money from the poor, as a class, than from the rich, as a class,
even if the per capita cost is smaller for poor people.

Also, note that poor people are more likely to own the sort of
old, inefficient cars likely to be targeted by environmentally-
motivated taxes, e.g. carbon tax, pollution tax, tire taxes, etc.

A similar fallacy is the idea of taxing the rich to balance the
budget.  Even if you confiscated the entire income of every
person making over $1 million a year, the Federal budget would
not be balanced -- there just aren't enough rich people to make
up for the vast majority of middle-class and poor people.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14243 sci.energy:6604
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:12:47 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan3.193353.6234@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>While it should be obvious that we should take all the "cheap"
>efficiency steps we can, economic growth, and the coupling it
>has with energy consumption, can't be ignored. Energy usage and
>the GDP track quite well. We can argue which causes which, I think
>some of both, but we can't argue that they don't go hand in hand. A 

Yes we can. The energy to run an early industrial revolution era
machine shop was enormous because a single power source had to drive
a mechanical gearing system that distributed motion to each machine and
lost a great deal of power in the process. Dropping energy requirments
by putting individual electric motors in each machine increased
productivity. Energy use <-> GDP seems like an anachronism.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations+
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.040334.26406@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, bobh@fuji.hwr.arizona.edu (Bob Harrington) writes:
> In article <1992Dec25.032326.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> 
> [convoluted discussion of land owenership deleted]
> 
>>Its interesting to note that
>>in most of the mining operations that I know on rivers that the miners most
>>times return the water to the river cleaner than it was when they got it..
> 
> Cleaner? Please provide details. This claim is fascinating.
> 
>>Maybe not as good as the EPA standards, but most of those standards are pure
>>bull and made up by some scientist who generally has no knowledge of the rivers
>>they are making standards for..  
> 
> Do pristine Alaskan rivers usually not meet EPA standards? That seems to be 
> the implication of what you are saying.
> 
>>Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
> 
> Bob Harrington
> Hydrology and Water Resources
> University of Arizona

Many rivers in alaska would never make EPA standards. To much silt and natural
contaminates.. I know I might be treading on a possible sacred cow of yours
Bob, so Ill try to tread softly and not look like a idiot. 
Well of what I have heard from minig friends of mine (I know its second hand
and from a quite unboaes source) But many times they are cleaner. I have tasted
the water. Some water sources here in Alaska are unfit for human drinking
before the miners get them.. I do kno the effects of mining, I have seen the
trailings, and know of a few places where the early miners left mercury and
other chemicals laying around. But miners are better and more aware than days
gone by.

Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu



Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Who ignores science?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:58:02 GMT

John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec29.173620.28293@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
:    In response to those who only complain about environmentalists ignoring 
:    science:
: 
: 	   WASHINGTON - U.S. Forest Service officials are suppressing a
: 	   report they had requested of their own wildfile biologists

: 	   The report, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act,
: 	   concluded that unless logging operations are scaled back by
: 	   nearly a fourth, several species of animal, including
: 	   goshawks, owls, brown bears and wolves, are at risk of
etc.
: 	   The biologists, who have worked for the last two years to
: 	   document the wildlife species that need mature, old-growth
: 	   forests to survive, say they have been given poor performance
: 	   reviews, directed to water down their findings and told not
: 	   to release their report.

McCarthy comments:
: One possibility is that the report is good science being ignored by
: the administration for the benefit of its friends in the lumber
: industry.
: 
: The other possibility is that the report is biased by the fact that
: most Government employees are quite a ways to the left of any
: Republican administration.  This phenomenon always generates tension
: between the holders of the 6,000 policy jobs that an administration
: controls and the rest of the 6,000,000 Federal employees.  The policy
: makers control the issuance of reports, but the underlings can always
: leak them to sympathetic media or tell their friends what to ask for
: using the FOIA.
: 
: Is it clear which is true in this case?

	Given the documented case of the administration diluting James
Hansen's (Goddard Inst. for Space Studies) assessment of greenhouse warming
(the words were changed from "highly probable" to "speculative"), the former
possibility is at least as likely as the latter.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

(Not a federal employee -- in the theoretical sense.)
From: ei@igc.apc.org (Essential Information)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Seeking int'l sloar gov't proj's
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:34:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466602018:000:1399
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 30 11:34:00 1992


GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT
P.O. BOX 19367
WASHINGTON, DC  20036
(202) 387-8034

(c/o ei@igc.apc.org)

The Government Purchasing Project was founded by consumer
advocate Ralph Nader to encourage the U.S. government to use its
power as a consumer to bring environmentally responsible products
into the marketplace.  The project has concentrated on three
areas: solid waste reduction, energy efficiency and pollution
prevention.  As part of its energy efficiency work, the GPP
publishes "Energy Ideas," a monthly newsletter which describes
how public agencies (schools, city halls, police stations and
other facilities) can save money and prevent pollution by
installing energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. 
The newsletter has also been posted on EcoNet (see the
<climate.news> conference).

Though the first six issues have concentrated on the available
technologies, I want to focus an issue on the efforts of other
governments to use energy efficient and renewable energy
technologies.  The focus of this issue is not on how the
government can encourage the residential or commercial sectors to
use these technologies, but on how government itself uses these
technologies in its own facilities.  If anyone has information on
such efforts in countries outside of the United States, I would
like to learn more.

Happy Holidays and a healthy New Year.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kleinman
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13827 ca.politics:10489
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:39:29 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

-:  The
-: answer is to apply appropriate taxes to the ownership, fuelling,
-: and operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles,
-: approximately in proportion to the damage they do.
-
--	You overlooked the fact that transportation is an integral
--part of our economy. Just about every good and service produced in
--the US requires some sort of transport to deliver it to the consumer;
--railroads and horse-drawn carts will not suffice. The ripple effect
--[trickle-down -- yes] of passing these taxes on to the consumer will
--shrink our economy down to a point sized singularity.
-
-	Tax money does not disappear into a black hole, right-wing
-economists to the contrary.
-
-	Instead, it gets returned to the economy in the form of
-various government expenditures. Whether these expenditures are
-productive ones or not is another question entirely. Even
-right-wingers like to see tax money spent on things that they like;
-I've yet to see a right-winger denounce military spending or spending
-on law enforcement or roads or any other of their favorite causes.
-
-:      I would be happy to help you work out these and similar
-: policies.
-
--	I'm sure you would. Why is it, Michael, that you loathe
--private transportation so much that you want to the rest of the 
--country to share your views?
 
Where is your brain? I don't "loathe private transportation". I do
like walking, bicycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc.
And don't you want the rest of the country to share your views?
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: What's Necessary?
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 07:14:12 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec21.183639.10407@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > I think this is the fundamental sticking point. Everything has a price,
 > nothing is priceless even though it be unique. The price of losing some 
 > local populations and some species may be very high, but it's always
 > finite. On the flip side, the price of protecting some species or local
 > populations may also be very high, though again finite. We should always
 > try to pay the lesser cost. But being inherently speciescentric, any
 > cost that includes the diminution of humanity is likely to be considered
 > too high a cost.

I think what is being ignored here is less concerned with some notion
of speciescentric priority, but that within the species a broad range
of competing priorities are in force and the conflict that generates.

The bee always does strive to keep the hive clean and tidy, and to
defend it against usurpers, but also depends on a diverse ecosystem
capable to producing its supplies of nectar and pollen. So it goes
along with the laws of nature or suffers the consequences. The main
question arising from the *global* debate on the environment is very
much focussed on the extent to which we can exploit the environment
past the point beyond which our own needs can no longer be met, beyond
which our various associations become dysfunctional.

The issue as such is obviously not concerned in any way with obtuse
philosophies or abstract theoretical principles, but on substantial
systems of conflict management arising from robust and prosperous
social systems, themselves underwritten by a high level of cultural
integrity. I agree, incompetent and illegitimate systems have no place
in these processes; it is a difficult enough task as it is without all
our expertise being culled out by the politically active and the whole
shebang just handed over to *the weak*.

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Consulting Ethnologist                              Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: davidbri@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (David Brierley)
Subject: Re: Who is watching the Moonies ?
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 14:58:37 GMT

     The Moonies are financial contributors to the American Freedom
Coalition.  In 1989, Robert Grant, President of the AFC, admitted that
 the Unification Church donated over 5.2 million dollars, or 32.7
percent, of the 16.9 million raised by the AFC up to that point.  The
AFC has an environmental task force and hosted wise-use rallies and
conferences in four states in 1989.  Ron Arnold and convicted felon Alan
Gottlieb (false tax return) head the Center for the Defense of Free
Enterprise and have served on AFC advisory boards.  The CDFE publishes
the book called _The Wise Use Agenda_. 

References

"Inside Moon's Washington"  Andrew Leigh
The Washington Post  October 15, 1989  page B1

"The American Freedom Coalition and Rev. Moon"
Letter to Editor by Robert Grant
The Washington Post  October 29, 1989  page B7

"Me First, God and Nature Second"  Stewart L. Udall, W. Kent Olson
Los Angeles Times  July 27, 1992  page B5

"Meet the Anti-Greens"  Margaret Knox
The Progressive  October, 1991  page 21
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: cost of nuclear energy
Date: 31 Dec 1992 00:57:37 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <JMC.92Dec28145808@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John
McCarthy) writes:
|> 
|> 	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- Philadelphia Electric Co. said Monday its
|> customers will see their electric bills a little lighter in the new
|> year.
|> 	The utility is coming to the end of a rate increase imposed to
|> recover the costs of the Limerick 2 nuclear plant and will cut rates 4.6
|> percent on New Year's day.
|> 	That should mean the customer using 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity
|> will see his bill drop to $70.42 from $73.87.
|> <<rest deleted>>

Just to add a bit of arithmetic:
$73.87/500 = 14.8 cents/kWh     70.42/500 = 14.1 cents/kWh

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:48:05 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>>>Before we get into this, Dr. Vandeman, I want you to realize that
>>>in essence I favor your position.  However, not everyone has the
>>>personal freedom or the inclination to make proximity to work their
>>>top priority.  A lot goes into a choice of "where to live", including:
>>>	1)  ability to afford a home;
>>>	2)  size of the home for a family;
>>>	3)  proximity to quality education;
>>>	4)  proximity to quality health care;
>>>	5)  safety (includes fire protection, police, crime rate);
>>>and 	6)  convenience (shopping, groceries, recreational activities, etc.).
>> 
>>You didn't mention the environment....
>
>Of course he didn't mention *the environment* because there is no such
>thing. There are enviroment*s* and he mentions six factors that impact
>his personal environments.
>
>[the rest of your religous ravings mercifully deleted because they
>all revolve around the same mistaken beliefs]
>
>Gary
>-- 
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu

You forgot to list your membership in the Flat Earth Society.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:04:59 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1hnie5INNnna@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <58025@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Could you tell us specifically which "leftist theorists" you have in mind?
>>As far as I know, most "leftist" theorists tend to take a very dim view of
>>the world bank. And you have Marx backwards. He argued that it was
>>capitalism which took from those who produce in favor of those who own.
>>Read the Communist Manifesto some time. Or, if you like Orwell, try reading
>>"Homage to Catalonia". 
>
>Ah, yes,  Yackadamn again.  Victor, can't you see the difference between theory
>and practice?  Sure, it SOUNDS good to say that Communism will eliminate the

Carl, you are a contemptible fool, and you have neither the patience nor the
intellect required to understand plain english. Kindly return to your
regular reading of teenage-sci-fi novels and leave me alone.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13742 talk.environment:5170
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:51:37 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California

>  471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>>>2. Will nuclear energy bring harm to another person or animal?
>>>
>> This question has been answered many times... Three Mile Island,


   carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
> Who was hurt at three mile island?

No one.  The reactor accident at Three Mile Island cannot be shown
to have harmed any person in any way whatsoever.  Fact.

---
Joel Hanes