HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:22:48 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>>EVERYONE has a choice. I choose to live near transit. So could you.
>> 
>
>This isn't a "you" or "me" issue about individual choices.  This is an 
>issue about society as a whole.
>
>Well, first of all, everyone does not have a choice where to work.  
>People take the jobs they can get, where they are.  Because of the way 
>our metropolitan areas have evolved, many of these jobs are not near 
>mass transit.
 
So don't work there.

>Secondly, there isn't a choice for everybody to live near transit.  
>Because of the way housing is distributed, a significant fraction of 
>the housing is not near mass transit.  So that one person may choose 
>to live near mass transit, but some significant fraction of the 
>population is not going to be able to.  (As an aside, the housing 
>close to mass transit here tends to be more expensive.  The less 
>expensive housing is farther from town and mass transit.  So the less
>affluent are penalized.)  The only way to provide this choice, as was 
>discussed before.... 
 
In the Bay Area (SF), 90% (per a poll) have transit access. They just choose
not to use it.

>The answer is to get involved in the development process, to elect 
>public officials -- or to BE elected public officials -- who will 
>stand up to the developers and protect the integrity of the 
>development plan, rather than accepting developer-driven development 
>and trying to impose mass transit on a pattern for which it is not 
>suited.
 
I vote with my feet.

>It depends what you need time for.  If you need the time to read, 
>fine.  But you can't do shopping, run household errands, or pick up 
>the kids from day care while you are sitting on mass transit.
 
I didn't say transit is Utopia, only that it is viable. These things
can be done without driving, e.g. by bicycle (incl. trailer).
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Save the Planet/Enviro Same Time+
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:10:08 GMT

In article <5916@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
> James L Wilson <jlwilson@bellahs.com> writes:
> 
> 	the real dilemma:  too many people putting too great a stress
> 	on a planet with a finite amount of resources.  When we can
> 	come up with a real solution for curbing the current population
> 	growth ...
> 
> Except that it's not really a population problem; as it is, a 2-kid
> family in the US puts something like 37 times the amount of strain on
> resources as a 15-kid family in Burma.
> 
> /jordan

Are you basically saying that americans (US) are spoiled. 
I think they are. But why not its our time to be, next turn of the dial it
might just be that now smaller family in Burma.. But I think what many have
been saying or theorizing is that with out some form of control there might not
be a next turn of the dice.. Im open to comments, or ideas..
A closed mind person is a grave stone waiting to happen.

Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Concern For Ozone Depletion Clear, Knowledge of CFCs Mostly
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:20:57 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1713@airgun.wg.waii.com> <1992Dec25.232107.3357@en.ecn.purdue.edu>

Since the essential novelty of ghg's invention seems to be the use of
isobutane to act both as a refrigerant and as a solvent for dissolving
lubricant oils in HCFC refrigerants, I wonder whether this same technique
could be used to dissolve similar refrigerating oils in R-134a to get
around the problem with lubricants compatible with that refrigerant.
Have you ever tried that, ghg?
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Externalities (ws Re: Save the Planet and the Economy...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<28105@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:35:51

Who gets to say what the true costs of a certain activity are?  It
allows enormous room for arbitrariness and political manipulation.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Corp Control, Shareholders.
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:56:41 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Dec29.034938.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>If people want to control the MEGA-Corps, then spend your money and buy some
>voting stocks and become a SHARE-HOLDER.. After all who does the corporations
>respect other than a high government official (maybe), the shareholders..
>At least when they vote. I have one share in ARCO, and I can vote for that one
>share.. IT might soon mean more than being able to vote in the US elections..
>
What an entirely frightening prospect.  I will not give up my democratic
rights, compromised as they may be, to such economic voting without a
fight.  As to controlling large corps by becoming a share holder, there
are too many shares to have an effect and if the policies that am I am
trying to affect relate to damage the company is doing to others, then
that method should not be necessary.

Do you find such control by mega-corps any less fightening than
the distant political control that you complain about?
>
>Michael Adams
>Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
>nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: What's Necessary?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:34:41 GMT

In article <BznrsE.CHw@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1h37s6INNfm0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <149180185@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>>>Is the Spotted owl species worth 1 (one) job? I think so. Is it worth 1 (one)
>>>human life? Probably. 
>
>Whose life?  Your own?  Are you really saying that you would willingly
>die just to save the lives of a few owls? (What about the lives of a few
>hundred chickens and cattle?)  That question aside, would you really be
>willing to put someone to death in order to have some owls?  So, tell me.
>Why would such a person not want to blow your head off rather than to
>submit to your attack on him?
>
>If you are willing to kill in order to obtain such a trivial goal as the
>survival of a few owls, what would you be willing to do for something
>which was ACTUALLY valuable?  You folks are really frightening.
>
>At least you think that a single murder is not as bad as a million.
>That's where we agree.
>
>On the other hand, you are willing to COMMIT murder.  That's where we differ.
>
>>Is it worth 10 million jobs? Or ten million human lives?
>
>Who elected you God anyway?  Those lives don't belong to you.
>
>>>The answer isn't so clear. If I haven't reached your limit yet kick it up
>>>another magnitude or two, a hundred million human lives?
>
>--Brian

Notice that he said to save the species, not a few owls.
-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 05:31:23 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU insufferably writes:
>
>I suppose they're still using exactly the same sort of vats they used 600 years
>ago?  And exactly the same processes?  I rather doubt it.  I suspect that
>public health laws have caused significant changes in those breweries.
>
>Yes, they may still be operating.  Are they still lighting the places using oil
>lamps?  Is all work accomplished either via manual labor or through the use of
>draft animals or waterwheels or windmills?

If you supposed these things why do you then doubt it ?  Oh... you're being
purposely stupid to illustrate a point.  What was that point again or are
we playing "I've hidden my point in the following paragraphs ?"

>>You're trying to wedge your own definition of "100 year plan" into the
>>works and if you mean "show me where they say how many units they will
>>sell in 2092" then by all means there is no plan by your definition.
>
>Just because a business survives for more than 100 years doesn't mean that it
>was possible to plan for 100 years.  You're confusing continuity and
>prescience.

And because a company survived for 5 years doesn't mean that their 20 year
project is worth the paper it is written on.  You can believe that 600
years of continuous operation is dumb luck but few others (except folks
like yourself) are likely to.

If you had read what I wrote (the paragraph is still there) then you could
determine that I don't believe they predicted the number of gallons of
beer that would be produced 100 years later but rather that they made
business decisions that would pay off for more than a century.

If Oracle goes belly up in 10 years do we phone up the Oracle guy and
explain that he didn't "really" have a 20 year plan since he didn't
accurately predict what kind of delivery trucks he would be using ?

Lift your finger off the flame thrower you're taking yourself far too
seriously.

tom
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 09:52:24 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <23DEC199214212320@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:

 > It depends what you need time for.  If you need the time to read, 
 > fine.  But you can't do shopping, run household errands, or pick up 
 > the kids from day care while you are sitting on mass transit.

Agreed, especially on being multi-dimensional on this matter. I bought
land here in Armadale not two years ago, down here at the far extremity
of the urban transit system and therefore very cheap. Since that time
the fast electric light rail has been completed, and my original idea
was that it would be so much easier and cheaper to get to my North Perth
office by train than driving up the freeway.

However, there are also phone lines here and instead of commuting I
simply relocated my office (saving $650.00 per month) and set up an
Internet node here instead. The new rail system has also added to the
value of the land, so I am financially far better off right now in
terms of both the total planning strategy for this area and my own
response to it (without having to join the local council or lobby to
have the development policy bent in my favour).

If I must go out to a job I have the option of driving or taking the
train, whichever is most economical and convenient at the time. If a
client wants me to go bush on a job, they send a cab to the airport
where they will have an aircraft waiting. Otherwise I am 17 minutes
from Murdoch University, 20 minutes from Curtin, and 40 minutes from
UWA. The rest of the work (increasingly) can be done via electronic
mail and file transfer between our respective computers for collating
or data analysis, even sending data files up to one of the mainframes
at UWA interactively from this terminal for processing within minutes.

I simply do not have to be there any more, except for conferences or
meetings.

Oh yes, the car is a definite *necessity* for shopping, errands, and
picking the kids up from Day Care. Ever tried getting a pair of kids
both under four anywhere by bus or train? Strapping them in at the
front door and then unstrapping them at the destination represents
*total* control.

--
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 * *
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:48:56 GMT
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec30.194704.24013@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>That's what they all say. Except that no matter how good the transit gets,
>it is never good enough for them. Transit IS good enough, for those willing
>to use it. Which may include living near it!

Mike, it seems that you would have people enslaved to the transit system
much as you believe they are enslaved to cars now. I am not going to
cater to an inefficient, poorly-designed transit system. I should be able
to choose where I live and where I work (within reason, of course) and the
transit system should adapt to serve me. I don't expect transit service if
I live out in some desolate area, naturally, but then I don't (live in a
desolate area). Nor is my place of work in a desolate area. I and the 
others that live around me pay taxes, why shouldn't we get decent transit 
service? 

You (it seems) would have the transit system pick its routes and then have
everyone find homes and jobs on those routes. That's getting the cart before
the horse. That doesn't work. You can't just walk into a business near your
home and say that you're going to start working for them today. Nor can
you walk into a home near your business and tell the person living in it
to get out, that you're going to live here now.

What's sad about transit in the area where I live is that it encourages you
to work downtown. Using transit would be a breeze for us if we worked at
1 Shell Plaza or the Wortham Center (both downtown). But our work and home
are both in the same area, so no go.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Development policies
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:55:24

In article <725618721snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
   References: <JMC.92Dec28111616@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
   Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08:45:21 GMT
   Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
   Lines: 13


   In article <JMC.92Dec28111616@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

    > The bill setting pi = 3 was referred to the Committee on Swamps.

   They didn't then happen to proceed with the formation of a further
   committee to evaluate the recommendations of the Committee on Swamps,
   did they?

   They did here, believe it or not. Big Swamp, in fact.

   Gil

Somehow the Committee on Swamps never got around to reporting on the
bill.  Perhaps on some anniversary or other, the Committee on Wetlands
could be persuaded to take it up again.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NYT article on Japanese breeder
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:03:49 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:


>Perhaps this represents _The New York Times_ joining the Greenpeace
>campaign to bully the Japanese into abandoning their breeder project,
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gimme a break, nobody is going to bully the Japanese into *anything*.

>or perhaps it is just a one shot aimed at soothing the businessmen
>worried about Japanese competition.

My but don't you see demons lurking everywhere?

>Anyway I hope the Japanese will remain steadfast, but unfortunately
>they don't have much a record recently of standing up to political
>pressure.

Say what?   Of course the Japanese will remain steadfast in their
struggle to dominate the world's economy -- ichiban, Nippon ueber alles.
They will continue to selectively deny access to their home market while
being granted full access to the world's.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Bandwidth burner
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:19:56 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   29 Dec 92 11:56:42 GMT
>FROM:   nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu

>Me Im just a one time professional student, now out of work Active Duty Army
>Guardmember (I quit, needed a change). Who has a desire to know alot
>in different subjects, renaisance(sp) man?

May I take the liberty of encouraging a policy of non-response to this 
poor soul? I ask this as a favor, since I don't have the equivalent of a 
kill file and no way of prefiltering posts; I have to get all in order 
to get any, at a clunky 9.6 kb/sec.

Believe me, I hate that snippy net-police mentality as much as anybody; 
this is a cry for mercy.

--Michael Smith

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1hvke8INNc8n@spim.mti.sgi.com>
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:24:39

In article <1hvke8INNc8n@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

   John McCarthy) writes:
   |> Mike Polen says:
   |> 
   |>      Japan is a highly nationalistic company.  Corporations and
   |>      the government work hand in hand.  Unlike the US, you can
   |>      not draw a distinctions between the two.  If a company or an
   |>      industry wants the government to support their plans against
   |>      outsiders, they've got it.
   |> 
   |> This seems exaggerated to me.  Japanese companies compete with
   |> each other, sometimes in the face of more intrusive regulation
   |> than in the U.S.  If the U.S. copies this mythical Japan, we are
   |> in real trouble.

   Try the following example.  In Japan, Honda and Nissan can join forces
   in manufacturing, development, etc. and they can do it with government
   support and funding.  In the US, GM and Chrysler can not build a joint
   plant but GM and Toyota can.

   We are already in trouble.

The fact that we shot ourselves in the foot does not require the
Japanese to do the same.  If the current interpretation of the anti-trust
laws prevents U.S. companies from competing successfully, then they
need to be re-interpreted or changed.  The prevalent anti-corporation
attitudes in the Democratic Party need some revision, and maybe
they are getting it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Communism and How it Works.
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:39:39 GMT

If I understand the basic prinipals of communisms (not he
Marxist/Leninist/Maoist) types.. But true communism. Its interesting to not
that most or all of early christian thought is very communist.

Marx and Engel were spoild little rich kids who were pissed off at their rich
or middle class fathers. So they came up with Communism (Marxist Type).

I did once write a paper on the life of Marx..  

Its interesting to note that many peasants of post-imperial russia had got the
basic ground work for old-communism but since it was not Lenins idea, they were
killed and sent to siberia (peasants as in Ukrainian).. We must also remember
some odd facts, that Lenins father was a minor noble (more like civil servant
bureaucrat) and that Lenins older brother was part of the assasination
attempt(or was it successful plt) to kill Nicholasas father. Maybe the reason
for Czar Nicholas's and families death..

Also Marxist Communism was supposed to happen in the Industrial World and not
in backwards Russia.. Maybe Marx should have studied early christian thought
better..

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


Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: rmg3@grebyn.com (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Global warming, observations Was: Re: Bad science
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:29:53 GMT

In article <77957@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>What happened to the claim that the Earth has already warmed up several
>degrees.  Supposedly due to greenhouse build up over the last 100 years.
>
  This is a claim not made by the scientists.  People with political
axes to grind (from both sides of the political spectrum) have made
such a claim.  (Hence the relevance to the original subject of bad
science, perhaps unwitting on the author's part.)

  Below is what some scientists _do_ say, in their own
words.  This is the abstract of the paper _Global Trends of Measured
Surface Air Temperature_ by James Hansen and Sergej Lebedeff, which
appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, volume 92, 
pgs. 13,345-13,372, 1987.


"
  We analyze surface air temperature data from available meteorological
stations with principal focus on the period 1880-1985.  The temperature
changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000
km are shown to be highly correlated; at low latitudes the correlation
falls off more rapidly with distance for nearby stations.  We combine
the station data in a way which is designed to provide accurate
long-term variations.  Error estimates are based in part on studies of
how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce
temperature change in a global data set produced by a three-dimensional
general circulation model with realistic variability.  We find that
meaningful global temperature change can be obtained for the past
century, despite the fact that the meteorological stations are confined
mainly to continental and island locations.  The results indicate a
global warming of about 0.5-0.7 C in the past century, with warming of
similar magnitude in both hemispheres; the northern hemisphere result is
similar to that found by several other investigators.  A strong warming
trend between 1965 and 1980 raisted the global mean temperature in 1980
and 1981 to the highest level in the period of instrumental records.
The warm period is recent years differs qualitatively from the earlier
warm period centered about 1940; the earlier warming was focused at high
northern latitudes while the recent warming is more global.  We present
selected graphs and maps of the temperature change in each of the eight
latitude zones.  A computer tape of the derived regional and global
temperature changes if abailable from the authors.
"

  Notes:
 
  The period selected is the period for which there is something
resembling a global grid on meteorological stations.  This does not
(in any known or demonstrable manner) bias the results.  (i.e., it
doesn't start just after a known warm period)


  0.5-0.7 C translates to 0.9 to 1.3 F.  _Not_ several degrees.

Bob Grumbine
rmg3@grebyn.com