HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Do gas taxes pay for road construction? (was something else)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:59:19 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> Well it's true that the Federal Highway Trust Fund has been raided in
>> recent years to pay for mass transit, and it's true that the funds are
>> currently impounded to make the deficit look better. The government
>> is doing the same thing with the aviation trust funds. However, Federal
>> Highway Trust Fund monies pay for 90% of the cost of new US highway
>> construction, 100% of new Interstate construction, and 50% of new
>> State highway construction. The remainder of roads, county and city
>> roads, are paid for through a formula that includes 10% Federal funds,
>> and a matching grant program between the State and the local government.
>> In total, Federal gas taxes pay for 68% of all road construction. State
>> gas taxes, in conjunction with local property taxes, pay for the remainder.
>> Since roads benefit even non-drivers through the improved transport of
>> goods and services that they provide, the subsidy actually runs the other
>> way with those who don't pay gasoline taxes receiving benefits from those
>> who do.

>I find it a little hard to believe that Interstates and US highways and
>State highways are entirely funded by gas taxes.

A quick check of the 1990 Statistical Abtract of the US yields the
following data: (all numbers in millions)

1987 total receipts for highways		$65,702
1987 total disbursements for highways		 65,793

1987 gas tax reciepts, state and federal	 24,926

1987 Federal highway trust fund reciepts	 14,300
1987 Federal highway trust fund disbursements	 13,500
1987 Federal highway trust fund balance		 13,600


1987 was the most recent year for which they had numbers in all categories.


--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC(?)
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:21:28 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1jtullINN2sr@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>It's rather telling that Victor-the-idiot Yackadamn chose to flame me over my
>presumption that GreenHype held true to form and failed to include essential
>information in their propaganda release (as they've done many times in the
>past;  for example, the release posted by Jym a couple of months ago that made
>a big thing about the fact that plutonium had been detected on the beaches near
>Sellafield, but neglected to say anything at all about concentrations).

What's rather telling is that in defense of your flame of a Greenpeace
report that you never read, on grounds of an error that you merely supposed
was in the report, you have no more rational argument than to resort to
personal insult that is as clumsy as your explanation of probability
theory.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of C
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:09:15 GMT

In article <1jvcruINN8h2@werple.apana.org.au> speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>Original Message From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
>>Regarding OPEC, you're living in another decade on that one.  I suspect
>>the cruise missile and the smart bomb have taught all sides in that
>>region a lesson not shortly forgotten.  Even if that is not true, consider
> 
>Have to agree with you here. Wasn't bad-old Saddam wanting to
>increase the price of crude by limiting the supply of oil - he accused
>the Gulf States of over-producing. He then promptly marched into
>Kuwait to address the situation. America then promptly marched into
>Iraq to ensure prices were kept stable (and low). Power does indeed
>come from a gun.
> 
>In this case, the USA has had an energy policy for years - it's called
>a defence force.

Well, it *is* the one thing the US still does well. Though it looks
like Clinton is trying his best to screw it up too.

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     |                     |
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of C
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:55:14 GMT

In article <1jvcruINN8h2@werple.apana.org.au>, speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
> switch to Public Transport - hell, it's a lot cheaper per kilometre to
> build a twin track system than a highway - at least here it is.
>  
> A true "energy policy" should include this, in my view. What do you
> think?

Ah, back to the subject of energy.

I think it has an important place.  How do you fund it?  How do you encourage
people to use it?  The best answer to both questions, IMHO, is a gas tax. 
It is only one small part of a complete energy policy, however.

If anyone else has a better idea for pursuing public transit, "I'm all ears".


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:36:12 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <yjcshr=@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Actually Richard, the Constitution was written specifically to prohibit
>federal income taxes.  
[...]
>(BTW, has anyone contemplated
>the fact that the 16th did not repeal the requirement of Article 8, para 1
>that taxes be uniform?  That would sure kill "progressive" [newspeak for
>'soak the worker, give to poor and gov't tit suckers'] tax schemes.)

Facinating ... Has noone brought a test case on this?  It would be
fun to watch!!

Wonder if 'uniform' would be construed to be 'uniform percent' or 
'uniform dollars' ... 

BTW, has anyone wondered about the Clinton regiem plans for a 
blanket energy tax?  Why, if they want to encourage folks to move
away from imported oil, are the proposing to impose an energy tax
that is 'uniform' across al energy forms?  {nuke, natrual gas, coal,
oil, hydro, wind, the works ...}  Hardly seems like a Democratic
approach to not tinker with the 'economic incentives' while imposing
an economy flattening tax ...


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:04:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> I have no problems with the scientists who do the work and
> report it in peer-reviewed journals.  I do have something
> against the radical fringe of the environmental movement (like
> Greenpeace) that is quick to take a few snippets of scientific
> results that might support their political stands, then turn
> around and crucify the very scientists who report the data . . .

=o= Can you cite any incidences of this actually happening?

=o= I don't think that anyone, Greenpeace included, is going
to argue that these press releases are any substitute for
scientific research.  Having been both a press agent and an
editor, I've been on both ends of many press releases.  They
are odd beasts, hastily written in odd prose designed to be
all things to all people.  I know of no organization whose
press releases don't suffer from these problems.

=o= Greenpeace (the organization) does a good deal of research
and does indeed subject it to peer review.  If you have problems
with this research, do speak u, but don't resort to the _ad_
_hominem_ approach of rejecting it automatically because you
don't like the way another part of the organization writes its
press releases.

> All we scientists ever hear from these fringe groups is how
> we're raping the earth and how technology is such a crime and
> how awful we all are.

=o= One wonders what the real source of these horrible accusa-
tions are.  Imperfect as the Greenpeace press releases are, they
don't make statements like that.
    <_Jym_>
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:00:21 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <59098@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>I must have not made my point clearly.

Your point's perfectly clear Victor.  It you'd wear a hat, it wouldn't be so
obvious thouqh.

>A Greenpeace press release, from
>Austria I believe, calls for reduction of, maybe even elimination of,
>industrial uses of chlorine. The self proclaimed defenders of science and
>technlogy on the net: without reading the report itself, attack Greenpeace
>on the grounds that table salt contains chlorine.

We attacked GreenHype on the basis of the fact that they issued a rather stupid
and misleading press release.  Victor, why is it you refuse to acknowledge that
GreenHype releases such bullshit in its press releases fully aware of the fact
that at best a small minority of the intended audience will ever read the
reports?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:04:51 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:

>And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow?  Do you know of any city where there
>is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system?  I've never seen one.

No, and I know of no US comprehensively developed transportation based on
the rickshaw or the pogo stick or for people who walk on their hands 
either.  Not that I'd be surprised to hear one day that some organization of 
pogoists is demanding federal meney to build such a system.  That is
the new american way, isn't it?

>Only random networks of unconnected bike lanes that may or may not go
>anywhere useful.  It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
>Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summer
>they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.

Might I suggest you avail yourself of some form of transportation more
amenable to conditions extant?  Like, for  instance, a car.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:05:52 GMT

In article <51889@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <nb#s=8c@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>> Actually the French publish quite a bit of technical information.  My
>> French reading skills (aided with a french-english dict) are good enough
>> that I can even read some of it.  What they do NOT do, God bless 'em, is
>> allow the lay public to interefer with their mission to provide the country
>
>But just a couple posts ago, you were raving against "socialist" energy.
>If this isn't an example of that, I don't know what is.

This isn't an example of socialism Richard. It's an example of dictatorship,
something that John views with considerably less dismay than socialism. 

>A little consistency please, especially in view of the heap of profanity
>and flaming in the other posts.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

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     |                     |
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:03:38 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan26.213536@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>That is debatable.
>
># most dishonest people in the scientific world I know of.  IUm not saying
>that
>
>Oh well, give us the evidence then, and I mean referenced evidence so
>I can check it out myself.

You won't get them, I bet. The same, self-appointed guardians of the
scientific method in this forum who dismiss Lovins, Victor Weisskopf,
Schnieder, etc. as not credible, are happy to quote such luminaries as
Dixie Lee Ray, but seem to have a hard time getting to the library to
find actual references. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: mikep@triton.unm.edu (Mike Prine CIRT)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: DC heating pads/blankets
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:10:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.1k3ragINNg9a
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu


	While it is generally considered energy folish to use electricity for
producing heat, I do just that on a small scale. We have a 12DC heating pad
on my son's bed and on my wife's side of our bed to help with her back
problems. What did it cost? 4 pannels @ $160each, $100 for a low voltage
disconnect, $350 for a set of 80AmpHour nicads, $100 for a charge controller.
It provides about 6-10 hours of power, per night, depending on how high the 
blankets are set. I chose nicads despite their high cost because they can be 
left at any state of charge without harm. DC powered bed warmers or heating 
pads have the advantage of not exposing you to AC Efields that some think are 
a health hazard.
	The small array is tied to our main array with a blocking diode so when
the nicads are charged the power is diverted to the main system. Later this
year I plan to add 2 more pannels to the array and upgrade to 160AmpHour
batteries. This will insure that most nights next winter it will stay on all
night.

-- 
Michael Lee Prine	 IRC (Information Resource Center) consultant
Internet: mikep@hydra.unm.edu, Bitnet: MIKEP@UNMB, Phone: 1-505-277-8135
I get most of my electricity, at home, from the sun. It's a hobby, 
who cares if it's cost effective yet.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hln5451@zeus.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO LUIS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Help on oil spill cleanup companies
Date: 21 Jan 1993 09:47 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I would like to know names and (if possible) telephone numbers of 
companies dealing with: oil spills, enviromental cleanup and polution 
control. Your help shall be appreciated.

Homero:

hln5451@zeus.tamu.edu

Thanks
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of C
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:39:26 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
 
>stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
   .
   .
>>The goal of a national energy policy is to cost people less
>>both for government invlovement in energy and in terms of energy
>>delivered from the company to the consumer.  It also would address
>>issues of national and economic security.  For example, a sound national
>>energy policy should make our country immune to the whims of OPEC.
>
>You really believe that, don't you?  The things the federal government
>has done that has reduced my costs I can count on one hand and have
>fingers left.  I challenge you list ANYTHING in the current policy
>proposals that will reduce my costs.  A gas tax?  Mandatory
>efficiency ratings?  A higher CAFE that does nothing except jack up the
>cost of cars?
 
Sorry to sound so ignorant but how is this "energy policy" supposed to
rectify America's dependance on oil? Does this policy, by virtue of
its goals, dictate which forms of energy supply/demand is acceptable?
Is there something the USA is hiding from the world, ie, is there an
alternative to fossil fuels that is as cheap as oil and ready to use
now? Or is it something that is a "goal" for the future.
 
If I presume a lot, I would say the answer to pollution caused by a
car is not to introduce rules (like the ones in California?) but to
switch to Public Transport - hell, it's a lot cheaper per kilometre to
build a twin track system than a highway - at least here it is.
 
A true "energy policy" should include this, in my view. What do you
think?
 
>>issues of national and economic security.  For example, a sound national
>>energy policy should make our country immune to the whims of OPEC.
 .
 .
>Regarding OPEC, you're living in another decade on that one.  I suspect
>the cruise missile and the smart bomb have taught all sides in that
>region a lesson not shortly forgotten.  Even if that is not true, consider
 
Have to agree with you here. Wasn't bad-old Saddam wanting to
increase the price of crude by limiting the supply of oil - he accused
the Gulf States of over-producing. He then promptly marched into
Kuwait to address the situation. America then promptly marched into
Iraq to ensure prices were kept stable (and low). Power does indeed
come from a gun.
 
In this case, the USA has had an energy policy for years - it's called
a defence force.
 
Unless the USA becomes self-sufficient in its energy needs (unlikely
with present technology/know-how), then they are always going to be
dependant on some other country and this means the source of energy
could always be disrupted.
 
 
Regards,
Mark.
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Overutilization/Free Ener
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

<U>I was wondering about the Free Energy/Overutilization devices.  I tried to f
<U> a book about Telsa, and haven't found it in my library.

There is a biography on Nicola Tesla titled "The Prodigal Genius" by ??
White published many years ago. You should be able to find it in some
library. He never advocated "free" energy, but he was trying to develope
a method to broadcast electrical energy in the late 1800.

One of the true geniuses of all time. He designed and patented the
whole AC transmission system, generators, motors, transformers, lock
stock and barrel, about the time Edison was stumbling with DC
generators. He was offered a Nobel prize to be shared with Edison, but
Tesla refused in disgust.


U>It seems to that if energy was free the entire economic system of the
world would completely collapse.

We have abundant FREE energy now. It's called solar and wind energy, but
capturing, storing and transporting it is not free. But the cost is
comimg down fast.

Howard Smith

American Hydrogen Association BBS (415)494-3116
1200-14,400 baud (V.32bis V.42bis)  8N1  24 hrs
Hydrogen Energy -  Prosperity without Pollution
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Hello, I am part number ................
                                                                                    
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7185 talk.environment:5691
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 11:31:00 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1jr5ceINN16a@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>For the innumerates like Jym Dyer among you, if I get to pick the timeframe, I
>can get any probability I want for any event that's not 100% certain.  Say
>we've got something that has a 10% chance of happening on any one trail.  That
>means it's got a 19% chance of happening at least once in two trials, a 27%
>chance of happening at least once in three trials, a 34% chance of happening at
>least once in four trials, a 41% chance of happening at least once in 5 trials,
>and so forth.  In other words, the chance of the event occurring at least once
>in N trials is 1-.1^N.  So, if you pick a probability, P, we simply solve the
>equation:
>	P = 1 - .1^N

Sorry, that should've been

	P = 1 - .9^N

>for N, getting N = -log(1-P)

and that, of course, should've been

	N = log(1-P)/log(.9)

The conclusion that I can get any probability I want by choosing the right time
frame still holds, though.

It's rather telling that Victor-the-idiot Yackadamn chose to flame me over my
presumption that GreenHype held true to form and failed to include essential
information in their propaganda release (as they've done many times in the
past;  for example, the release posted by Jym a couple of months ago that made
a big thing about the fact that plutonium had been detected on the beaches near
Sellafield, but neglected to say anything at all about concentrations).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment