HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: co-authorship
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:49:49 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu> debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray) writes:
>On the flip side, I know a group where the head of the group gets his
>name on all his students' papers just because he's the head of the group.
>His credibility with me has eroded somewhat because of this.

On the other hand, the group leader proposed the research in the sense
that she wrote the proposal that got the funds to pay for it. It's
common practice in the physical sciences that the person whose money
pays for the research and who has to spend large amounts of her time
writing proposals to continue providing that funding is listed as an
author.

I don't think that this is necessarily the best policy, but that's how
it is and I haven't seen any injustice result from it in my limited
experience So, while injustice certainly does happen, I don't think
that it's very widespread.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:43:18 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Aug28.172238.24753@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <87317@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.034529.8723@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>In article <87265@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>>>Very well.  Here is how I have "learned to live with jerks": I recommend
>>>>against granting them tenure.  Is this real enough for you?
>>>
>>>Mr S. Tate: Does the above sound arrogant enough for you, or you
>>>think this above poster is a  "decent human being" ? 
>>
>>Mr. Tate doesn't know me, and neither do you.  If you are willing
>>to leap to conclusions about whether or not I am a "decent human being"
>>based on one short Usenet article, then I am willing to conclude that
>>your reasoning methods leave much to be desired.  
>
>I did not conclude anything. I _asked_ Mr. Tates what he thinks about
>you.
>
>>In any case, I was
>>simply giving my method for "learn[ing] to live with jerks" in the
>>"real world", as a previous article suggested; in no way did I suggest
>>that this method would be appropriate for anyone other than myself.
>
>Wonderful attitude.
Just to prevent any misunderstanding: The previous line is a SARCASM.

Dov
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca
Subject: WANTED: "Offical" rules of authorship
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:37:58 GMT

Does anybody know of any rules and/or guidelines for authorship 
written or endorsed by a recognized organization.  Such organizations
would include funding agencies, research journals, universities, 
governmental bodies, professional associations or any other 
appropiate bodies.

Any information on how the rules and/or guidelines are enforced, 
if at all, would also be appreciated.  If there 
is enough interest I will post a summary of any e-mail I receive.


Keith S Cover
Physics, UBC
Vancouver, BC
Canada
keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca
From: rrdjro@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Jonathan O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: co-authorship
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:23:42 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.

gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861) writes:

>In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu> debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray) writes:
>>On the flip side, I know a group where the head of the group gets his
>>name on all his students' papers just because he's the head of the group.
>>His credibility with me has eroded somewhat because of this.

>On the other hand, the group leader proposed the research in the sense
>that she wrote the proposal that got the funds to pay for it. It's
>common practice in the physical sciences that the person whose money
>pays for the research and who has to spend large amounts of her time
>writing proposals to continue providing that funding is listed as an
>author.

>I don't think that this is necessarily the best policy, but that's how
>it is and I haven't seen any injustice result from it in my limited
>experience So, while injustice certainly does happen, I don't think
>that it's very widespread.

The worst case that I have seen goes something like this:
	You are a contract employee, so your name cannot appear on
	the grant application. (Completely untrue in Australia, as
	far as I know.)

		Your name didn't appear on the grant application, so we can't
	very well put your name on the publication, now can we?

		You weren't listed on any of the publications, so it would
	look really odd if we listed you on the patent application.

		Oh, don't worry about the royalties.  You can trust me.
	After all, I'm your boss, arn't I?

Jonathan@RMIT.edu.au
Research Co-ordination Office
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:49:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Aug30.014907.6499
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured

In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray) writes:
[stuff deleted]
|> I agree with Dov.  In my opinion, one has to make "significant technical
|> contributions" to a paper to get co-authorship.  Monetary support and minor
|> technical contributions should be mentioned under "Acknowledgements",
|> along the lines of "This work was supported by ..." or "This paper has
|> benefited from discussions with ..."
|> 
[Stuff deleted]

I used to follow this philosophy.  If my students did good work solo,
they got all the credit despite my getting their support, feeding them
the starting ideas, and nudging them back towards the goals of the
project supporting them.  But it backfired.  NSF reviewers have more
than once made comments like "He got $X way back in 1987 and only one
paper has come out so far?"  This despite the fact that an abundance of
papers, both mine and the students,' were listed under the prior
performance section.  I hoped that with the new abbreviated vitae NSF
reviewers would be forced to look at prior performance statements, but
that has been a forlorn hope: apparently if it's not in my vita then it
doesn't exist.

I have to play the game that can get funding, since that's what
supports the students in the first place (and supports me, for that
matter, since I am non-tenurable soft-money scum).  So now I explain
the situation to students and apologetically muscle in on some papers
that I would prefer to leave to them.  I would never, however, put
myself on any paper I had not read, criticized, rearranged, or
generally polished.  But if the student does the bulk of the work then
the student's name comes first (I know of many P.I.s who don't even
offer this courtesy).  Sometimes a student will bring me a paper which
is scientifically sound and which I can only improve in trivial ways.
For those they still get sole authorship.

Being heavy handed with students is not the healthiest situation; I
would much prefer to ignore the funding axe hovering above and let good
minds explore the edges of knowledge as they see fit.  At least my
students still appear to like me.  None has yet threatened me with a
ball-peen hammer (though I have been tempted myself to so threaten
various search committees and personnel committees).

Scum of the Earth unite!
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --Energy and Sustainability
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:35:57 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1466601742@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>From: Tom Gray <tgray>
>Subject: --Energy and Sustainability
>
>o    World energy use would be held to 30 TWa (about three times
>     today's consumption), a reduction of 70 percent below a BAU
>     level of 100 TWa (nearly nine times current use).  (At the
>     same time, global per-capita energy use would be stabilized at
>     3 kW/person, or about one-fourth of present U.S. usage per
>     person.)

These units seem useless to me. 30 Terawatt what? 3 kw/person per
hour, day, week, month, year, what? Power is measured in watts, 
energy is measured in watt-hours. This information would be interesting
if it meant anything.

Gary
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: population load question
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:30:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep4.121335.18728@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

> Do "Happy go luckiers" think that the trend to the world population can
> continue without bound?

No, but we do think the real bounds are far enough away that our
descendants will address them, not us.

Turn your reasoning around: with exponential growth, any population is
only a few thousand years from the limits.  So your reasoning could
have been used to conclude that global population should be only 1
billion.  Or 1 million.  Or 10,000.

	Paul F. DIetz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.activism
From: cosc176t@menudo.uh.edu (Jason Asbahr)
Subject: Dolphin Advocacy
Organization: /posole/cosc176t/.organization
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:38:34 GMT


Greets, all...

As distasteful as I find fanatical activism to be, I am moved to feel
fanatically active after watching a recent PBS broadcast of a 
documentary on dolphins and their slaughter worldwide.

Not all of this post deals with activism, however!  I have always
been curious about dolphins and the possible insight dolphin study 
might bring to linguistics and our understanding of animal intelligence.  
My first request is for pointers to favorite articles on dolphin/
porpoise research, either on the net or in specific journals.  I would
also like to hear from any scientists or graduate students working on
research involving dolphins, or from anyone who has participated in 
similar research in the past.

Now for the activism...  I am interested in finding out more about and
possibly joining groups who seek protection of dolphins in the wild.
Once I know the facts, I can write letters to the appropriate
politicians and corporations.  Advice on other actions and comments
on their effectiveness would be appreciated.  


Thanks,


--
Jason Asbahr                           116 E. Edgebrook #603
asbahr@uh.edu                          Houston, Texas  77034
next@tree.egr.uh.edu   (NeXTmail)      (713) 941-8294  voice (summer)
asbahr@tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTmail)      UH NeXT Campus Consultant
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --Energy and Sustainability
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:34:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Aug26.173417.8734
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <25741@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.153557.1513@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
>writes:
>|> In article <1466601742@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>|> >Subject: --Energy and Sustainability
>|> >
>|> >o    World energy use would be held to 30 TWa (about three times
>|> >     today's consumption), a reduction of 70 percent below a BAU
>|> >     level of 100 TWa (nearly nine times current use).  (At the
>|> >     same time, global per-capita energy use would be stabilized at
>|> >     3 kW/person, or about one-fourth of present U.S. usage per
>|> >     person.)
>|> 
>|> These units seem useless to me. 30 Terawatt what? 3 kw/person per
>|> hour, day, week, month, year, what? Power is measured in watts, 
>|> energy is measured in watt-hours. This information would be interesting
>|> if it meant anything.
>|> 
>|> Gary
>
>This information does infact mean something.  As you said, power
>is measured in watts.  If all the energy were electricity (which
>of course it isn't), it would be flowing at that rate.  Converting
>to energy, as you noted, requires multiplying by a time unit, so
>30 TW for one hour is 30 TWh.  30 TW for one year is 30 TWh - 8766
>hours/year = 262980 TWh, or more correctly 260000 TWh.  I haven't
>checked the actual numbers, but the units seem sound.

Of course I know how to deal with watts and watt-hours. That's not
what I was saying. The post claims to be about *energy* consumption
yet gives values for *power*. Thus the information is useless without
the appropriate time information. As you noted, there's a big *energy*
difference in a TW year and a TW hour.

I might also remark that your comment about the energy being electricity
or not has no bearing on the use of watts as a measure of power or watt-
hours as a measure of energy. Gasoline combustion can be just as meaningfully
measured in watts as it can in horsepower and consumption can be just as 
meaningful in terms of watt-hours as it can be in gallons per hour.

Gary
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 25 Aug 92 05:13 PDT
Subject: --Sweden, UK Act on CO2
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601744:000:2908
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Aug 25 05:13:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: --Sweden, UK Act on CO2

/* Written  5:10 am  Aug 25, 1992 by tgray in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "--Sweden, UK Act on CO2" ---------- */
SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM TAKE
ACTION ON CARBON DIOXIDE

While the United States continues to resist international efforts
to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading "greenhouse
gas," other countries -- particularly Sweden and the United Kingdom
in recent days -- are taking further steps to reduce their own
production of the gas.

According to the trade newsletter Global Environmental Change
Report, the government of Sweden is proposing to raise an existing
carbon tax from US $150/ton to US $192/ton, effective January 1,
1993.  The tax, which is equivalent to roughly $20/barrel of oil,
is nearly seven times a proposed European Community-wide carbon
levy that is bogged down in controversy.  However, Sweden's tax
exempts energy-intensive industries and electricity production.

Also on January 1, Sweden will boost its tax on household power use
by three percent, but reduce its general value-added tax (VAT) by
three percent.  The effect will be to lower the cost of most goods
slightly while providing an additional incentive for energy
efficiency.

The United Kingdom pledged April 30 to cut CO2 emissions to 1990
levels by the year 2000, according to the Inter Press Service
(IPS), rather than 2005 as committed previously.

The British office of the environmental group Greenpeace termed the
new announcement "the first glimmer of sanity in U.K. 'greenhouse'
policy," the article said, but added, "Science shows the
environment needs much more."

Greenpeace called again on climate negotiators from the industrial
countries to agree to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent
from present levels, and noted that the international
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that
reductions of 60 percent are needed to stabilize atmospheric levels
of the gas.
===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 22 Aug 92 09:07:09

In article <1466601743@igc.apc.org> Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.apc.org> writes:


   >In article <1992Jun28.045613.11088@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
   >>This is one of the most difficult questions that you could ask. There
   >>is little consensus on just what constitutes intelligence.
   >
   >We do have a good _practical_ consensus on scholastic achievement
   >tests and IQ tests, which are well correlated with each other.  See 
   >the tests used for entry requirements to rec.org.mensa.
   [...]
   >-- 
   >szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks

   Reading through this month-old sci.environment crap I came across 
   this tidbit from Nick Szabo, suggesting probably that whales 
   should join Mensa before they deserve our respect.

   I can't resist. I wonder if Nick's respect for IQ tests will 
   change if he learns that *I* am a member of Mensa? [Well, not in 
   good standing -- I didn't pay this year. Check last year's 
   membership list Nick -- if you are a member.]

   -------------
   Alan McGowen

Alas, there seems to be no level of intelligence yet achieved by
humans that constitutes protection against foolishness.  The
intelligence is sometimes used to find facts supporting the
desired delusions.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 01 Sep 92 11:12 PDT
Subject: DSEA 1992-1993 Season
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601749:000:829
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep  1 11:12:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: DSEA 1992-1993 Season

/* Written  5:15 pm  Aug 28, 1992 by jaystein in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "DSEA 1992-1993 Season" ---------- */
Here is the Schedule for the Denver Solar Energy Association's 
1992-1993 season.  Meetings are at the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, and start at 7:00 PM.  They are free 
to DSEA members but $4 to the general public.  It only costs $15 to 
join so I suggest anyone interested should join.  

Date				Topic
September 15, 1992	Architect's Forum
October 20, 1992	Wood Fuel
November 10, 1992	Tour of NREL
December 15, 1992	Video Night
January 19, 1992	Alternative Fuel Vehicles
February 16, 1992	International Night
March 16, 1992		Utility Rebate Programs for Solar
April 20, 1992		Efficient Cooling
May 18, 1992		Builder's Forum


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Composting
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:35:03 GMT

bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams) writes:

>In article <BtwI4s.31z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Anmar Caves,
>amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>>Buy some chicken wire fencing about 2' high and make a circular bin
>>out of it.  Remember to turn it every few weeks.   Cost ~$5.

>It works even better if you staple some 1x3 boards to the wire (hardware
>cloth is better than chicken wire), for support.  I have a couple of nice
>bins made by stapling wood to the hardware cloth at the ends and in the
>middle, then screwing screw eyes into the edges of the pieces of wood on
>the ends and running a steel rod through the screw eyes.  Makes a nice
>cylinder that's easy to take down.

    I used old hockey sticks. They were just the right length, and are made
of good solid hardwood. (SOme have fibreglass or other materials added to
make the shaft stronger.) They are already painted, and seem to hold up to
the weather quite well! Of course, I had a ready supply: was playing 2
games per week, and someone was breaking their stick just about every game!
As long as it was the blade that went...
 
    The chicken wire seems to be doing fine, although I expect hardware cloth
would be stronger.



Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Voice of America station in Israel.
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:46:15 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug25.150214.492@vms.huji.ac.il> rashty@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>Subject : Voice of America in Israel Southern Desert - Jordan Valley.
>
>The American have decided to build up a transmition station for the Voice of
>America in the Jordan Valley (Israeli territory), This transmition station was
>meant to broadcast to the soviet Union and other eastern-europe countries.
>The decision to build this station was taken before the new changes in the
>Soviet Union accrued.
>In this days this decision is becoming reality since the Bush administration
>for some unknown reason want's to continue with this plan, The transmition
>station will be 300. meters hight and will release a huge amount of energy.
>The damage is both to the people around who are mostly farmers leaving in a
>Moshav (some sort of a community life in israel) and also to the nature.
>
>The jordan valley is the main migration root for more than a billion birds who
>travel each year from AFRICA to EUROPE, many birds watchers come to observe
>this spectacular sine each year and this new transmition station is a big threat
>to the birds migration , Think about it that if the birds migration from
>africa to europe will be harmed many birds that are rare today will be
>disappeared !!!. The second harm is to the area around since the transmition
>station is going to be build on about 8000 donams of beuttiful desert land, The
>Israeli desert is quit small and very unique, This transmition station is
>threatening one of the last places of butty with have in this desert.
>
>I'm calling anyone who has interest to help us with our struggle which is not
>a local struggle for my test but an international one on the future of birds
>in this region of the world .
>The decision to build the station was taken long time ago, This day there in no
>reason to build it but the beocreacy make it impossible to stop the decision.
>There are a lot of demonstration in israel about this plan but we need an
>international help of environment organization to make the u.s government change
>the decision and by that save the future of birds, nature and man in the area.
>I think that the struggle is not lees important then the struggle about whales
>or other animals in other parts of the world.
>If you have any hand in an environment organization or you can write to your
>representative please do so and help us with our struglee.

Dudu, I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and go have a nice
long talk with someone in your electrical engineering department, or
a radio engineer. The station is not a threat to the birds or the
human population. It probably *is* an eyesore in the desert. If you
want to protest it on esthetic grounds, that's fine. But get a better
grasp of the scientific facts before shouting about health effects or
bird kills.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment