HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:32:35 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>Let us consider Japan.

>In 1868, Japan decided to model its empire on that of Napoleon III,
>Emperor of France.

>In 1870, Napoleon III lost the Franco-Prussian War and was deposed.
>Japan decided to model itself on Prussia.

A quick review of the discussion will produce no evidence that

 1) Japan has been accused of having a 200 year plan 200 years ago
 2) Japan itself is being discussed, "some Japanese companies"

So you had a chance to demonstrate your knowledge of history but lost
a point in reading comprehension.

tom
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13906 sci.econ:9529 sci.anthropology:1617
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:40:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.BzxFn2.FIM
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636

gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

> Some choice between incompetence and greed you offer.

This statement strikes me as getting to the emotional core of the 
socialist vs. capitalist issue.  I think the choice can be
resolved as follows.  The global economy is a very different milieu
than the hunter-gatherer tribe.  In the latter, people often have a 
lifelong, face-to-face relationship.  They can perform altruistic 
acts with the (perhaps unconscious) assurance that such altruism 
will, more often than not, benefit kin or be reciprocated down the line.  
I'd be interested in Gil elaborating on this!

The "global village", on the other hand, is a TV-generated illusion.
We imagine that because we can see the faces and problems of people
around the world, that we understand and them and that the altruistic
impulses that work so well in the hunter-gatherer tribe will help
here.  But the TV camera takes in only an infinitesimal fraction of
the world, that fraction deemed relevant to the networks and their
customers (advertisers), and is one-way, no interaction.  The real
communication is extremely abstracted, funneled primarily through 
the popular media and the price information of markets.  The popular
media is one-way, very different than the h-g tribe but providing 
many of the illusions of the "global village".  Even if the media
were two-way, one could possibly interacted with only a tiny and
unrepresentative fraction of the world's people in any way approaching
that of a small community.  Politics, to the extent that it can
be globalized, is by necessity one-way; even if the system was
democratic, votes at such a level contain practically no information.
The market is two-way, interactive, and participated in by everybody, 
although the level of participation per agent is far from equal.
It is also abstract, and applying ethical instincts based on face-to-face
interaction in small communities could lead us far astray.

Let's keep local ethics local, and not make false comparisons of
the "greed" of multinational corporations in an abstract market
to the greed of an individual in a small, face-to-face community.  
In the global economy, the rational self-interest of competitive
market agents has demonstrated itself by far the best method for 
growing the global economy while preserving the global environment.  
Yet, when faced with a problem we always seem to first think of command 
solutions -- pass a law, regulate this, subsidize those poor people,
ban that.  That is our hunter-gatherer heritage , which often works
when applied locally, but is often disastrous when applied to a large 
nation or globally.  There are many problems to be solved; let's make 
market solutions (eg tradable pollution credits) the first solutions 
we think of and try, instead of the last.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: NYT article on Japanese breeder
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.141806.24865@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
> 
> 	I really don't care what Japan does, but those attempting
> to prevent nuclear proliferation (a damn good idea), do.  I posted the
> excerpt from the _New Scientist_ article to give another perspective
> on the Japanese breeder reactor program.
> 	And by nuclear proliferation I mean weapons-grade plutonium
> capable of being made into bombs.  The Japanese have a lot of good
> ideas, including aggressive push on enviro-industry (as mentioned in
.
.
.
> 
> 	Jim Acker
> 	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
> 

-- 
The N. Y. Times article points out that the Japanese have been
criticizing North Korea's nuclear program because they suspect the
North Koreans want to build a bomb.   Meanwhile they will have
considerably more plutonium on hand than the North Koreans.  This
weakens their argument, to say the least.   Also, according to
the article, Jimmy Carter killed the U. S. breeder reactor program
just because of the issue of nuclear proliferation.  Worrying
about nuclear proliferation is not something engaged in only by
a few radical environmentalists.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Prot
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 07:49:33 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec21.153441.8780@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > I agree that one of the more discouraging aspects of libertarian
 > philosophy is the tendency to run to court on the slightest provocation,
 > similar to liberal greenies in that respect. I do think that property
 > rights are a proper basis for dealing with most economic and environmental
 > issues, but rights are abstract things that are only sustained by power, 
 > and like Chairman Mao, I also realize that power only flows from the 
 > barrel of a gun. Governments, courts, and lawyers are collective wielders 
 > of that power, and such concentrations of power are corrupting. Therefore, 
 > I prefer restricting the use of power to the individual level. Code duello 
 > is perfectly adequate to deal with conflicts arising between individuals. 

I do appreciate very much what Mao was getting at, but do point out
that he himself was an intellectual of a very high order and there is
no doubt whatever that he understood also the power of the pen.

What I mean by that myself, within the context of my own work, is the
power of democratic communities of discourse to mediate and direct the
energy inherent in the forces created by the gun to more constructive
work. I express repeatedly my concern that our discourse here should
be substantial, reasonable and well-informed lest we come to believe
that all we have left to fight with are guns.

Sure, I was sent to boarding school, drilled to the military standard
of the day, and certainly know how to use the weapons at my disposal.
But that allows me to appreciate all the more how effective words can
be.

Not so apparently those from a position they see as *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,sci.energy
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:55:44 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec30.021837.17665@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp writes:

 > >Perhaps we should send you to Hong Kong for ten years or so, to learn
 > >about doing business. There you will learn how patiently to build up
 > >relationships, such that anytime you come up with a product they will
 > >buy from you anyway. Because they know you, and how you can be trusted
 > >to look after them during whatever transactions take place.
 >  
 > Bullshit.  For example, no matter how good a relationship we have with
 > our educational customers, they are not going to buy our MRP products
 > - they don't manufacture so they don't need MRP.

Well, there is my paragraph back for all and sundry to read since you
insist on my taking up unnecessary bandwidth.

While here, I suggest that the Hong Kong Police are employed by the
British, not the Chinese. We Australians installed the totalisator
software at the Hong Kong Jockey Club also for the British, not the
Chinese. The Hong Kong Chinese themselves have been actively and
patiently restoring traditional ties with their home villages on
the mainland since the Open Door policy came into effect, while the
relatively few among the higher echelons of the British colonial
administration have been screaming blue murder that they have been
denied British Passports by the Thatcher/Major regime. Do you get
the drift?

Please do try Hong Kong again after 1997, only four years away now.
Or Jiangmen today, as you wish. Your manners will need to improve
markedly on their present state, but no problem, as mentioned I can
sit back here while you make a fool of yourself.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Development policies
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 07:59:17 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec21.155351.9057@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > The World Bank may have been trying to do what I suggested, but they were
 > doing a singularly poor job of it. They essentially funnel money from
 > governments to governments and we've seen countless examples of how
 > corrupt and inefficient this type of action is. Specifically what I
 > was suggesting is that countries should establish a legal and political
 > climate that is favorable to private investment. That doesn't take
 > massive "loans" from foreign governments. It only takes courage and
 > integrity by local officials. Of course those are always in short
 > supply.

Agreed, although here we would yet prefer fewer local officials anyway.

--
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: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Corp Control, Shareholders.+
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:53:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.155644.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes...
>In article <1992Dec29.175641.28581@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec29.034938.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>> 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?
>> 
> 
>What is the difference between having a voting share in a company and having a
>vote as a citizen in the US? not much, other than you get the vote in
>a democracy for "FREE?"... OR do we get it for free.

In the U. S., everybody has one vote.  In a corporation one share has 
one vote.  If the shares are concentrated, as they usually are, 
the few who have large numbers of shares control the vote.  The voting 
power in a corporation is not equal
.
>				... 
>I know I might get more repect if I had more shares (voting that is) than
>I do from the FED.. After all in some corps you can actually get rid
>of the President beofre his term is up.. (grin)..
>
>True voting against the company can eb a real pain, maybe that is the
>difference.. OR is it?
> 

More respect and more power.  

					my views only 
					BMS
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: chenm@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Ming chen)
Subject: Inquiry: Contaminant Transport Models
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:50:39 GMT
Distribution: sci.engr.civil, sci.engr.chem, sci.engr, sci.mech
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.

 Hello, everyone.

 I am currently looking for some contaminant transport models. 
 I wander if there is any ftp sites/archives for such models or
 other numerical models (finite elements, finite difference or
 boundary elements).

 Thanks in advance.

 /ming

 chenm@tuns.ca
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 2 Jan 93 16:09:16 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <51736@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <58188@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> methods are large, their effectiveness is not known. The NRC shut down
>> Yankee Rowe precisely because its containment vessel showed signs of
>> losing enough ductility to make its continued operation dangerous. The
>> utility chose to decomission rather than to attempt annealing. The
>
>Why not take a chunk of vessel to a lab and see exactly what annealing
>treatment will restore ductility?  Then simply design new reactors with
>an installed annealing system - annealing could be performed as part of
>regular maintainance every few years.

This would not affect the projected lifespan of current reactors, and
might not provide an accurate indication of how weld points or different
topologies  or larger chunks of metal will behave in situ.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
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: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:44:10 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec30.154805.20672@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM writes:

 > >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]
 >  
 > You forgot to list your membership in the Flat Earth Society.
 >

Dr Vandeman, I regret that it is you who are very much in error. The
notion of a single objective environment we together must look after
better is absolutely untenable, when plainly one's subjective social,
built and natural environments are merely a part of the wider context
in which one finds oneself. Otherwise there would never have developed
so very many different societies and cultures among the one single
species of human being on this planet, which is the very reason your
persistent nagging at everyone to do what *you* want becomes so very
tedious. You simply have no respect for other points of view.

BTW, perhaps the physical planet we live on is not flat, but the
subjective world-views of individuals and their associates certainly
are. Out at their margins there indeed be dragons . . .

Gil
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Spotted Owl, Natures Way?
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:45:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec24.164511.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Question toall. Was the Spotted Owl going away becuase of human encrouchment or
was it going away because of natural factors that if humans had not been there,
that would have made the Spotted Owl extinct.. Basically the question is was
its natures plan to extinct the Spotted Owl, and what was its (nature) method
of doing say extinction??  

Maybe that is the same thing that is happening in Somalia, and with Aids..
Natures way of getting rid of to many mouths? 
Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Suburbs: the great untouchable (Was: Save planet...)
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:10:33 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   30 Dec 92 19:40:03 GMT
>FROM:   James G. Acker <jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>	But what if...
>
>	I walked to the store, and bought my 3+ grocery (reusable sacks, BTW)
>sacks -- I want to pick my own produce, thank you -- and then took them to
>a delivery truck, and walked home? 

Back to the future....

This is exactly how I shop, on the upper West Side of Manhattan. A 
bonus: since all the deliveries are quite local, most of them are made 
by a guy with a handcart. It costs exactly $2 a load.

It seems inescapable to me that suburbanization is to blame for a great 
deal of our wastefulness and (environmental) destructiveness. This is an 
issue that few people posting in these groups address directly, although 
transportation questions, in particular, are inextricably linked with 
settlement patterns. 

Since the '20's we in the US have been the "beneficiaries" of Federal 
and local policies encouraging suburbanization. Shouldn't those of us 
concerned about environmental damage -- and, I would claim, human 
quality-of-life, too -- step up to this issue, and make an explicit goal 
of stopping, and then reversing, this trend? I realize that the 
single-family house, on its exiguous greensward, in its homogenized 
socioeconomic laager, is the most sacred of all sacred cows, at least in 
the US. But the holier the steer, the juicier the steak, I always say.  

--Michael Smith


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:31:04 GMT

In article <l2srmnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>> $250/kW seems awfully low -- that's even less than the capital cost of
>> simple cycle combustion turbines.

> That's because combustion turbines are low capacity compared to their
> cost.  

Really?  Is that why they are the prefered fossil units for peaking power?
I would have thought that *low* capital cost for a given power output
would be prefered there.


> I quoted myself above again to reiterate my basis which should be 
> the basis used in the study.  That USCEA is using the old, obsolete
> model for nuclear generation to me shows they are about as competent
> at that as they are in making nuclear power advertisements. (I've
> never seen such horrendously bad ads.)  Sure a plant of 50s vintage design 
> built under even "streamlined" regulations would cost at least $1300/kw.
> I would hope that in the almost 50 years of experience, the industry could 
> come up with a more cost-effective design.  Since several have already
> been proposed in the literature, I'm sure they can.  Of course, if
> DOE is allowed to boondogle as usual, who knows.


The USCEA is using new designs in its analysis.  None of the next
generation LWRs (AP600, SBWR, etc.) come in anywhere near $250/kW,
even though they are often much simpler than the last generation of
reactors.

I'm calling you on this $250/kW figure.  Please give a literature
reference that justifies it.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Bandwidth burner
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:34:52

In article <2934731029.0.p00004@psilink.com> "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com> writes:

   >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

I doubt that Michael Smith hates the snippy net-police mentality as
much as I do.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:49:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.024353.15278@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.211459.28435@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>efficiency has the shortest installation time. This is all
>>for the U.S.  The developing world will need new capacity soon (if not
>>now).  I would argue that they would be best served by smaller scale
>>generation and solar and wind tend to serve them well since they have
>>little or no grid, but that is their decision to make.
>
>When developing countries begin to industrialize, their electricity needs
>will quickly outgrow what is available with solar and wind technology. 
>What then? Large units for baseload power, accented with smaller scale
>generation for peak loads, etc.

If storage technology improves, then solar and wind may be useful for
baseload.  If not, nuclear may be there best choice.
>
>I couldn't see solar and wind supporting a country of 10-20 million or more,
>and I wouldn't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off the 
>country's entire capacity of solar panels.

I woudln't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off a
containment structure.
>
>BTW, the countries that are growing very rapidly, like Thailand and Korea,
>are investing heavily in next-generation nuclear plants. Perhaps the US will
>be buying its technology from _them_.

Where are they getting their technology from?
>
>Tino
>-- 
>     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
==============================================================================
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