Subject: make $50000 honestly
From: Manga
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 17:49:12 +1000
Take five minutes to read this and it WILL change your life.
I just read an article in an internet newsgroup describing
how
to make $50,000.00 in only one month from a $5.00
investment.
This is not a scam, nobody gets ripped off, the success
of this program depends on the number of people on the
internet.
This is one of the few situations where everyones get rich.
Not only does it work for me, it works for other folks as
well.
Markus Valppu says he made $57,883 in four weeks. Dave
Manning claims
he
made $53,664 in the same amount of time. Dan Shepstone says
it was only
$17,000 for him. Do I know these folks? No, but when I
read how they
say they did it, it made sense to me. Enough sense that I'm
taking a
similar chance with $5 of my own money. Not a big chance, I
admit--but
one with incredible potential, because $5 is all anyone ever
invests in
this system. Period. That's all Markus, Dave, or Dan
invested, yet
their $5 netted them tens of thousands of dollars each, in a
safe,
legal,
completely legitimate way. Here's how it works in 3 easy
steps:
STEP 1.
Invest your $5 by writing your name and address on five
seperate pieces
of paper along with the words, "PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR
MAILING LIST."
(In
this way, you're not just sending a dollar to someone;
you're paying
for
a legitimate service.) Fold a $1 bill, money order, or bank
note inside
each paper, and mail them by standard U. S. Mail to the
following five
addresses:
1. Chia Han Sin
1, Keris Drive,
Singapore 456964
2. Vic Williams
14307 Virtue Rd.
Lenoir City, Tn. 37772
3. Bill Brown
148 South Downlen #796
Beaumont, Tx. 77707
4. Marco Monet
409 N.E. 107 St.
Miami, Florida, USA 33161
5. Tony Chan
32 Romani Ave
Lane Cove 2066
NSW Australia
STEP 2.
Now remove the top name from the list, and move the
other names up.This way, #5 becomes #4 and so on.
Put your name in as the fifth one on the list.
STEP 3.
Post the article to at least 200 newsgroups. There are
at
least 17000 newsgroups at any given moment in time.
Try posting to as many newsgroups as you can.Remember
the more groups you post to, the more people will see
your
article and send you cash!
STEP 4.
You are now in business for yourself, and should start
seeing
returns within 7 to 14 days! Remember, the internet is
new
and huge. There is no way you can lose.
Now here is how and why this system works:
Out of every block of 200 posts I made, I got back 5
responses.
Yes, thats right,only 5. You make $5.00 in cash, not
checks or
money orders, but real cash with your name at #5.
Each additional person who sent you $1.00 now also makes
200
additional postings with your name at #4, 1000
postings.On
average then, 50 people will send you $1.00 with your
name at
#4,....$50.00 in your pocket!
Now these 50 new people will make 200 postings each with
your
name at #3 or 10,000 postings. Average return, 500
people= $500.
They make 200 postings each with your name at #2=
100,000
postings=5000 returns at $1.00 each=$5,000.00 in cash!
Finally, 5,000 people make 200 postings each with your
name at
#1 and you get a return of $50,000 before your name
drops off
the list.And that's only if everyone down the line makes
only 200
postings each! Your total income for this one cycle is
$55,000.
From time to time when you see your name is no longer on
the list,
you take the latest posting you can find and start all
over again.
So thats it. Pretty simple sounding stuff, huh? But
believe me, it
works. There are millions of people surfing the net
every day, all
day, all over the world. And 100,000 new people get on
the net
every day. You know that, you've seen the stories in the
paper.
So, my friend, read and follow the simple instructions
and play
fair. Thats the key, and thats all there is to it.Print
this out
right now so you can refer back to this article
easily.Try to keep
an eye on all the postings you made to make sure
everyone is
playing fairly. You know where your name should be. So
I,m asking
you to do this because it's good for you, good for me,
good
for everybody
REMEMBER....HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY.YOU DON'T
NEED TO CHEAT THE BASIC IDEA TO MAKE THE MONEY!
GOOD LUCK TO ALL,AND PLEASE PLAY FAIR AND YOU WILL
WIN AND MAKE SOME REAL INSTANT FREE CASH!
Subject: Re: Scientific American article re: ozone (was Re: Freon R12 is Safe)
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 07:31:35 GMT
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>In article <...> dietz@cin.net (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
> > David Burton wrote:
> > > I don't have the SA reference but check out:
> > > 1. What's So Bad About CFC's, Machine Design, 22 Oct 1993.
> > > 2. The $5 Trillion Mistake, Machine Design, 24 Jan 1994.
> > And after you have done that, revise (radically downward) your opinion
> > of Machine Design magazine.
> >
> > BTW, isn't a little strange to use a mech eng trade rag as a primary
> > source on atmospheric chemistry? Reviews of Geophysics would be
> > more appropriate, don't you think?
>As a mechanical engineering trade magazine _Machine Design_ might have
>a more accurate view of the costs that the CFC ban will impose than
>does _Reviews of Geophysics_, even though _Reviews of Geophysics_ is
>likely to be more accurate about the upper atmosphere.
" Bruce, you shouldn't be wasting your time with this"
" I know, but the article was cited, and so should be evaluated"
" OK, but no more than 30 minutes, it will rot your brain *and*
make you blind!"
" What's so bad about CFCs "
Ben Lieberman - Environmental Consultant
Machine Design. October 22, 1993 p.35-42
( with associated letters in January 10, 1994 issue, p.6-7. )
The article starts...
" In a triumph of hysteria over science, CFCs are being phased out
despite their usefulness and a lack of solid evidence proving they
are harmful "
Actually the article is full of the same old claims, it's hardly
fun reading it, as most have been debated here, but for the curious,
affer discussing Rowland and Molina's theory, he continues...
" This theory is based on mathematical models of the atmosphere
and several underlying assumptions, many of which are unproven or
have been proven false. The first of their incorrect assumptions
is that nearly all CFCs will eventually migrate into the stratosphere.
CFCs are broken down by heat and no doubt are being destroyed by
forest fires, lightning, and manmade sources such as powerplants
and blast furnaces [ how come he omitted barbeques and boy scout
campfires? ]. Phaseout proponents arbitrarily assume CFCs are not
exposed to temperatures high enough to destroy them.
Anaerobic bacteria have also been shown to break down CFCs. Such
bacteria have been found in river sediments, termite nests and
rice paddies. The extent of biological breakdown depends on the
CFC uptake rate into anaerobic environments, a subject yet to
be fully studied. Passive CFC sinks have also been found. Because
they are heavier than air, CFCs initially sink to the ground upon
release. Some remains permanently in the soil, while others
accumulate in plants. Other potentially huge CFC sinks are the
oceans. Phaseout proponents assume CFCs' low solubility precludes
them from being assimilated into seawater....
And so on. No references, just assertions.
" Volcanic eruptions regularly inject chlorine directly into the
stratosphere. A single large eruption is estimated to send the
equiovalent of one year's production of cFC's chlorine into the
atmosphere, with one third going directly into the stratosphere.
( The total chlorine from a year's production of CFCs is roughly
750,000 tonnes )"
On the "ozone hole".
" Moreover it wasn't " discovered " in 1985. Gordon Dobson, a
British scientist for whom the unit to measure ozone concentrations
was named, first recored the drop in ozone concentrations back in
1956. That was long before CFCs could have caused or contributed to
it "
Summarizing, he claims...
" Scientific evidence is building that the CFC-ozone-depletion
issue has been greatly exaggerated, both as to the probability
that depletion is occurring and that any humanm or environmental
damage is imminent. There is no clear evidence that the Earth's
Ozone layer has been depleted by CFCs or any other halogenated
compounds. No increase in UVB has occurred, without which the
postulated harm can not occur, and no credible evidence exists
that a future UVB increase is likely. No depletion-induced
environmental has been documented. The cost of compliance could
be exorbitant...."
etc etc. One letter in support ( all were ) had the following
" Second, at the poles, the Sun's UV rays graze the polar
atmospheres at a shallow angle. This severely reduces the energy
absorbed per unit area. More precisely, this energy per unit area
equals the energy expected at the equator multiplied by the sine
of the grazing angle. Thus, on the 21st of March and September,
when the sun is due east and west, the grazing angle and its sine
are zero, and no ozoe is generated. Consequently, is the Antartic
ozone "hole"due to CFC chemical depletion or to low ozone
generation because of the position of the sun. "
Well, time's up, and I'm not going to discuss the article. Virtually
all the claims ( not certain about solar angle ) have been discussed
here, and peer-reviewed scientific articles that refute most of the
claims are referenced in the Ozone Depletion FAQ. No verifiable
data is presented for the estimates of the cost of the ban. I'll try
and grab the second reference the poster cited, but I suspect it
will be little better. I highly recommend that the poster forget
the Machine Design articles and spend time reading the Ozone
Depletion FAQ, available by FTP from rtfm.mit.edu in the
pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/sci/environment directory
I should also note that our Machine Design subscription appears to
have been ended in early 1995, and comparing one of those issues
with our earliest issues in the 1940s clearly demonstrates why.
No peer-reviewed or referenced articles in the last issues, yet
the 1940s issues were full of them. The early issues had far fewer
advertisements, whereas the later issues are dominated by them.
Just to add a little science to this post, there is an interesting
prediction about the size of the 1996 Antartic ozone hole in the
12 September 1996 issue of Nature ( p.129 ). D.J.Hofmann of NOAA
details his theory, and then predicts " Combined with higher
levels of halogens in the global stratosphere, this should result
in a deeper South Pole ozone hole in 1996 than appeared in 1995,
by as much as 10 DU in the late September-early October average
total column ozone value. " My only comment is that I wish more
scientists would take the time to read Edward R.Tufte's " The
Visual Display of Quantititative Information ". The graphs in
Hofmann's article are appalling - you have to read a section of
text larger than the graphs to ascertain what they represent.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: MTBers Trashing One of the Last Virgin Forests in Iowa!
From: se93sjp0@exeter.ac.uk (S.J.Pratt)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:58:24 GMT
Mike Vandeman writes:
> You can walk, can't you? No reason to rip up the trails & destroy everyone
> else's experience, as well as drive out the wildlife that you came to see.
Walking rips up trails. You state below that both cycling and hiking
damage the environment.
> - Yes, the forests are there - flora and fauna - to provide and maintain a
> - well balanced ecological cycle. But they're also there to be enjoyed.
>
> Says who? I don't think the wildlife would agree with you. From their point of view,
> I am sure they would rather be left alone. That is why most of them leave as soon as
> they see/hear us coming.
Mike, someone or something put us on a planet, and the fact that we
are capable of highly intelligent thought and mass communication does
not mean that we have to kow-tow to every other living species.
> You are begging the question. Who gave you the right to "use and enjoy"
> them?
Who the hell are you to take it away? My conscience gives me the right
to use and enjoy them, because I know that when I go ther I shut gates,
I never leave litter, I try not to skid, I slow down when there are
deer, horses, cows or so on at the edge of the trail... I repect the
countryside, because I appreciate that everyone else has the right to
use and enjoy it as well, and I shouldn't trash it for them. You seem
to interpret 'use and enjoy' as 'abuse and destroy,' maybe you should
get a dictionary.
> Probably. The Dutch have destroyed most of their natural areas already, & are
> ready to do the same to others'.
If I recall, wasn't the Netherlands underwater at one point? Hell, they
must have killed some fish and stuff.
> - To my mind
>
> Of what value is your mind, if you aren't willing to learn, e.g. by seeing things
> from the point of view of wildlife.
Of course, Mike, you _are_ the wildlife aren't you? Are you some kind
of 'chosen one,' a missionary sent by Mother Nature to quell the evil
forces of man?
> this Dutch system is the ideal way to maintain forests which are
> - used by groups such as mountain bikers. Those who use the trails pay to keep
> - them maintained... it's simple and effective.
>
> Effective in maintaining the trails, maybe, but not in keeping people out of
> wildlife habitat. You are missing the point.
No Mike, I reckon _you're_ missing the point. The absolute and total
exclusion of humans from wildlife areas is pointless.
> I know. But you have no knowledge to back up your belief, which is based on
> complete ignorance of biology. You can find the information you need on my
> web page.
I don't need a grounding in biology. This is ecology we're talking.
> Humans also are capable of compassion & altruism, or we would have NO parks.
> If not, we might as well all commit suicide, because we are WORTHLESS.
I think anyone who has followed Mike's threads will enjoy that last
statement.
We have parks because we enjoy flora and fauna. But surely parks are
dubious things, Mike? The sort of contol which is exerted over a
habitat in that situation must surely grate with you?
> - This is questionable, surely? There is a suggestion here that hikers cause
> - far less damage to the environment that bikers...
>
> That missed the point. Nobody is trying to decide whether to allow hikers OR
> bikers, but hikers alone, vs. hikers PLUS bikers. The former is obviously
> preferable.
No, again, I _didn't_ miss my point. _You_ missed _my_ point: that
it is absolutely _not_ obvious that the former is preferable. I have
seen no cast iron evidence from you, all I have to judge from is my
experience, which is that, yes, in some areas and some weather
conditions, bikes cause more erosion than hikers (though I also note
that these areas are often areas which hikers don't use -- hence the
erosion of the bike would of course be prevalent); and yes, there
is a small minority of bikers who are ignorant of hikers and the
environment. BUT I have also seen much more erosion from hikers, and
the 'ignorant' element in hiking is both proportionally and absolutely
greater than in mountain biking. The latter I would regard as 'obvious'
myself but I wouldn't expect you to see it as such, not being so
presumptious myself.
> I see a lot more erosion damage from a few bikers, than from dozens of hikers.
> Bikers also travel a lot farther & make a lot more noise.
The former point I dispute, as above. Bikes travel further... so
what? This is entirely irrelevant when we are discussing the total
erosion, where all you can see is how much damage any one trail has
suffered.
By the way, have you considered this: (there is always a process
by which erosion takes place, and this is one process which is
common, although exactly _how_ common is both debatable and of
great significance in the whole erosion argument) that areas can
be eroded by 'obviously preferable' hikers (largely due to numbers)
to a point where further erosion occurs at a vastly increased
rate (eg top surfaces such as grass or mulch being removed from a
trail). Perhaps if this had not happened then the bike tracks
would be unnoticeable.
And one thing I would love to know, is how do you feel about trail
erosion caused by indigenous fauna? In the South of England there
is the New Forest, where I went cycling for several years. However,
most of the erosion there is caused not by hikers, nor bikers, but
by the horses and ponies which live in the Forest.
> Cyclists greatly increase the number of people who can access an area.
HOW greatly, Mike? What data do you have for the exact numbers of
trail users of each denomination? My experience tells me that
hikers vastly outnumber cyclists, hence my arguments about the
relative ersion contributions.
> This is irrelevant. BOTH are harmful, as I have said many times, so we should
> reduce the numbers of visitors, by not allowing biking. YOUR proposal is to
> increase the number of people. That makes no sense, given the degree to which
> you have already destroyed your environment, and are continuing to do so.
No no no no NO MIKE! My point was that by weight of numbers, hikers
are more detrimental to the environment than bikers. That is not
irrelevant: if you think that it is then you nullify your whole
argument because you lose track of the greater contributor. Yes, my
proposal is that the number of people accessing the countryside
should be increased. Why should I say that? NOT because I enjoy the
countryside: the major part of me is selfish and wishes that only I
was allowed access, so that I could enjoy it alone. But I acknowledge
that everyone has the right to enjoy it, so I have to share it. Call
me a lefty but things usually work out better sharing them, right?
And while I do argue that the number should be increased, I also
argue that better awareness should be both taught and enforced.
Litter-dropping should be a spot-fine offence, as should leaving
gates open, or going off-limits in restricted wildlife areas.
> > Please lay to rest the concept that wildlife cannot cope with intrusion;
> > this is nonsense: the ecological systems involved are staggeringly complex
> > and effective.
>
> You need to learn something about biology! This is pure nonsense. Holland is
> a good example of environmental destruction, including wildlife. How many species
> have been driven extinct there? Find out, before you continue making no sense.
OK, I don't know how many species have bocme extinct there. My
apologies, I am an engineer not an ecologist. However I do have
good experience of countryside where human intrusion is common.
One good example is a deer sanctuary in the New Forest, where
access is available to pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists.
The deer, whose population was previously dwindling in the Forest,
are now thriving. Go explain.
> There can be few people who doubt that areas rich in wildlife
> > are worth preserving; however there is no reason why we should feel forced
> > to put it in a box and never touch it.
>
> If that is what is needed in order to save it, yes we should!
Mike, you have just confirmed the opinion which the vast majority
of this newsgroup has of you.
What you have to understand is that this is an outlandish viewpoint.
You may not see it as such, but by definition the fact that most
people consider it so means that it _is_ outlandish. Saving forests
is a commendable cause. Fighting road construction where appropriate
is in my opinion a worthy cause also. But you must moderate your
stance before anyone, not just those 'ignorant mountain bikers' will
fight with you at those meetings.
> So you believe that nature exists only to serve humans?!!! Why don't you make
> this explicit? I thought such thinking went out with the "Flat Earthers".
No. You reckon every other species could live on unfiltered air?
I believe nature exists to serve every species, and that includes
humans. Derive from that what you will.
Stu.
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:06:47 -0500
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> Leonard Evens writes:
>
> > Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> > >
> > > Argh. The climate system seems to have recovered stably, and
> > > repeatedly to something like its initial regime, after large
> > > (dT > 1 K) sudden (t = 1-3 years) radiative perturbations,
> > > namely VEI 6-7 events. I'm contending that this is evidence
> > > of some stability, as one might expect from Le Chatelier's
> > > principle, and the absence of instability to high frequency
> > > perturbations. I also noted that this is not an absolute
> > > stability, there is evidence that sudden dT > 10 K will
> > > cause a climate shift.
>
> > It seems to me that you are engaging in argument by analogy. True,it
> > is scientificly informed analogy, but unless you can present some more
> > detailed argument on the basis of Le Chatelier's Principle, what you say
> > is just so much `academic tea' speculation. Note that the IPCC and the
>
> Funny, I thought I was engaged in an argument based on
> what has actually happened. Namely transient forcing of
> the climate which did not lead to onset of instabilities
> (while simultaneously rather carefully noting that there
> were instances of "large enough" transients that did
> trigger instabilties or state changes).
> Or would you like an actual citation of transient volcanic
> events that lead to global radiative forcing larger than
> the current anthropic perturbations? ie do you doubt that
> they actually occured?
>
> Of course the response to rapid or slow ramping will be
> different from the response to sudden cooling followed
> by slow warming. That's why I'm curious about the warming
> transients in the historical record.
>
> > climatologists they quote have engaged in actual research on these
> > matters which has been published in peer reviewed journals. If you can
> > present a well reasoned argument that the climate is basically stable
> > and impervious to perturbations, even large perturbations, which you
> > seem to have done the last time you raised this point, perhaps, as a
> > practicing scientist you should submit that paper to a peer reviewed
> > journal.
>
> Not everything I do has to be submitted to a peer reviewed
> journal. I happen to enjoy "academic tea" (well, I prefer coffee)
> speculation. I'm also the person who first (as I far as I could tell)
> raised the issue of Atlantic Conveyor instability _on this newsgroup_
> as a major possible climate change hazard.
>
>
If I have time I will respond to your posting at greater length since
it raises several interesting points. However, let me point out that
the issue of the thermohaline circulation and the possibility of a shift
to a different regime fairly rapidly has been discussed in this
newsgroups repeatedly for a very long time. I don't want to get
engaged in a priority battle in an informal news group, but I can assure
you I have been aware of this question for at least three years and I
have repeatedly mentioned it. In case you are interested in such
matters, you should look at what Wallace Broeker has had to say in
Nature and more recently in Consequences. Michael Tobis has also
discussed this issue repeatedly.
I also am fully aware of the Mt Pinatubo eruption and the fact that it
lowered average global temperatures by about 1 deg c (if I remember
correctly), and that the effect was pretty much what the models
predicted. It damped out because the straospheric dust settled,
not because of Le Chatelier's Principle. If in fact it is possible
that fairly small perturbations could shift the climate system to a
different equilibrium through changes in thermohaline circulation, we
are more likely to find out about such matters by studying the
literature, including the IPCC Reports than by engaging in idle
speculation. In fact Manabe, et. al. ran a computer experiment on that
matter at least two years ago, and I suspect there have been several
other such experiments done more recently. If I remember correctly
Manabe, et. al. ran a steady increase, according to one of the usual
scenarios in CO_2 concentration and followed what happened for something
like 400 years. They found that the thermohaline circulation decreased
but then eventually reasserted itself. Of course, that is hardly the
last word on the matter. Right now models which couple oceans and
atmosphere are incomplete and have some serious problems. So one would
have to take anything they say about the matter with a grain of salt.
However, we don't have much choice in the matter because such models are
the only theoretical tools available to investigate such matters in
depth. Back of the envelope, or even back of the head, calculations
aren't going to do it.
I apologize that my response was not well directed. It referred not
only to the posted article but to a previous article in which you
claimed that Richard Lindzen's criticism of the usual treatment of water
vapor feedback was just part of a general application of Le Chatelier's
Principle, or something to that effect. I still don't see why that has
anything to do with the matter. I asked you to explain that in some
detail and as far as I can tell, you still haven't done so. Maybe I am
just stupid or ignorant of basic science, but I still think your
original comment about Lindzen confused the matter and didn't do justice
to what he actually did.
Also, I don't see what your opinions about whether change is good or bad
have to do with the matter.
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: TENnet 通訊錄
From: jjkao@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw (Jehng-Jung Kao)
Date: 23 Sep 1996 21:38:37 +0800
Dear netter,
Sorry to post such a Chinese message here.
Only this time. Won't do so again. (well... may be not, but at least
not very often,:-).
This message is posted only for any Chinese who is
from Taiwan and is now working/studying in environmental areas.
| Jehng-Jung Kao, Prof. Email: jjkao@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
| Inst. of Environ. Engrg. Tel/Fax: 5731869/5725958
| National Chiao Tung Univ., 75 Po-Ai St., Hsinchu, Taiwan 30090, ROC.
| http://green.ev.nctu.edu.tw/~jjkao
--------------------
各位TENnet網路小組成員,
因上週在中興環工系所開會,提到通訊錄的程式與管理.
因以前的通信錄是人工管,沒有人手做此事.所以改為以程式自動管理.
請參見以下FAQ之說明. 歡迎您提供您的個人資料加入此通信錄.
也歡迎國外的朋友加入.
此信息亦 post 至 tw.environment, sci.environment, soc.culture.taiwan.
-- jjkao
------------------
如何 提供/更改/刪除/尋找 TENnet 的通信錄資料?
[提供/更改:個人]
若是TENnet 的機器上的users 不必做此動作,TENnet 會自動每個月
自動更新一次;
若是個人,請寄一個email 至 ph@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
Subject: +
格式請依照以下二種格式任選一種 (建議採用第二種)
[第一種]
中文姓名
英文姓名
單位及職稱
辦公室電話
辦公室傳真 [可省略]
家中電話[可省略]
其他email 住址[可省略]
辦公室住址
家中住址[可省略]
URL住址[可省略]
Expiration date [這行一定要給,若不給,則假設為一年]
若是永遠的,請打 never
[第二種]
即TENnet一般用的4/5行簽名檔(~/.Sig 執行 gochange .Sig)
加上 Expiration date
例:
| Jehng-Jung Kao, Prof. Email: jjkao@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
| Inst. of Environ. Engrg. Tel/Fax: +886-3-5731869/5725958
| National Chiao Tung Univ., 75 Po-Ai St., Hsinchu, Taiwan 30090, ROC.
| 高正忠 (教授) 交大環工所 新竹博愛街75號 (Chinese)
| http://green.ev.nctu.edu.tw/~jjkao
never
所以個人資料至少有四或五行
Expiration date 這行請用 mm:dd:year 格式來提供
若是永遠的,請打 never
例如: 07:31:1996 表示1996年07月31日將過期
若您要更改資料時,可隨時重寄一次即可. 但一定要用同一個
email address,否則您需要先用刪除指令.
[提供/更改:團體]
一般不希望以此方式來提供,但有部分單位可能已有內建的通信錄可轉出,
這時可用此處所述的方式來提供
請依以下格式建一個檔:
每一個人的資料,其格式如下
第一行為email address,例如: environ@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
注意,第一行請不要打入任何其他資料.
之後數行為個人資料,請參閱上述說明
最後一行為 Expiration date,請參閱上述說明
... (重複,直到每一個人或單位的資料都輸進去).
(若有人沒有email住址,請設一個可通知到他的email 住址)
將上述檔案email 至 ph@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
Subject:+group
[刪除]
若為個人,則同樣地,寄個email 至 ph@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
Subject:-
若為團體,則必需是同一個人,寄個email 至 ph@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
Subject:-group
信件中每一行輸入一個email address 即可.
[尋找]
請寄一個email 至 ph@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
有三種格式
Subject: ?keyword
Subject: ?email_address
Subject: ?@hostname
keyword 可以為任何字,但只找中文姓名,英文姓名及email 住址中有出現的.
email_address 為 Email 住址
hostname 為機器的名稱 (例: green.ev.nctu.edu.tw)
[自動更新系統安裝說明]
TENnet 的工作站會每月自動更新其上的個人資料(有存在 ~/.Sig 者)
所以在TENnet工作站的人不必寄,系統會自動更新.
若您的工作站也希望納入自動更新系統.但不是TENnet系統的工作站時,請
參考以下步驟安裝
(0) 您的工作站上必需有裝 perl.
(1) 請由 ftp://green.ev.nctu.edu.tw/ev/local/bin/ 之下取得
tennet
localbin.h
(2) mv localbin.h /usr/local/include/localbin.h
mv tennet /usr/local/bin/tennet
chmod +x /usr/local/bin/tennet
(3) 更改 /usr/lib/aliases, 加入以下一行
tennet: "| /usr/local/bin/tennet"
上面之行tennet 之前不要有任何空白,然後以superuser 執行
以下指令
/usr/lib/sendmail -bi
(4) 然後寄一個email 給 environ@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw 告訴我們
您的工作站的 hostname,我們將會把您的工作站納入自動更新的系統中.
(5) 以後只要您的工作站上有任何user有建立~/.Sig 即會自動將其納入.
[以下僅供一些TENnet 工作站的人看]
TENnet 的工作站會每月自動更新其上的個人資料(有存在 ~/.Sig 者)
所以您不必寄,系統會自動更新.
若您希望您的個人資料能自動放入
TENnet (台灣環境資訊網路) 的通信錄中.
請在 green/poai3/ev001/ev004/ev009 上執行
gochange .Sig
當您執行的此指令後,以後TENnet 的自動管理員會為您自動更新您最新的
資料(預計每個月做一次). 您不必做任何動作.
若您不希望提供您的資料,請把您的主錄下的 .Sig 去掉(rm -f ~/.Sig).
這個檔與cpine 無關,若您希望cpine 有簽名檔.
請另外執行
gochange .signature
以前的 gochange 內定是自動產生 .signature
但有很多人不喜歡自動加簽名檔. 所以目前是選項,若您要用,請執行
上述指令.
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:27:31 GMT
In article <525dhd$j8o@ktk2.smartt.com>, David Wei wrote:
>In message - hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>writes:
>
>:>Given that there are NO such flywheel systems in vehicular use except
>:>for a very few prototypes, I sure would like to see the data to support
>:>your statement that flywheels last at least 10 years and some are
>:>designed to last 30 years or more.
>
>Read Discover Magazine August 1996......
I did. There was no data. Claims of the manufacturer/inventor are not
data. Only prototypes were involved. We need data supprting the claim
for mass production items (and I mean *mass*, productioin, wiht 16 of
the things in every car).
>:>Of course, the flywheel itself is a pretty inert object, so I suppose
>:>we need to be talking about flywheel _systems_.
>
>The only thing that's get moved a LOT is the Carbon fiber disc, and you know
>anything spinning at 100,000RPM will not really be inert at all...... IF they
>fail due to over rev, you get a explosion..... the disc surface flex and
>twist.... And the coils, MotorGenerator don't move, magnetic bearing don't
>move, the sillicon chip don't move.... lots of the thing don't move, except
>the disc.....
Um. Magnetic bearings DO move. That is, the stator and rotor move with
respect to each other. That is, in fact, one of the problems to
be conquered in mass production.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Solution to Vandeman.
From: 2bits@wco.com (Todd O.)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:34:58 GMT
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:53:52 -0700, Mike Vandeman
wrote:
> I'm the one having most of the fun, here.
Mike, I'm glad you feel that way. It bothers me to hold up my end of
our entertaining exhanges only to have you go into hiding just as we're
getting to the good stuff. For instance, I posted several articles in
mid-April that were full of questions for you, but you disappeared as
soon as I posted them. I was very disappointed, but now that you're
back and having fun, perhaps we can pick up where we left off. Just for
fun, why don't you review the following repost? If you are short on
time, please be sure to take in my humble conclusion and post one of
your convincing replies.
Have fun, Mikey! I've got several more when you're ready for them.
===============================
From: 2bits@wco.com (Todd O.)
Newsgroups:
rec.bicycles.off-road,sci.environment,ca.environment,rec.animals.wildlife
Subject: Re: Vandeman's Recreation Kills Wildlife! (was Re: "Harmless"
Recreation Kills Wildlife!)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:00:54 GMT
Message-ID: <3172c5ed.21756781@news.wco.com>
On 14 Apr 1996 16:22:45 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 2bits@wco.com (Todd O.) wrote:
> >On 12 Apr 1996 04:36:36 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> >
> >> Todd "2bits" is pretending not to understand that a little of
> >> something (experiencing wilderness) can be a good thing while
> >> too much (enough to drive out much of the wildlife) is bad. I
> >> guess you think that NO amount of mountain biking can do any
> >> harm....
> >
> >No, Mikey , I was just pretending to take your
> >statements seriously. Here, I'll do it again just for fun.
>
> As usual, you attach the messenger, since you can't refute my post
> with any facts or logic.
I did refute your post with a simple fact: I was not pretending not to
understand that a little of something can be a good thing. See that
first word in my reply? It means I have declared that you are factually
incorrect in this context.
> I am glad that you mountain bikers continue
> proving me right, over and over!
Here we go again--more hypocritical and bigoted remarks about mountain
bikers. Let me refresh your memory, Mikey. It was just a few days ago
that you wrote:
# It sounds like you almost got the point: yes, there is no point in
# distinguishing MTBers from other humans
# . . .
> It is obvious to anyone watching
> this that you are threatened by my information on the harm done by
> mountain biking, but since you can't refute it, you try to shut up
> and intimidate the messenger (with ZERO SUCCESS, of course). Just
Uh, Mike, maybe you missed it, but in my initial reply--the one that you
acknowledged reading by lamely asserting I was pretending not to
understand that some wildlife viewing could be a good thing--I carefully
quoted several citations that you had referenced and pointed out that
they indicated your own hiking and wildlife viewing poses a threat to
wildlife and biodiversity. I also pointed out your assertions that
mountain biking stands out as such a threat were conspicuously
unsupported by your references to an apparent authority on the subject.
On that basis, I have dismissed your unsupported assertions. Sorry if
you find that intimidating, but that's life. I am not threatened by
your unsupported assertions, I am humored by them, and even more humored
by your attempts to defend them without addressing the criticisms I have
leveled at them.
> keep up the name-calling -- it shows everyone exactly where you
> are coming from!
What name calling?
> >Please explain why human exploration of wilderness areas is a good
> >thing, and how much of it is good.
>
> Obviously, SOME exposure to nature is needed, so that children
> can learn that nature is better than our concrete world. EQUALLY
Yes, I seem to recall a paper of yours in which you promoted wilderness
exploration for the benefit of children. Then again, I recall that you
once wrote:
# Since we know so little about other species (and even ourselves), it
# is safer assuming that ALL species are "sensitive" to human presence.
# Obviously, endangered species are among those, but almost ALL species
# avoid contact with humans, and thus probably don't like having us
# around. You don't hear too many people admit this (even scientists,
# who are themselves one of the impacts), but it is nevertheless true.
# It would be nice if people would be honest once in a while....
This suggests a dilemma: should we place the educational value of
wilderness exploration above the negative (and some would say,
"trivial") impacts to wildlife that you say we should expect as a
result? As luck would have it, you seemed to have answered that
question in another post of the same day (7/31/95):
# Trivial to whom? Not to the wildlife that are killed, or crowded off
# their preferred habitat, due to the influx of more humans. Why take
# the human point of view, when that is exactly the problem? What is
# important is the view of the wildlife that are affected by you.
I understand this to mean that you do not really believe that a little
wilderness exploration or wildlife viewing could be a good thing, your
recent contradiction of that notion notwithstanding. I will allow that
the above statement does leave some wiggle room. However, the following
quote of yours, written a couple of weeks later, leaves no room to doubt
that you believe (1) there is no evidence supporting your new found
position that a little wilderness visiting by humans is good, and (2)
that the likely net results of any amount of such visitation will be
negative:
# In other words, there is absolutely no proof that getting people into
# the wilderness results in any net gain. I would say that it is more
# likely that there is a big net LOSS.
You have contradicted yourself. At least some of what you have declared
in very strong terms is wrong, perhaps all of it is. Which positions do
you care to abandon as falsehoods? Or would you prefer to bolster your
reputation as a (self-defined--see the last quote) hypocrite?
> obvious to most people is the fact that too much human access
> drives away most of the wildlife and destroys the very things
> that make natural areas so attractive to us.
But how much is too much? You've already said we should always assume
that all species are sensitive to the mere presence of humans. Is it
really your position that we should continue some level of human
intrusion upon sensitive wildlife species, and that doing so is "good"?
I wouldn't have guessed were it not for the fact that you continue to
pursue such intrusions yourself despite many empty claims of favoring a
ban on hiking and all other means of visiting wilderness.
> Where we differ is
> in the fact that you don't recognize the latter fact, or (more
I've never denied that at some point the level of human visitation of
wildlife habitat can disrupt or even drive out the wildlife.
> likely) don't care. You want to be able to mountain bike off-
> road with no limits. This is tantamount to signing a death
> warrant on nature.
I've never advocated mountain biking, hiking, wildlife viewing, boating,
etc., without limits. In fact, as I posted a few days ago, I am willing
to take the same stand that you have on the issue: I am willing to
devote most of the Earth to exclusive wildlife habitat so long as I can
continue to use the small fraction of open space that I prefer in a
manner that is pleasing to me. That may leave others with no place to
go, and it may mean that many or most people will have to be banned from
doing their thing in the places I want to visit, but that's no sacrifice
to me, so what do I care?
> > Also, be sure to explain how you can
> >justify a little bit of wilderness visitation by humans when it is your
> >position that all of the Earth has been stolen from wildlife. Is your
> >point something along the lines of a little bit of breaking and entering
> >is good, but too much is bad?
>
> A little exposure to wilderness is good (for us, but not for the
> wildlife who live there), and, yes, too much is bad for us, as
> well as wildlife.
You didn't answer my question. I asked for your justification of
wilderness visitation, which you have declared to be bad for wildlife,
in light of the fact that you also claim we have no right to visit such
habitat at all. If you missed the point, perhaps your own words will
bring it into focus for you:
# You are wrong! That is the HUMAN point of view: that we "own" every
# square inch of the Earth, and therefore can do what we want with it.
# We stole ALL of our lands from wildlife and native Americans. They
# have first priority on it, especially wildlife, who simply cannot
# protect itself from us. Wildlife should have first choice to public
# lands.
When is the last time you asked wildlife for permission before setting
out on a hike on "their" land? That is a rhetorical question, in case
you are confused. To help you beter understand my point, here is how
you once expressed it:
# As usual, "fairness" is defined only from the humans' point of view.
# What is fair to the wildlife that live there? Obviously, if they
# don't want humans around (who would?!), you are out! How can you
# JUSTIFY stealing wildlife habitat?
Well, Mikey, how do YOU justify it?
> No, there is no contradiction. My position has been consistent
> from the beginning. You are just pretending (very convincingly)
> to be too stupid to understand it.
Ah, that must be it. Silly me. Here I thought it was clear that you
were just contradicting yourself right and left. I suppose I should
have realized that I just wan't smart enough to understand that the
obvious contradictions in your stated positions are all perfectly
consistent with one another, but that I am just not intelligent enough
to understand how that could possibly be true. Damn! I thought you
were just being a hypocrite by pointing out that hiking harms wildlife
yet continuing to hike rather than imposing a ban on your hiking, for
example. Well, I give up! Please explain the hidden meaning of this
quote of yours, which I have obviously misunderstood:
# Saying that hiking is destructive, without asking that it be banned,
# means that you don't care about the environment. The usual name for
# such behaviour is "hypocrisy".
Todd Ourston
Marin County, California
--
I am working on preserving mtb-oriented cyberspace that is
off-limits to Vandeman ("pure mtb discussion"). Want to help?
(I spent the previous 2+ years fighting Vandeman's unwelcome
disruptions.)
http://www.cycling.org/mailing.lists/mtb/mailing.list.info
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
From: Robert F. Heeter
Date: 23 Sep 1996 14:50:26 GMT
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer: While this section is still evolving, it should
be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute
it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A. Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
This file is intended to indicate
(A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists,
(B) what it discusses,
(C) how to find it on the Internet, and
(D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
research. Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which
explains much of the jargon of the field. The Conventional
Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide
answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions
about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and
other resources for those interested in learning more. The
Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
(primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and
muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion). I
have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
as possible, while still covering everything I felt was
important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately). Hopefully it
will not be too hard to use. Part (C) below describes how to find
the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:
This is an evolving document, not a completed work. As such,
it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.
This document should not be distributed for profit, especially
without my permission. Individual sections may have additional
restrictions. In no case should my name, the revision date,
or this paragraph be removed.
- Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
Part 1/3 - Title Page
Table of Contents
How to Find the FAQ
Current Status of the FAQ project
Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
Part 0/26 - Intro
Part 1/26 - A
Part 2/26 - B
[ ... ]
Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C. How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
### The FAQ about the FAQ:
### How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
(A) World-Wide Web: http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
(B) FTP: rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers,
sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to
find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading
sci.physics.fusion periodically. (Please note that not
all sections are completed yet.) Because the FAQ is quite
large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official"
distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers,
and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by
waiting long enough.
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
Several Web versions now exist.
The "official" one is currently at
We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server
() soon.
There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions
from the newsgroup postings. I haven't hunted all of these down
yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
automated software from the newsgroup postings. In particular
we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary,
so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
(Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP
from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu. The
address for this archive is:
Please note that sections which are listed above as having
multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are
stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro.
Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
given above is the easiest to use.
There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
many of which carry the fusion FAQ. These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the
rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message
to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
in it (cut-and-paste if you like):
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
The mail server will send these two introductory
files to you. You can then use the outline (part2)
to determine which files you want. You can receive
any or all of the remaining files by sending another
message with the same general format, if you substitute
the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the
part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer:
Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
Sections which are still being drafted are only
posted to sci.physics.fusion. If there's a section
you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know
what's up with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
being written. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
remain to be completed.
Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and
confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on
international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
*** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
especially aesthetic) exists now. Would like to add graphics and
cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and
to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).
* 3) Nuts & Bolts -
I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the
rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
# Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
# Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
Technical Information.
# Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
# World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
# Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
# Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists,
scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out
what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet
soup." Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those
"trivial" words we use every day. The glossary and FAQ should be
useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences. Students will
also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left. I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
gopher cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
anonymous FTP cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
mail-server listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be get avail faqs
Canada
------
gopher jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
anonymous FTP grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
gopher gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
mail server listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
gopher gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
gopher.uni-paderborn.de
mail server archive-server@Germany.EU.net
ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
World Wide Web http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
FSP ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
gopher index gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
anonymous ftp hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
anonymous ftp mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
anonymous ftp ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
gopher gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
mail server mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
anonymous ftp ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
anonymous ftp ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
anonymous UUCP chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
mail server archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
telnet nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
anonymous ftp ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
mail server ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
anonymous ftp src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
FSP src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
gopher src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
mail server ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
telnet src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
World Wide Web http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
anonymous ftp ftp.uu.net:/usenet
World Wide Web http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html
Subject: Re: Safety or Sanity (was the Rusland Beeches, England)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:33:42 GMT
Nick Eyre wrote for all to see:
>In article <3245b25d.7913087@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
> writes
>
>>Since the government supports many more of these researchers, why do
>>you single out business. I would think you would be inclined to say
>>"that is why government is so powerful", since most of this research
>>is supported by the government.
>
>You seem to think Government is immune from all business influence.
>This is implausible, certainly in both your country and mine.
I am sorry if I gave that impression, I cannot imagine how. I was
commenting on the relative power of government and business. In the
US, government spends a Billion dollars every six hours, 24 hours a
day and 6 days a week. If that is not power superior to any
corporation, I would have difficulty definig it.
As for the UK, I was recently readin a biography of a UK government
official, and was so struck by one comment I remember it til this day.
The comment, from one high official to another was, "There is no way
we can do this unless we raise the price of prescription drugs by 5%".
Now that is power! One group of officials, sitting in an office, and
deciding how much the whole country will pay for their prescriptions!
Irrespective of the manufacturer, the demand, any substitutes, and the
consumer, no way! I don't care if your drugs are cheaper, that is
still raw power.
>>The IPPC report is simply the last in a series of reports, each has
>>generally had a smaller and smaller prediction of temperature
>>increases. I see no reason to believe that has stopped.
>
>I have already pointed out that this is a bad argument for continuing to
>pollute. IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity are unchanged.
From what? There are several. If you stated which, I am sorry, I
missed it.
>It is
>scenarios for emissions which have been reduced, but this is because
>more people are recognising the case for reducing emissions, not because
>the science has changed. Of course there is less risk if emissions are
>reduced - that is precisely the case for doing it.
>
>>The IPPC
>>report says 0.5 to 3 C in 100 years. To me, this does not constitute
>>an emergency.
>
>No, but it might seem different if you lived in Bangladesh.
But I do not, nor do you. I don't live in Holland either. If you are
assuming that 0.5 C will cause an increase in the level of the sea,
sufficient to drown Bangladesh, I have not seen how that conclusion
was arrived at. Was it in the IPPC report?
Regards, Harold
------
"By September 1979, all important life in the sea was extinct.
Large areas of coastline had to be evacuated... A pretty grim
scenario. Unfortunately were a long way into it already...based
on projections of trends already appearing..."
- Paul Ehrilich, Environmental Handbook, 1970, pp 174