* Ada and the NMD @ 2001-09-06 4:53 Al Christians 2001-09-06 10:27 ` Larry Kilgallen ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Al Christians @ 2001-09-06 4:53 UTC (permalink / raw) For all the commiseration about insufficient interest at large in Ada, there is a development looming that could possibly remedy that in a single stroke: the National Missile Defense plan. This is a system so preposterous that one can only think about doing it with absurdly great software. Is Ada the way to go for such a grandiose project? Is anyone lobbying to make Ada the "Official Programming Language of the NMD"? Why or why not? If the software for this project gets done primarily in non-Ada, then we can suspect that Ada's time has passed. If it gets done primarily in Ada, then the anemia of interest in Ada will be cured instanter by a gross infusion of pelf. Al ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 4:53 Ada and the NMD Al Christians @ 2001-09-06 10:27 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-06 11:55 ` Florian Weimer 2001-09-06 11:13 ` Preben Randhol ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B970152.4AC6C6E3@PublicPropertySoftware.com>, Al Christians <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com> writes: > For all the commiseration about insufficient interest at large in > Ada, there is a development looming that could possibly remedy that > in a single stroke: the National Missile Defense plan. This is a > system so preposterous that one can only think about doing it with > absurdly great software. Is Ada the way to go for such a grandiose > project? Is anyone lobbying to make Ada the "Official Programming > Language of the NMD"? Why or why not? So as not to be associated with the failure of an impossible mission ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 10:27 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 11:55 ` Florian Weimer 2001-09-06 18:03 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2001-09-06 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > So as not to be associated with the failure of an impossible mission ? Participation in the NMD project is a win/win situation. If the system successfully stops an attack, this will greatly increase your reputation. If the system fails, well, most of the people who could criticize you are either dead or otherwise occupied for a longer time, so this isn't a problem either. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 11:55 ` Florian Weimer @ 2001-09-06 18:03 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-07 19:31 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87lmjsttxa.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > >> So as not to be associated with the failure of an impossible mission ? > > Participation in the NMD project is a win/win situation. If the > system successfully stops an attack, this will greatly increase your > reputation. If the system fails, well, most of the people who could > criticize you are either dead or otherwise occupied for a longer time, > so this isn't a problem either. You take only the subset of "failure" involved with actually attempting to intercept a missile. If the system dies from budget overrun and failure to produce a working model, Ada suffers the reputation as a major part of code bloat that keeps things from being accomplished. Look at the Arianne, were Ada gets blamed for managers making a cost-cutting decision. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 18:03 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-07 19:31 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2001-09-07 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > If the system dies from budget overrun and failure to produce a working > model, Ada suffers the reputation as a major part of code bloat that > keeps things from being accomplished. I don't think this is a risk---think of the Concorde effect, and this project is far more ambitious and is likely to receive strong government backing over the next few years. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 4:53 Ada and the NMD Al Christians 2001-09-06 10:27 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 11:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 13:57 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 12:27 ` Marc A. Criley ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 21:53:38 -0700, Al Christians wrote: > For all the commiseration about insufficient interest at large in > Ada, there is a development looming that could possibly remedy that > in a single stroke: the National Missile Defense plan. This is a > system so preposterous that one can only think about doing it with > absurdly great software. Is Ada the way to go for such a grandiose > project? Is anyone lobbying to make Ada the "Official Programming > Language of the NMD"? Why or why not? If the software for this The problem with this Star Wars project is that it does not have a good reputation outside of USA. Neither do Mr Bush for that matter. One of the new things I read is that the missiles, if shot down, will fall over Europe. Not something we are very happy about I might say... So as I see it it won't be good PR for Ada to be connected to NMD. Just see how people try to use the Ariane case to blame Ada. Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 11:13 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 13:57 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 15:11 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn9petoj.bl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol says... >The problem with this Star Wars project is that it does not have a good >reputation outside of USA. Neither do Mr Bush for that matter. One of You seem to think things are different here... >the new things I read is that the missiles, if shot down, will fall over >Europe. Not something we are very happy about I might say... My understanding is that most of the ICBMs that the US and Russia had were aimed at each other over the North Pole. If it "lands" anywhere ("lands" /= "explodes", btw), it would probably be in Canada. Some of the reactions I hear from abroad about this are almost as silly as the Star Wars program itself. Almost. There *are* good reasons for being against it, but no one seems very interested in those reasons. A lot of it reminds me of the protests at Cape Kenedy when they were launching that nuclear powered space probe. Everyone was worried that it might explode and contaminate things. Never mind that they got exposed to more harmful radiation standing out in the Florida sun with their plackards than anyone would ever see if it exploded in the air. It seems like whenever someone mentions the word "nuclear", people just get stupid. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 13:57 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 15:11 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 13:57:51 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: > In article <slrn9petoj.bl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben > Randhol says... >>The problem with this Star Wars project is that it does not have a good >>reputation outside of USA. Neither do Mr Bush for that matter. One of > > You seem to think things are different here... I do not know... I hope not though. :-) > My understanding is that most of the ICBMs that the US and Russia had > were aimed at each other over the North Pole. If it "lands" anywhere > ("lands" /= > "explodes", btw), it would probably be in Canada. Yes but as I understand the argumentation it is the protection of USA against rogue states (not Russia) that is the target. And it doesn't have to land to be harmful. I mean just look at the extent of the nuclear downfall from Tsjernobyl. > Some of the reactions I hear from abroad about this are almost as > silly as the Star Wars program itself. Almost. There *are* good > reasons for being against it, Such as it is easy to fool the system with flares or something like that if I remember correctly? > but no one seems very interested in those reasons. A lot of it reminds > me of the protests at Cape Kenedy when they were launching that > nuclear powered space probe. Everyone was worried that it might > explode and contaminate things. Never mind that they got exposed to > more harmful radiation standing out in the Florida sun with their > plackards than anyone would ever see if it exploded in the air. It > seems like whenever someone mentions the word "nuclear", people just get > stupid. Well having the downfall of an exploded nuclear missile drizzling over you isn't exactly harmless unless the wind gods are so good as to carry it all to Washington and drop it there. :-) Anyhow the current goverment of USA does not seem to care at all about the environment. But to promote Ada by saying "Hey it is used to build the NMD" is not a good idea in my opinion. I would rather concentrate on the non-military usage. Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 15:11 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 16:25 ` Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) Marin David Condic 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ada and the NMD Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 17:21 ` Dale Pennington 2001-09-06 17:31 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: James Rogers @ 2001-09-06 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: > > > Anyhow the current goverment of USA does not seem to care at all about > the environment. > I think you have been listening to too much propaganda and drivel on the news. The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It simply does not agree with certain international political "solutions". The US abandonment of the Kyoto treaty is not actually far from the EU position. In the EU politicians give verbal support for the Kyoto treaty but somehow fail to provide the funding necessary for its implementation. In the US we simply state that the Kyoto treaty is fundamentally flawed and will not be ratified. Any agreement to save our environment must be based upon scientific evidence and scientifically sound environmental management programs. Unfortuntely, treaties such as the one developed at the Kyoto conference are more about political attempts to control first world economies than about sound scientific efforts. President Bush has made it clear that he is willing to work for the improvement of the environment, so long as agreements are based upon a sound scientific foundation. Jim Rogers Colorado Springs, Colorado USA ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-06 16:25 ` Marin David Condic 2001-09-06 17:57 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ada and the NMD Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-06 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) This is all drifting way off topic and into the realm of political opinions. Let me ask this though (now that I have marked the subject line as off topic): If the Kyoto treaty is such a wonderful thing, why don't the Europeans just go ahead and sign it themselves? Why do they need us to sign it for them? Why shouldn't the US make its own decisions about what is in the best interest of the US and all the rest of the world can do the same? If France, Germany, England, et alia, all *love* this treaty so much and think it is in their best interest, well, let them put their John Handcock on the bottom line. Or is this some version of the "Misery Loves Company" rule? BTW: I like the observation about "solutions" - It seems that if one disagrees with a solution proposed by certain groups then there is some sort of automatic condemnation as being against the *goals* of that group. Maybe I disagree with a *lot* of opinions about how to cure crime, poverty, unemployment, disease and ignorance. But that doesn't mean that by that same fact, I must be in *favor* of crime, poverty, unemployment, disease and ignorance. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "James Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net... > > I think you have been listening to too much propaganda and drivel > on the news. > > The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It > simply does not agree with certain international political "solutions". > > The US abandonment of the Kyoto treaty is not actually far from the > EU position. In the EU politicians give verbal support for the > Kyoto treaty but somehow fail to provide the funding necessary for > its implementation. In the US we simply state that the Kyoto treaty is > fundamentally flawed and will not be ratified. > > Any agreement to save our environment must be based upon scientific > evidence and scientifically sound environmental management programs. > Unfortuntely, treaties such as the one developed at the Kyoto > conference are more about political attempts to control first world > economies than about sound scientific efforts. > > President Bush has made it clear that he is willing to work for the > improvement of the environment, so long as agreements are based > upon a sound scientific foundation. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 16:25 ` Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-06 17:57 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 18:52 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 18:56 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: chris.danx @ 2001-09-06 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:9n882d$rsh$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > This is all drifting way off topic and into the realm of political opinions. > > Let me ask this though (now that I have marked the subject line as off > topic): > > If the Kyoto treaty is such a wonderful thing, why don't the Europeans just > go ahead and sign it themselves? Why do they need us to sign it for them? > Why shouldn't the US make its own decisions about what is in the best > interest of the US and all the rest of the world can do the same? If France, > Germany, England, et alia, all *love* this treaty so much and think it is in > their best interest, well, let them put their John Handcock on the bottom > line. Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters. Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern America. If the US doesn't support it and Japan doesn't either then Kyoto is a dead duck. IMO Kyoto is pants and there are better ways of dealing with lowering emissions like the emission credits system but no one in power really gives a crap and arguing about it is pointless (emission reduction a vote winner, and that's all). The main idea is the same but the consequences of not finding a way to implement the idea (emission reduction) could be dire... The recent train of thought is that we have 40 to 100 years before the Amazon sink begins releasing it's C02. When that happens the biggest sink of them all, the oceans, will release it's store (of something who's name eludes me, but it decomposes to methane when the pressure drops i.e. as it rises from the ocean floor, and oil rigs sometimes disturb a deposit) and all hell breaks loose. A rapid jump in temperature will occur (around 2 to 5 degrees in a few years), and the oceans will burn due to the methane igniting which isn't good news for anyone. This is thought to have happened before so many million years ago and took 200,000 years to get into balance again and sparked an extinction event. Maybe this will happen, maybe not but recent evidence and experiments seem to support it. Like all science though it's not a certainty. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 17:57 ` chris.danx @ 2001-09-06 18:52 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 19:35 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 21:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 18:56 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Darren New @ 2001-09-06 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) > Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters. > Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern America. Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. > Maybe this will happen, maybe not but recent evidence and experiments seem > to support it. Like all science though it's not a certainty. I think it's closer to say "some evidence seems to support it." There's a lot that doesn't. That's the problem. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 18:52 ` Darren New @ 2001-09-06 19:35 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 20:01 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 21:43 ` Preben Randhol 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: chris.danx @ 2001-09-06 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) "Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:3B97C5D4.2AFBAEDF@san.rr.com... > > Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters. > > Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern America. > > Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north > america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. It was in the new sci. i think, perhaps it wasn't just CO2 though (I could check but New Sci. is weekly and it was months and months ago). Ted reckons it's 17% now which would be good had there been an 8% drop in emissions, but that's not the case. Everyone else has just had a bigger increase in output :-( > > Maybe this will happen, maybe not but recent evidence and experiments seem > > to support it. Like all science though it's not a certainty. > > I think it's closer to say "some evidence seems to support it." Probably. Science is highly driven by ppls' particular prejudices so it's unlikely that research into this is going to be objective. They either believe it's not happening or it is, and they can't really decide on what the outcomes going to be if they think it is happening. The doom and gloom scenario mentioned was probably prejudiced since it was shown here (Britain). Our weather system has supposedly got weirder with more floods, however they tend to forget our government used to let builders build on flood plains and that has only recently been rectified. > There's > a lot that doesn't. That's the problem. Yes, evidence for either camp is used by politicians to further there political aims. It's a shame! If there was consensus among scientists politicians would find it harder to go against the grain, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 19:35 ` chris.danx @ 2001-09-06 20:01 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1eQl7.11748$592.809913@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, chris.danx says... > > >> > Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters. >> > Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern .. >Ted reckons it's 17% now which would be good had there been an 8% drop in >emissions, but that's not the case. Everyone else has just had a bigger >increase in output :-( Well, remember that my figure was for the US alone, whereas you were talking all of North America (which generally includes Mexico and Canada, along with some other smaller countries). Also, what I had was a projection from 1998 trends. The numbers are in the right ballpark though. You are right in your assesment that the US's role is unfortuantely becomming less important through no efforts of our own. :-( --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 18:52 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 19:35 ` chris.danx @ 2001-09-06 21:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 21:46 ` Darren New 2001-09-07 13:38 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:52:07 GMT, Darren New wrote: > Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north > america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. You must be joking, right? What is it that consumes CO2 and what is it turned into? Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 21:43 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 21:46 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 13:45 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 13:38 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Darren New @ 2001-09-06 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) > > Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north > > america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. > You must be joking, right? What is it that consumes CO2 and what is it > turned into? Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? I.e., our emissions (i've read) are so relatively clean and we have industrialized such relatively high amounts of open space that we (i.e., north america, including all inhabitants mammilian and otherwise) are turning CO2 into plants faster than burning plants is releasing the CO2 back again. Hmmm... Now, where *should* followups be redirected? -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 21:46 ` Darren New @ 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 0:28 ` Jeff Creem ` (2 more replies) 2001-09-07 13:45 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:46:47 GMT, Darren New wrote: >> > Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north >> > america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. > >> You must be joking, right? What is it that consumes CO2 and what is it >> turned into? > > Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you > think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? :-) no no no no if it only was that simple. > I.e., our emissions (i've read) are so relatively clean and we have > industrialized such relatively high amounts of open space that we (i.e., > north america, including all inhabitants mammilian and otherwise) are > turning CO2 into plants faster than burning plants is releasing the CO2 > back again. This means that you will soon run out of CO2 in your atmosphere over there. Where did you read this? Rememember all living animals/humans, cars, coal/gas power plants, etc... produce CO2. If all this is used by the plants in USA it means that if you tomorrow stopped emmitting CO2 then all your plants/woods would start dying. I think not. That emmissions are dropping in the US can perhaps be because the price of petrol has increased. Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-07 0:28 ` Jeff Creem 2001-09-07 8:42 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 1:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-07 13:43 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Jeff Creem @ 2001-09-07 0:28 UTC (permalink / raw) "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:slrn9pg4ep.35r.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... > On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:46:47 GMT, Darren New wrote: > > This means that you will soon run out of CO2 in your atmosphere over > there. Where did you read this? Rememember all living animals/humans, > cars, coal/gas power plants, etc... produce CO2. If all this is used by > the plants in USA it means that if you tomorrow stopped emmitting CO2 > then all your plants/woods would start dying. I think not. > Umm..No.. We do not have our own atmosphere over here. There is a large quantity of CO2 in the air for plants to draw on even if we stopped adding new CO2 plus there is plenty of CO2 still being created by decaying material and Europe. The North American Continent has been reforesting faster than anyplace else in the world. See http://www.hooverdigest.org/011/huber.html search for the word sink in the document. Note this is not the only source of this data but it was the first I found. Again, if the reduction of gases is so important than other countries should just go ahead an do it. We have been told that this sort of thing does not negatively impact the economy so what do you have to lose? Just to bring things back a little closer to a the purpose of this group...I suspect most of the climate models that are predicting global warming effects are written in C (with some FORTRAN in the mix).. It will be great when we find out that the whole thing was caused by running of the end of some array :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 0:28 ` Jeff Creem @ 2001-09-07 8:42 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-07 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:28:53 GMT, Jeff Creem wrote: > Again, if the reduction of gases is so important than other countries should > just go ahead an > do it. We have been told that this sort of thing does not negatively impact > the economy so > what do you have to lose? We are. Some has to take responsibility in this world. > Just to bring things back a little closer to a the purpose of this group...I > suspect most > of the climate models that are predicting global warming effects are written > in C (with some > FORTRAN in the mix).. It will be great when we find out that the whole thing > was caused by running > of the end of some array :) He he he Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 0:28 ` Jeff Creem @ 2001-09-07 1:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 13:43 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: James Rogers @ 2001-09-07 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: > > This means that you will soon run out of CO2 in your atmosphere over > there. Where did you read this? Rememember all living animals/humans, > cars, coal/gas power plants, etc... produce CO2. If all this is used by > the plants in USA it means that if you tomorrow stopped emmitting CO2 > then all your plants/woods would start dying. I think not. > > That emmissions are dropping in the US can perhaps be because the price > of petrol has increased. No. Not even a chance this is a factor. The recent increase in price of petrochemicals has NOT reduced miles driven in the US. It is also good to remember that we do not currently have an accurate global climate model. We do not know all the influences of water vapor, CO2, O3, O2, N2, particulates, NOx, CO, S2O4, etc. It is clear that CO2, in the absence of other factors, does lead to increased temperatures. It is not clear just how water vapor interacts with CO2 levels. Some models simply assume no interaction. Those models are clearly over simplified. Some models show that water vapor and CO2 work to balance the temperature of the Earth. As CO2 levels increase they cause more evaporation from the oceans. This in turn results in more clouds, rain, and severe storms, which tend to cool the atmosphere. The increased rains also tend to dissolve large quantities of CO2 as carbonates. Those carbonates react with rocks and soils, creating carbonate salts, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Scientists are only beginning to understand the role of lightening on the climate. It now appears that lightening is one of the primary forces in the atmosphere. It is apparently responsible for many previously unexpected chemical changes in the atmosphere. It also acts as an energy safety valve for the climate. Jim Rogers Colorado Springs, Colorado USA ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 1:27 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-07 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 01:27:07 GMT, James Rogers wrote: > It is clear that CO2, in the absence of other factors, does lead to > increased temperatures. It is not clear just how water vapor > interacts with CO2 levels. Some models simply assume no interaction. Also the sun seems to be contributing more energy to the earth now. > Those models are clearly over simplified. Some models show that > water vapor and CO2 work to balance the temperature of the Earth. > As CO2 levels increase they cause more evaporation from the oceans. > This in turn results in more clouds, rain, and severe storms, which > tend to cool the atmosphere. The increased rains also tend to dissolve > large quantities of CO2 as carbonates. Those carbonates react with > rocks and soils, creating carbonate salts, which removes CO2 from > the atmosphere. Yes, you get H2CO3, HCO3- and CO32-. The latter can react with say Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+ etc to form carbonate salts. The more basic the solution is the more CO32- you have. The more CO2 you have in your water the more acidic it is (so less CO32-). Anyhow this will not be a big effect on CO2. Another problem is that a huge amount of CO2 is dissolved the ocean. If one gets a hotter earth the tempereature in the sea would rise and CO2 will be released (as water dissolves more gas at lower temperatures) into the atmosphere. But this if off topic. I'll stop now. What I would rather see is that they make a good climat model in Ada than Ada in NMD :-) Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 0:28 ` Jeff Creem 2001-09-07 1:27 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-07 13:43 ` Marin David Condic 2001-09-07 16:10 ` James Rogers 2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-07 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) That seems to be a misunderstanding of how living organisms work. If there's a CO2-rich environment, plants will flourish and make Oxygen until they start poisoning themselves back with their own excriment. Then we'll have an Oxygen-rich environment which will be good for some other life form (The SUV?) that makes CO2. Living organisms on this planet adapt to the conditions around them. What may be bad for one creature is good for another. You can't stop life. You can't kill this planet. It *will* adapt. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:slrn9pg4ep.35r.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... > > This means that you will soon run out of CO2 in your atmosphere over > there. Where did you read this? Rememember all living animals/humans, > cars, coal/gas power plants, etc... produce CO2. If all this is used by > the plants in USA it means that if you tomorrow stopped emmitting CO2 > then all your plants/woods would start dying. I think not. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 13:43 ` Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-07 16:10 ` James Rogers 2001-09-10 14:57 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: James Rogers @ 2001-09-07 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > > That seems to be a misunderstanding of how living organisms work. If there's > a CO2-rich environment, plants will flourish and make Oxygen until they > start poisoning themselves back with their own excriment. Then we'll have an > Oxygen-rich environment which will be good for some other life form (The > SUV?) that makes CO2. > > Living organisms on this planet adapt to the conditions around them. What > may be bad for one creature is good for another. You can't stop life. You > can't kill this planet. It *will* adapt. If you are interested in where the CO2 is on Earth, download the paper at http://www.sfu.ca/chemcai/pdf/c3carb.pdf (requires Adobe Acrobat reader). Note that plants do take in a large amount of CO2, but act only as a temporary reservoir. On the other hand, you may also note that most of the CO2 in on Earth (Atmosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere) is contained by the oceans. Contrary to an assertion previously made on this subject, CO2 solubility in water (fresh and seawater) increases with increased temperature. In fact, CO2 follows Henry's law very well up to a partial pressure of 5 atm. Henry's law is summarized as P(i) = X(i)KT. This is interpreted as: "The mole fraction X(i) of a species "i" that dissolves in a solvent at a temperature T is proportional to the partial pressure P(i)." This relationship indicates that the oceans will dissolve more CO2 as the partial pressure of CO2 increases in the atmosphere. It would appear that Henry's law predicts a lower mole fraction of CO2 in water as the temperature increases. In fact this does not happen because K is not a constant. K actually decreases as T increases. The overall result is that solubility in water increases as the water temperature increases. This does not imply that the oceans can rapidly dissolve all excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It does, however debunk the concept that increased atmospheric temperatures will trigger a release of dissolved CO2 in the oceans. Regarding the reforestation of North America. Although the forests in North America are regenerating, they are not regenerating fast enough to replace the desctruction of tropical forests. I believe the loss of tropical forests may be more important to climate balance than CO2 production. This is one of the flaws I see in the Kyoto treaty. It exempted the countries destroying tropical forests. Atmospheric CO2 dumping does need to be controlled and even reduced. There are a number of well known chemical processes that can be used to scrub exhausts from contained combustion sources. At the same time we need to stop the destruction of forests. Forest product are still important in the world economy. Forest management techniques are also well known. The Swiss, for instance, have practiced sound forest management techniques for hundreds of years. Jim Rogers Colorado Springs, Colorado USA ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 16:10 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-10 14:57 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2001-09-10 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) [ XFUT sci.environment ] James: [ solubility of CO2 in water ] > This does not imply that the oceans can rapidly dissolve all excess > CO2 in the atmosphere. It does, however debunk the concept that > increased atmospheric temperatures will trigger a release of > dissolved CO2 in the oceans. I think somebody may have misunderstood something regarding release of greenhouse gasses from the oceans due to increasing temperature. It is suspected (I am not aware of any reasonably certain proofs) that there are large amounts of methane ice stored below the ocean seafloor. The short-term effect of global heating should be increased precipitation in the arctic areas, which means _lower_ sea-levels, and thus lower pressure at the seafloor. The pressure might thus become too low for keeping methane in frozen form in some of the reservoirs, which would result in release of methane into the atmosphere. (definitely lots of if's) Jacob -- "There are only two types of data: Data which has been backed up Data which has not been lost - yet" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 21:46 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-07 13:45 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New 2001-09-08 16:35 ` Larry Elmore 1 sibling, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B97EEC5.B9109D9F@san.rr.com>, Darren New says... > >> > Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north >> > america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. > >> You must be joking, right? What is it that consumes CO2 and what is it >> turned into? > >Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you >think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? We made that embarassingly silly argument at one of the later Kyoto meetings. It turns out that its quite debatable whether this is true or not (later studies say not). However, its also quite beside the point. When we first came to this continent it was covered with forests, except for the Great Plains in the middle, which was covered with bison. Forests covered the entire eastern seaboard, which is now just one big city from Boston to DC. At the time, the forests were just cleaing up all the CO2 the bison were putting out. We replaced the bison with domesticated cattle, so there's no net gain there. We cut down a lot of the forests, and are still not planting more than we are cutting, so there's no net gain there. Then we industrialized and started pumping out *extra* CO2 by the ton. Saying that these forests are cleaing up our new CO2, when they were cleaning up other CO2 sources (that are still around) before we ever got here is just plain silly. Of course it may be true that they will grow faster and pick up the slack as CO2 levels rise. It may even be true that blue-green alge in the oceans will expand to consume all the CO2 we could possibly pump out. But if our arguement is that there is *no* problem, then we should just come out and say that, rather than trying to hide behind this forest sillyness. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 13:45 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New 2001-09-08 1:59 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. ` (2 more replies) 2001-09-08 16:35 ` Larry Elmore 1 sibling, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Darren New @ 2001-09-07 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) > >Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you > >think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? > > We made that embarassingly silly argument at one of the later Kyoto meetings. Sorry? The embarrassingly silly argument that forests consume CO2 and produce O2? Or the embarrassingly silly argument that petrochemicals came from plants, and animals that ate plants, and animals that ate animals that ate plants? > It turns out that its quite debatable whether this is true or not (later studies > say not). I'd *love* to see a study that says plants don't consume CO2. > Saying that these forests are cleaing up our new CO2, > when they were cleaning up other CO2 sources (that are still around) before we > ever got here is just plain silly. Well, has anyone *measured* it? That's my point. I don't believe folks that stand up and say "It's silly that the world would work this way. We could measure it, but then we'd have actual facts." Folks who keep making these assertions without any evidence is the problem. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. Those who work hard with few results always value hard work over getting results. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* RE: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New @ 2001-09-08 1:59 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. 2001-09-10 14:48 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 15:15 ` Leif Roar Moldskred 2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. @ 2001-09-08 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada From: Bob Leif To: Darren New et al. You are referring to the carbon fixation subsequent to photosynthesis. The CO2 is transformed into sugars and then primarily into cellulose. There has been mention of the possibility that some of the software used in the climatic change calculations could have errors. This is probably true given the manufacturing technologies used and quality. This certainly is a failure of the National Science Foundation. However, I do believe that in general that the arguments against global warming are correct. The simple fact that the USA is running low on petroleum is sufficient argument to stop wasting fossil fuels. Our present automobile based transportation system is obscenely inefficient. The efficiency of employing a 5,000 lb SUV to transport a 150 lb human (3% payload) is a disgrace. One of the major impediments to the use of nuclear power is the publics' lack of trust in the reliability of these reactors. I certainly would not want to live near a nuclear power station programmed with Microsoft, Sun, or IBM technology. Software written at CMU level 5 in Ada with a careful inspection by hazard experts would at least alleviate my fears concerning the software part of the technology. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Darren New Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:07 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) > >Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you > >think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? > > We made that embarassingly silly argument at one of the later Kyoto meetings. Sorry? The embarrassingly silly argument that forests consume CO2 and produce O2? Or the embarrassingly silly argument that petrochemicals came from plants, and animals that ate plants, and animals that ate animals that ate plants? > It turns out that its quite debatable whether this is true or not (later studies > say not). I'd *love* to see a study that says plants don't consume CO2. > Saying that these forests are cleaing up our new CO2, > when they were cleaning up other CO2 sources (that are still around) before we > ever got here is just plain silly. Well, has anyone *measured* it? That's my point. I don't believe folks that stand up and say "It's silly that the world would work this way. We could measure it, but then we'd have actual facts." Folks who keep making these assertions without any evidence is the problem. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. Those who work hard with few results always value hard work over getting results. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New 2001-09-08 1:59 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. @ 2001-09-10 14:48 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 15:15 ` Leif Roar Moldskred 2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B98F09F.EE2F4B54@san.rr.com>, Darren New says... > >> >Uh, forests? And it turns into wood? Krebs cycle, anyone? Where do you >> >think the CO2 in petrochemicals came from in the first place? >> >> We made that embarassingly silly argument at one of the later Kyoto meetings. > >Sorry? The embarrassingly silly argument that forests consume CO2 and >produce O2? Or the embarrassingly silly argument that petrochemicals >came from plants, and animals that ate plants, and animals that ate >animals that ate plants? No, the embarrassingly silly argument that plants that were here consuming CO2 long before the first factory was ever built somehow now excuse all the *new* CO2 we are creating (heck, we've even got CO2 soaking to burn. Humvies for everyone! I think I'll get a coal-burning stove!). Sure forests do that (as do grasslands), but they were allready fully tasked keeping CO2 at pre-1800 levels back when humans here were all farming and ranching (or the nomadic equivalent). If we want to believe that there's no problem and thus we don't have to do anything, then we should be grownups about it and do so. This forest biz is a transparent attempt to find something, anything, that excuses our behaviour. It just makes us look like irresponsible guilty kids. Its like when my son breaks something, I tell him it costs money to replace, and he claims that's OK, because I (dad) will go to work and make money. I'm *already* doing that, damit. I wanted to use that money to buy a new 3D card... --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New 2001-09-08 1:59 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. 2001-09-10 14:48 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 15:15 ` Leif Roar Moldskred 2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Leif Roar Moldskred @ 2001-09-10 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote: [SNIP] > Sorry? The embarrassingly silly argument that forests consume CO2 and > produce O2? Or the embarrassingly silly argument that petrochemicals > came from plants, and animals that ate plants, and animals that ate > animals that ate plants? [SNIP] > I'd *love* to see a study that says plants don't consume CO2. In this context, for all intent and purposes they don't. A living plant converts CO2 into O2 and carbon, but when it dies and rots (or when it's eaten by an animal, or thrown on a fire) the carbon in the wood is combined with 02 back into C02. So over its entire life-cycle, a plant does not consume CO2. So that a forest in equilibrium releases back into the atmosphere as much CO2 as it consumes. In other words, the image of the world's forests being "lungs" is wrong. A _growing_ forest consumes (a net worth of) CO2, while a forest in equilibrium _stores_ a non-trivial amount of carbon as cellulose, effectively keeping it out of the system, and unable to contribute to global warming. On of the issues at Kyoto was if planting new forests, i.e. effectively increasing the total amount of cellulose / carbon, should count as a reduction in net release of CO2 or not. -- Leif Roar Moldskred not a biologist, nor do I play one on TV. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 13:45 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New @ 2001-09-08 16:35 ` Larry Elmore 2001-09-10 14:35 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Elmore @ 2001-09-08 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > ... When we first came to this > continent it was covered with forests, except for the Great Plains in the > middle, which was covered with bison. Forests covered the entire eastern > seaboard, which is now just one big city from Boston to DC. At the time, the > forests were just cleaing up all the CO2 the bison were putting out. We replaced > the bison with domesticated cattle, so there's no net gain there. We cut down a > lot of the forests, and are still not planting more than we are cutting, so > there's no net gain there. Then we industrialized and started pumping out > *extra* CO2 by the ton. Saying that these forests are cleaing up our new CO2, > when they were cleaning up other CO2 sources (that are still around) before we > ever got here is just plain silly. The fact is, there is a great deal more land under forest in America now than there was 100 years ago. Nor was much of the continent a primeval forest when the first Europeans landed, though as the plagues reduced Indian populations by upwards of 90%, much of the land under their care did rapidly revert to heavily forested wilderness. America was not a virgin land, but a widowed one. see: http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/landscapes.htm http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/AmIndian.htm There's quite a lot more about the subject available, but these are good introductions. Larry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-08 16:35 ` Larry Elmore @ 2001-09-10 14:35 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 23:01 ` Larry Elmore 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B9A4CA7.A3231B1F@home.com>, Larry Elmore says... > >The fact is, there is a great deal more land under forest in America now >than there was 100 years ago. Nor was much of the continent a primeval >see: > http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/landscapes.htm > http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/AmIndian.htm Neither of these links say that. They do make the point that we have a lot more dense undergrowth now that people (read-non indians who now control the land) aren't doing regular burns, and that some places that were savannahs are now forest. Both are valid points. But neither addresses in any quantative sense are our current state of forest cover vs. what was here. But again, its all a red herring anyway. Whatever there is or was has *nothing* to do with our CO2 output. It was all here (a bit more or less) happily converting CO2 long before the fist US factory was built. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-10 14:35 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 23:01 ` Larry Elmore 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Elmore @ 2001-09-10 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <3B9A4CA7.A3231B1F@home.com>, Larry Elmore says... > > > >The fact is, there is a great deal more land under forest in America now > >than there was 100 years ago. Nor was much of the continent a primeval > > >see: > > http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/landscapes.htm > > http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/usfscoll/AmIndian.htm > > Neither of these links say that. They do make the point that we have a lot more > dense undergrowth now that people (read-non indians who now control the land) > aren't doing regular burns, and that some places that were savannahs are now > forest. Both are valid points. But neither addresses in any quantative sense are > our current state of forest cover vs. what was here. These photos record dramatic increases in the understory density and overstory biomass volume of forest vegetation over the last century, and a decrease or complete elimination of both the aspen component and in the herbaceous understory in conifer stands. In addition, grasslands have become ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ woodlands and open woodlands have become dense forests. Other non-photographic ^^^^^^^^^ studies strongly corroborate the existence of such changes (Covington & Moore 1994, Sampson et al. 1993). If you want quantitative data, the UN's FAO at http://www.fao.org has quite a bit. They're unavailable at the moment, so I can't be more precise. From "Lightening the Tread of Population on the Land: American Examples" at http://phe.rockefeller.edu/: "The declining intensity of lumber use helped American forests expand. The abandonment of farmland returned relatively productive sites to forest. The control of fires, restocking, plantations, and imports helped as well. Mills lost less wood, converting former wastes into pulp for paper, composites such as plywood which Americans substituted for solid lumber, and heat and electricity; by 1980 American mills converted more than 96 percent of the wood entering their doors into useful products and energy (US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1984). Together, these changes caused an expansion of American forests commencing in the early 1920s. The trend continues: by 1992 the inventory of growing stock in US forests was 27 percent larger than in 1952, the first year of comprehensive data collection (Sedjo 1991; Smith, Faulkner, and Powell 1994). > But again, its all a red herring anyway. Whatever there is or was has *nothing* > to do with our CO2 output. It was all here (a bit more or less) happily > converting CO2 long before the fist US factory was built. Then why bring the subject up? I was correcting an error in data you introduced. Ted Dennison wrote: > > ... When we first came to this > continent it was covered with forests, except for the Great Plains in the > middle, which was covered with bison. Forests covered the entire eastern > seaboard, which is now just one big city from Boston to DC. At the time, the > forests were just cleaing up all the CO2 the bison were putting out. We replaced > the bison with domesticated cattle, so there's no net gain there. We cut down a > lot of the forests, and are still not planting more than we are cutting, so > there's no net gain there. BTW, in the USA, we're only cutting 65% of annual new growth. Larry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 21:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 21:46 ` Darren New @ 2001-09-07 13:38 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-07 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Basically, if its green and grows in dirt, it inhales CO2 and exhales oxygen. So if there is lots of CO2 around, plant life ought to flourish quite well - consuming the excess until it once again reaches a balance point. (Oxygen is obviously poisonous to plants so we're kind of doing them a favor by making CO2. So get out there and drive that SUV and do your part to restore the rain forests, the spotted owl habitats, the wetlands and all that other good stuff. :-) There's probably a whole slew of bacteria and other living things out there that breathe CO2 as well, so they'll be having a field day. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:slrn9pg2l9.35r.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... > On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:52:07 GMT, Darren New wrote: > > Err, do you have a cite for this? Everything I've read shows north > > america as being a net consumer of CO2, not a producer. > > You must be joking, right? What is it that consumes CO2 and what is it > turned into? > > Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 17:57 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 18:52 ` Darren New @ 2001-09-06 18:56 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-08 0:38 ` Larry Elmore 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <iOOl7.11306$592.607182@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, chris.danx says... >Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters. >Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern America. About 17% by the US, and slowly declining (our output is increasing, but not as much as everyone else's. See the graph at the bottom of http://ens.lycos.com/ens/nov98/1998L-11-17-02.html ). >If the US doesn't support it and Japan doesn't either then Kyoto is a dead >duck. IMO Kyoto is pants and there are better ways of dealing with lowering You are absolutely right. Its a dead duck. Without the US it will be as useless as the League of Nations, and it won't have the US. The only reason it happened at all was that our VP at the time liked to think of himself as an envirionmentalist, and thought a worldwide agreement would be his crowning glory. The American electorate sure wasn't impressed. Talking emmision reduction in this country is a vote *loser*. >The recent train of thought is that we have 40 to 100 years before the (tale of woe deleted) No one is really sure what will happen. I've heard some scientists speculate that it could actually touch off another ice age instead of warming things (we are probably overdue for one anyway). The only thing I'd be willing to bet on is that things don't stay the same, but historicly that wouldn't be a good bet anyway. Earth's climate has always changed wildly over time. The problem is that we don't really understand the global environmental system yet. Given that, trying to fix a percieved "bug" in it isn't likely to be productive (although staying the course is likely to be disasterous as well). --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 18:56 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-08 0:38 ` Larry Elmore 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Elmore @ 2001-09-08 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <iOOl7.11306$592.607182@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, chris.danx > says... > >Perhaps it's because Northern America is one of the biggest polluters. > >Something like 25% of all CO2 emissions are produced by Northern America. > > About 17% by the US, and slowly declining (our output is increasing, but not as > much as everyone else's. See the graph at the bottom of > http://ens.lycos.com/ens/nov98/1998L-11-17-02.html ). One should also realize that _all_ man-made CO2 emissions add up to only a tiny percentage of total CO2 production. Even if _all_ human CO2 production ceased this very instant (including respiration, if you want to go so far as the kooks who think the only way to "save the planet" is voluntary extinction of the human species -- there's a couple of web sites on the subject), it's possible that CO2 levels would still be climbing. Increased CO2 _might_ be a result of warming, not a cause. We simply don't know enough yet. It appears from some studies that on a geologic time scale, CO2 levels are currently rising from an _all-time low_ over the past couple of million years (the Ice Ages may be related). > >If the US doesn't support it and Japan doesn't either then Kyoto is a dead > >duck. IMO Kyoto is pants and there are better ways of dealing with lowering > > You are absolutely right. Its a dead duck. Without the US it will be as useless > as the League of Nations, and it won't have the US. The only reason it happened > at all was that our VP at the time liked to think of himself as an > envirionmentalist, and thought a worldwide agreement would be his crowning > glory. The American electorate sure wasn't impressed. Talking emmision reduction > in this country is a vote *loser*. Although when energy usage (and pollution created) is compared with GDP, the US is one of the most efficient nations on Earth. It's the Third World where things are getting dire. Poor people can't _afford_ to worry overly much about the environment, and it shows. > >The recent train of thought is that we have 40 to 100 years before the > (tale of woe deleted) > > No one is really sure what will happen. I've heard some scientists speculate > that it could actually touch off another ice age instead of warming things (we > are probably overdue for one anyway). The only thing I'd be willing to bet on is > that things don't stay the same, but historicly that wouldn't be a good bet > anyway. Earth's climate has always changed wildly over time. Yes, it's a demonstrable fact that climate has changed more (sometimes in a few decades, maybe only a couple decades) in the far past (in human terms, not geologic) than even the most dire current predictions of global warming forecast over the next century. I have no doubt at all that had the professional Chicken Littles of the world would also have been carrying on just as loudly if they'd lived 12,000 years ago as the current Great Warming began. Of course, the disasters that befell the world (the larger part of the icecaps melting off, sea level rising 100 meters, etc) led directly to what we consider "normal". Warming is happening now, but whether or not humans have _appreciably_ influenced it is an open question. What caused the Little Ice Age of the 1600-1800's? And what brought it to an end? I think solar variability has _much_ more impact than human activity has had, and one really good volcanic eruption like Tambora, Thera, or the truly monstrous one of Krakatoa in the far past that split Java from Sumatra would make the sum total of human influence look puny indeed. > The problem is that we don't really understand the global environmental system > yet. Given that, trying to fix a percieved "bug" in it isn't likely to be > productive (although staying the course is likely to be disasterous as well). Luckily, we're _not_ staying the course (not on a decadal scale). Technology is improving rapidly, and in the industrialized world, things are mostly getting better. Some "improvements" are just lying with statistics, but then so are _some_ of the "dire" events that get highly publicized. I've read that Germany's claimed reduction in greenhouse emissions since 1990 is only real when all of current Germany is used as the basis for comparison. The western part actually went up slightly, while the economic collapse of the dirty, inefficient heavy industry in the old eastern part is what brought the sum total down. Larry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 16:25 ` Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 19:39 ` Larry Kilgallen ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... > >Preben Randhol wrote: >> >> >> Anyhow the current goverment of USA does not seem to care at all about >> the environment. >> >The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It >simply does not agree with certain international political "solutions". OK. Preben's statement seemed a bit extreme, but this one is a real howler. As ususal I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, although I have to say that I've yet to see any *hard* evidence that Preben is wrong. However, you can't really use the term "government" wrt the US as Preben does, because we don't quite work that way. Our government has 2 political branches, one of which is split into two parts. Of those 3, 2 are presently controlled by one party, and the third is (barely) controlled by another. Obviously, you'll search in vain for any kind of unified coherent message comming out of the whole. As for the president, its not his job to sign treaties. He can negotiate them, and he can veto a congressional signature (which they can override), but otherwise all he can do is talk. Our congress doesn't have to follow what he says any more than yours does (perhaps even less). Think of him as sort of like the King/Queen in a constitutional monarchy, but with veto power. The presidential public position seems to be something along the lines of, "the environment is important, as long as it doesn't undully burden business". So at best, its not a top priority. But again, the *real* policy (at least outside our shores) is whatever the individual members of our congress in the aggregate decide it is. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ada and the NMD Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 19:39 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-06 20:15 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 20:34 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 22:04 ` Preben Randhol 2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <sQOl7.6806$4z.28740@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes: > In article <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... >> >>Preben Randhol wrote: >>> >>> >>> Anyhow the current goverment of USA does not seem to care at all about >>> the environment. >>> >>The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It >>simply does not agree with certain international political "solutions". > > OK. Preben's statement seemed a bit extreme, but this one is a real howler. > > As ususal I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, although I have to say > that I've yet to see any *hard* evidence that Preben is wrong. However, you > can't really use the term "government" wrt the US as Preben does, because we > don't quite work that way. Our government has 2 political branches, one of which > is split into two parts. Of those 3, 2 are presently controlled by one party, > and the third is (barely) controlled by another. Obviously, you'll search in > vain for any kind of unified coherent message comming out of the whole. Please do not assume from Ted's remarks that when all three were controlled by a single party there was a coherent message. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 19:39 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 20:15 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 21:31 ` WAY OFF TOPIC was: " Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <jfDbtwHhlbrh@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen says... > >> don't quite work that way. Our government has 2 political branches, one of >> which is split into two parts. Of those 3, 2 are presently controlled by one >> party, and the third is (barely) controlled by another. Obviously, you'll >> search in vain for any kind of unified coherent message comming out of the >> whole. > >Please do not assume from Ted's remarks that when all three were >controlled by a single party there was a coherent message. Quite true. You won't really find much coherent come out of the US government unless the US people themselves are fairly unified on the subject (which for the subject at hand, they certainly are not). As a former speaker of our House of Representatives was fond of saying, "all politics is local". --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* WAY OFF TOPIC was: Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 20:15 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 21:31 ` Marin David Condic 2001-09-07 14:12 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:25 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-06 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) If there is clear and convincing evidence that X is a problem and the public believes that Y is a practical solution to the problem, you'll see political action. Despite what people may choose to believe and/or advocate, there is no overwhelming, clear, convincing evidence that the earth is in imminent danger of destruction because of CO2, global warming, global cooling or whatever the latest "threat" is. (Remember that for an extremely large number of species on this planet, CO2 is a *good* thing - hence expect them to flourish.) Even accepting that there is some real threat here, it is not at all clear that any or all of the solutions proposed by various advocates are going to be practical and effective. Hence, you get what we've got - political ambivalence. What disturbs me about the whole debate is that you'll have "Liberal" scientists and "Conservative" scientists arguing positions as to what action to take based on their political ideology - which makes a mockery of science. The very notion of "Liberal" or "Conservative" scientists eliminates the science from it. Too many people start from the result they want and then go collecting data to support getting what they want and that is not "science". Too often the general public swollows up propoganda masquerading as "science" and have not even bothered to question the accuracy of the pronouncements or even question that it might in fact be propoganda. How many people ever ask: "Are there dissenting opinions?" How many people ever say: "I ought to read some of those dissenting opinions to see if maybe they have any merit." And of that subset, how many people read the dissenting opinions with an open mind rather than just gathering material on which to base their rhetoric? The whole global warming/cooling thing is being clouded by advocacy. At best an honest scientist would have to conclude that the data itself is questionable and hence does not at this time support any conclusions about the current state of affairs and does not support the conclusion that there is a real and imminent threat at hand. Hence, "science" is not in a position to make any firm recommendations about the course of action whole nations should embark on. Does this mean we should all go about happily adding more and more pollution to the world? Of course not. Nobody wants to live in an open sewer. At the other extreme, should we, for example, go about outlawing the existence and use of any internal combustion engine? That would have devastating economic and social impact in the process of addressing a yet to be demonstrated problem and would undoubtedly result in unintended consequences. (It may only shift the pollution problem in some other direction that may be even worse than what you've got now.) So I'd suggest that the question should be studied scientifically - without advocacy - and in the mean time take reasonable steps to reduce whatever pollution we are creating. We certainly aren't all going to be dead in 10 years unless we take drastic actions immediately. (Remember all those horrific ecological disaster predictions from back in the 60's/70's that claimed we'd all be dead by the year 2000? Welllllll....... :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:rPQl7.6990$4z.30964@www.newsranger.com... > > Quite true. You won't really find much coherent come out of the US government > unless the US people themselves are fairly unified on the subject (which for the > subject at hand, they certainly are not). As a former speaker of our House of > Representatives was fond of saying, "all politics is local". > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: WAY OFF TOPIC was: Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 21:31 ` WAY OFF TOPIC was: " Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-07 14:12 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:25 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <9n8put$67u$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says... > >If there is clear and convincing evidence that X is a problem and the public >believes that Y is a practical solution to the problem, you'll see political >action. Despite what people may choose to believe and/or advocate, there is >no overwhelming, clear, convincing evidence that the earth is in imminent >danger of destruction because of CO2, global warming, global cooling or >whatever the latest "threat" is. (Remember that for an extremely large >number of species on this planet, CO2 is a *good* thing - hence expect them >to flourish.) Even accepting that there is some real threat here, it is not >at all clear that any or all of the solutions proposed by various advocates >are going to be practical and effective. Hence, you get what we've got - >political ambivalence. That's pretty much where I am too. I do personally *suspect* there is a problem, but the evidence that there is one is certianly not all in, or even the evidnece as to what it is. I remember vividly back in the '70 people telling me at school that we'd run totally out of oil by 2000. Realise that I grew up in Tulsa Oklahoma, which at the time styled itslef as the Oil Capital of the world. Our entire economy here was based on it. If there was one place in the world immune to anti-oil environmentalists, it was Tulsa. So I know people seriously believed this. Quite a few laws were passed to try to help "fix" this problem. Of course nothing even remotely like that has happened. Note that I'm not saying I think there's no problem. I personally think there is. I just don't know exactly what it is yet. :-) --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: WAY OFF TOPIC was: Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 21:31 ` WAY OFF TOPIC was: " Marin David Condic 2001-09-07 14:12 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 16:25 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2001-09-07 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:<9n8put$67u$1@nh.pace.co.uk>... > If there is clear and convincing evidence that X is a problem and the public > believes that Y is a practical solution to the problem, you'll see political > action. Puting WAY OFF TOPIC in the subject line is absolutely no excuse for posting stuff that belongs in another newsgroup. Really, this is very anti-social behavior. CLA has been relatively well behaved, and it is sad to see junk like this appearing. I would suggest that anyone who cannot resist following up something like this redirect to a more appropriate newsgroup! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ada and the NMD Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 19:39 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2001-09-06 20:34 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 21:02 ` OT: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:19 ` Ada and the NMD Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2001-09-06 22:04 ` Preben Randhol 2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: James Rogers @ 2001-09-06 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... > > > >Preben Randhol wrote: > >> > >> > >> Anyhow the current goverment of USA does not seem to care at all about > >> the environment. > >> > >The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It > >simply does not agree with certain international political "solutions". > > OK. Preben's statement seemed a bit extreme, but this one is a real howler. A howler? Let's look at a few facts. The US annually spends billions of dollars on so called super fund clean up sites. Emissions from US automobiles (on a per vehicle basis) are at an all time low. Emissions from US factories (on a per factory basis) are at an all time low. Air pollution over major US cities is lower now than at any time in the past 40 years. Compare this with polution over major cities in many other countries. For example try Mexico City, Beijing, and Moscow. US pollution requirements are in the process of being tightened. The only question is how much this year. Does this mean that the US has no additional or remaining responsibility in the area of pollution control. Of course not. It does demonstrate a real effort and commitment to improving the US pollution problems. > The presidential public position seems to be something along the lines of, "the > environment is important, as long as it doesn't undully burden business". So at > best, its not a top priority. But again, the *real* policy (at least outside our > shores) is whatever the individual members of our congress in the aggregate > decide it is. > Again, there is a balance to be maintained. It is theoretically possible to simply outlaw all pollution producing sources. This approach is both politically and economically impossible. On the other hand, doing nothing is just as politically and economically impossible. Politicians in the US, as in Europe, must balance a number of interests. How much pollution did European cities create in the 19th century? Would it have been practical to simply dismantle the industrial revolution because of uncontrolled pollution? Of course not. It was, however, both practical and desirable to develop more efficient factories with improved and improving levels of pollution control. Jim Rogers Colorado Springs, Colorado USA ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* OT: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 20:34 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-06 21:02 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 2:06 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 2001-09-07 16:19 ` Ada and the NMD Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B97DDEB.F13AADC0@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... > >Ted Dennison wrote: >> >> In article <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... >> > >> >The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It >> >> OK. Preben's statement seemed a bit extreme, but this one is a real howler. > >A howler? Let's look at a few facts. To support your statement, you will have to quote facts that come from the current US government. None of the ones you quoted do that (and some, like superfund, Bush wants to get rid of), except possibly this one: >US pollution requirements are in the process of being tightened. The >only question is how much this year. ..and if the Bush administration supports this effort, it would be actively going back on a campaign promise made on November 3, 2000. It would also be quite a switcheroo from when he fought that legislation as the Governor of Texas. I doubt he'd do it, although he might be politicially forced to let it slide through. If you want to see Bush's environmental positions while he was running for pres a year ago, an independent comparison is still available online at http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Environment.htm and at http://www.issues2000.org/Environment.htm#Headlines (this is a non-partisan website). Also, the man made no secret during the campaign of being anti-Kyoto, so anyone expressing shock at his actions this point has just been ill-informed. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-06 21:02 ` OT: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 2:06 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 2001-09-07 13:59 ` Off Topic " Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: David C. Hoos, Sr. @ 2001-09-07 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Perhaps this bit of information will put the US declining to ratify the Kyoto treaty in perspective -- There is ONE European nation that has ratified it, and that nation is Romania. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> Sent: September 06, 2001 4:02 PM Subject: OT: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) In article <3B97DDEB.F13AADC0@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... > >Ted Dennison wrote: >> >> In article <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... >> > >> >The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It >> >> OK. Preben's statement seemed a bit extreme, but this one is a real howler. > >A howler? Let's look at a few facts. To support your statement, you will have to quote facts that come from the current US government. None of the ones you quoted do that (and some, like superfund, Bush wants to get rid of), except possibly this one: >US pollution requirements are in the process of being tightened. The >only question is how much this year. ..and if the Bush administration supports this effort, it would be actively going back on a campaign promise made on November 3, 2000. It would also be quite a switcheroo from when he fought that legislation as the Governor of Texas. I doubt he'd do it, although he might be politicially forced to let it slide through. If you want to see Bush's environmental positions while he was running for pres a year ago, an independent comparison is still available online at http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Environment.htm and at http://www.issues2000.org/Environment.htm#Headlines (this is a non-partisan website). Also, the man made no secret during the campaign of being anti-Kyoto, so anyone expressing shock at his actions this point has just been ill-informed. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com _______________________________________________ comp.lang.ada mailing list comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Off Topic Re: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) 2001-09-07 2:06 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. @ 2001-09-07 13:59 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-09-07 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw) My point exactly. If the treaty is such a great and wonderful thing, then the European nations should just get off their butts and sign it. Maybe if there is this huge groundswell of support and acceptance on the part of Europe, the United States will get caught up in the general celebration and in a fit of good will and camraderie go sign along with them. If Europeans want to complain that the US should go sign this treaty, I'd suggest that they first come here with a photocopy of their signed treaty & demonstrate that they really mean it. Otherwise, it looks suspiciously like the Europeans *don't* want to sign the treaty but still want to look "green" - so they blame their lack of signature on the US. I'm willing to be proven wrong. Just sign it and post a copy on the net. :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote in message news:mailman.999828367.16988.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > Perhaps this bit of information will put the US declining to ratify the Kyoto > treaty in perspective -- There is ONE European nation that has ratified it, > and that nation is Romania. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 20:34 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 21:02 ` OT: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 16:19 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2001-09-10 14:53 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2001-09-07 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) James Rogers wrote: > Ted Dennison wrote: >>In article <3B9795E1.54B12E70@worldnet.att.net>, James Rogers says... >>>Preben Randhol wrote: >>>> >>>>Anyhow the current goverment of USA does not seem to care at all about >>>>the environment. >>>> >>>The current US government cares deeply about the environment. It >>>simply does not agree with certain international political "solutions". >>> >>OK. Preben's statement seemed a bit extreme, but this one is a real howler. > > A howler? Let's look at a few facts. > ... > Emissions from US factories (on a per factory basis) are at an all > time low. > > Air pollution over major US cities is lower now than at any time in the > past 40 years. Compare this with polution over major cities in many > other countries. For example try Mexico City, Beijing, and Moscow. >... > Jim Rogers > Colorado Springs, Colorado USA I tried to stay out of this but.. Have you flown over Lake Erie lately? You can see the brown sludge going into the lake from the Southern side.. One great big messy pool of it -- very difficult to miss. There seems to me to be very little evidence that it is getting any better. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-07 16:19 ` Ada and the NMD Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2001-09-10 14:53 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3B98F394.4040308@home.com>, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG says... > >Have you flown over Lake Erie lately? You can see the brown sludge Well, the river in Cleveland doesn't catch fire every winter now... :-) --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ada and the NMD Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 19:39 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-06 20:34 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-06 22:04 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 14:29 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-08 0:54 ` Larry Elmore 2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 17:59:52 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: > As ususal I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, although I have to say > that I've yet to see any *hard* evidence that Preben is wrong. However, you > can't really use the term "government" wrt the US as Preben does, because we > don't quite work that way. Our government has 2 political branches, one of which > is split into two parts. Of those 3, 2 are presently controlled by one party, > and the third is (barely) controlled by another. Obviously, you'll search in > vain for any kind of unified coherent message comming out of the whole. When I say government I mean the Bush administration. The system is a bit different here so that is why I said government. But one thing that strikes me as very odd is that the Bush adm. wants/wanted (I don't know the current status) to allow increased levels of pollution in drinking water in the US as I understood it. It sounds to me that the industry is much more important than the people of the US for the Bush adm., but then again I'm not living over there. Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 22:04 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-07 14:29 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-08 0:54 ` Larry Elmore 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-07 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn9pg3ss.35r.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol says... > >wants/wanted (I don't know the current status) to allow increased levels >of pollution in drinking water in the US as I understood it. It sounds >to me that the industry is much more important than the people of the It would probably be fair to say that business concerns have always been top priority or close to it here. It has certainly been that way for the Republican party (Bush's party) since the late 1800's. Calvin Coolidge, republican president in the late 1920's is famous for saying "The chief business of the American people is business." A less famous but equally telling quote from him is "...the man who builds a factory builds a temple, that the man who works there worships there..." That has of course not nessecarily been the outlook of the other party during this time. But there is far less difference between the two parties than is typical in other countries, so you can probably take these attitudes a only being a bit beyond the norm. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 22:04 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 14:29 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-08 0:54 ` Larry Elmore 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Larry Elmore @ 2001-09-08 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: > > On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 17:59:52 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: > > > As ususal I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, although I have to say > > that I've yet to see any *hard* evidence that Preben is wrong. However, you > > can't really use the term "government" wrt the US as Preben does, because we > > don't quite work that way. Our government has 2 political branches, one of which > > is split into two parts. Of those 3, 2 are presently controlled by one party, > > and the third is (barely) controlled by another. Obviously, you'll search in > > vain for any kind of unified coherent message comming out of the whole. > > When I say government I mean the Bush administration. The system is a > bit different here so that is why I said government. > > But one thing that strikes me as very odd is that the Bush adm. > wants/wanted (I don't know the current status) to allow increased levels > of pollution in drinking water in the US as I understood it. It sounds > to me that the industry is much more important than the people of the > US for the Bush adm., but then again I'm not living over there. Not _increased_ levels, just the same levels we've had for years and years. _Most_ of the country already meets the proposed new lower standard for arsenic, for example. The places that don't are overwhelmingly due to natural sources in the local environment. Also, there's absolutely _nothing_ preventing a state, or a county, or a town from spending the money to meet whatever standards the local citizens approve of setting for themselves. IIRC, the new standard would've been an "unfunded mandate", so the federal government wouldn't be providing money to the effort, only fining those towns who didn't meet the standards soon enough. I read the NRC/NAS report on arsenic, and I thought the summary's conclusions were misleading at best, and directly contradict some of their own earlier statements. Several times they mention that virtually _no_ scientifically valid studies of the effects of low levels of arsenic are available, but they conclude that because high levels do cause problems, then low levels must be bad, too. Never mind the fact that almost nothing natural that we know of follows such a linear scale of toxicity, or danger... Larry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 15:11 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers @ 2001-09-06 17:21 ` Dale Pennington 2001-09-06 21:54 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-10 5:51 ` Richard Riehle 2001-09-06 17:31 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Dale Pennington @ 2001-09-06 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw) "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:slrn9pfbm4.ln.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... <SNIP> > > But to promote Ada by saying "Hey it is used to build the NMD" is not a good > idea in my opinion. I would rather concentrate on the non-military usage. > > Preben Randhol Considering Ada's origin, that is an interesting statement. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 17:21 ` Dale Pennington @ 2001-09-06 21:54 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-10 5:51 ` Richard Riehle 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:21:58 GMT, Dale Pennington wrote: > Considering Ada's origin, that is an interesting statement. I mean if you are going to promote Ada outside the military :-). In a lot of countries (especially those where it is still mandatory drafting), the military is looked down to by young people who can be potential Ada users. That DoD paid for Ada is not a problem for me as a lot of money was available to make a language which is good and well designed. But the label military language has a bad ring to it for a lot of people... Preben Randhol ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 17:21 ` Dale Pennington 2001-09-06 21:54 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-10 5:51 ` Richard Riehle 2001-09-10 20:57 ` David Bolen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Richard Riehle @ 2001-09-10 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Dale Pennington wrote: > "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message > news:slrn9pfbm4.ln.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no... > <SNIP> > > > > But to promote Ada by saying "Hey it is used to build the NMD" is not a > good > > idea in my opinion. I would rather concentrate on the non-military usage. > > > > Preben Randhol > > Considering Ada's origin, that is an interesting statement. Lots of initiatives begun for military reasons have found their most important usage in commercial, non-military enterprises. One example is the medium we are using for this discussion: the Internet. There are, of course, many others. Ada, once it is understood on its own merits instead of as a military-only programming language, may prove just as valuable for certain software applications. I note you are from Boeing. Certainly, Boeing has found some virtue in Ada for some products. Also, since this discussion involves nuclear energy, it would be remiss of us to overlook the fact that some of the newest nuclear power plants under construction (alas, not in the United States) will have software developed in Ada. Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-10 5:51 ` Richard Riehle @ 2001-09-10 20:57 ` David Bolen 2001-09-10 21:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 21:36 ` Steve Howard 0 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: David Bolen @ 2001-09-10 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> writes: > Ada, once it is understood on its own merits instead of as a > military-only programming language, may prove just as valuable for > certain software applications. I note you are from Boeing. > Certainly, Boeing has found some virtue in Ada for some > products. Also, since this discussion involves nuclear energy, it > would be remiss of us to overlook the fact that some of the newest > nuclear power plants under construction (alas, not in the United > States) will have software developed in Ada. Anyone know what current US plants are using for their control systems? -- -- David -- /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-10 20:57 ` David Bolen @ 2001-09-10 21:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 21:36 ` Steve Howard 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <u66aqhih1.fsf@ctwd0143.fitlinxx.com>, David Bolen says... > >Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> writes: >Anyone know what current US plants are using for their control systems? I don't believe *any* have been approved for construction in the US since before the first Ada standard was approved. I seem to remember that the last one was in the late 70's, but I can't find a reference online to back that up. One was just completed 6 years ago, but work started on it 23 years before that. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-10 20:57 ` David Bolen 2001-09-10 21:31 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-10 21:36 ` Steve Howard 1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Steve Howard @ 2001-09-10 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) David Bolen wrote: > Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> writes: > > > Ada, once it is understood on its own merits instead of as a > > military-only programming language, may prove just as valuable for > > certain software applications. I note you are from Boeing. > > Certainly, Boeing has found some virtue in Ada for some > > products. Also, since this discussion involves nuclear energy, it > > would be remiss of us to overlook the fact that some of the newest > > nuclear power plants under construction (alas, not in the United > > States) will have software developed in Ada. > > Anyone know what current US plants are using for their control systems? Relay logic. Although it has been a few years (12, to be exact) since I worked in the nuclear industry, my guess is that things have not changed significantly in that time frame. At that time, AFAIR, there was no computer control of any of the safety-related systems of any commercial reactor. The systems used were purely relay and electronic logic based. Even one of the last reactors commissioned, completed ca. 1990 (Nine Mile Point Unit II in Oswego, NY) did not use computers for controlling the reactor. Some auxiliary systems used computers for control (rad waste processing). Computers served almost exclusively a monitoring role. The main plant computer collected data for display, and to use for fuel calculations, but the reactor controls and instrumentation used analog gauges, meters, and controls. Other computer systems monitored radiation levels, meteorological conditions, etc., mostly for use in emergency preparedness. In my experience, these were programmed in assembly or FORTRAN. Around that time, some plants were installing digital feedwater control systems, replacing the older control systems. I did not have any exposure to these systems, but the were probably micro-controller based. Steve -- Steve Howard Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems-Syracuse stephen.e.howard at lmco dot com (315)456-7579 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 15:11 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 17:21 ` Dale Pennington @ 2001-09-06 17:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-09 11:53 ` Stefan Skoglund 2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-06 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn9pfbm4.ln.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol says... >Yes but as I understand the argumentation it is the protection of USA >against rogue states (not Russia) that is the target. And it doesn't You are making the mistake of believing that the current arguments you hear are the *actual* reasons for making it. Things don't work that way here. We come up with a government program or weapon system, then go looking for good rationalizations for building it. This very issue was touched on in, of all places, one of Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently" books. I'd give a quote, but I don't have the book handy. Essentially, one of the main characters struck it rich by creating a sort of reverse-theorem prover that you could give a conclusion, and it would come up with a set of plausible-sounding steps to get you to that conclusion. When he got it completed, the US DoD came in and bought the whole project. He claimed that he recognised some of the argument patterns in the Congressional Star Wars arguments. :-) >have to land to be harmful. I mean just look at the extent of the >nuclear downfall from Tsjernobyl. H-bombs and shoddy Soviet nuclear fission plants are *quite* different from each other. Most folks in this country never figured that one out either, though. >> silly as the Star Wars program itself. Almost. There *are* good >> reasons for being against it, > >Such as it is easy to fool the system with flares or something like that >if I remember correctly? That's a particularly good one in my book. Why should I, as a taxpayer, spend loads of my money developing something that will probably be defeatable with some simple cheap countermeasure? Sure, we can then try to counter the counter-measure. But that just leads to a vicious cycle where the baddies will always inevitably be one step ahead. In the end I see tons of money spent for very little gain. Better to just use the dough to send the terrorists to college or something. Get them all jobs maintaining Perl code, and they'll be too busy to even think about blowing anything up. :-) --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 17:31 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-09-09 11:53 ` Stefan Skoglund 0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Stefan Skoglund @ 2001-09-09 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > always inevitably be one step ahead. In the end I see tons of money spent for > very little gain. Better to just use the dough to send the terrorists to college > or something. Get them all jobs maintaining Perl code, and they'll be too busy > to even think about blowing anything up. :-) Giva a boy a bad school and you are gonna build a prison for the grown-up or give the boy a stable childhood and a good school and he is gonna build a temple for you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 4:53 Ada and the NMD Al Christians 2001-09-06 10:27 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-06 11:13 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-09-06 12:27 ` Marc A. Criley 2001-09-06 16:34 ` William Dale 2001-09-06 19:20 ` Ada in air/missile defense systems (was: Ada and NMD) Michael P. Card 4 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2001-09-06 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Al Christians wrote: > > For all the commiseration about insufficient interest at large in > Ada, there is a development looming that could possibly remedy that > in a single stroke: the National Missile Defense plan. This is a > system so preposterous that one can only think about doing it with > absurdly great software. Is Ada the way to go for such a grandiose > project? Is anyone lobbying to make Ada the "Official Programming > Language of the NMD"? Why or why not? If the software for this > project gets done primarily in non-Ada, then we can suspect that > Ada's time has passed. If it gets done primarily in Ada, then the > anemia of interest in Ada will be cured instanter by a gross > infusion of pelf. Ada is being used in several components of the NMD program--it's a big program across many contractors, so I don't know the full breadth of its use. There's lots of Ada executing as part of those missile tests that go off in the Pacific every few months. (And no one has suggested Ada is associated with any of the failures that had occurred.) Marc A. Criley ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada and the NMD 2001-09-06 4:53 Ada and the NMD Al Christians ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2001-09-06 12:27 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2001-09-06 16:34 ` William Dale 2001-09-06 19:20 ` Ada in air/missile defense systems (was: Ada and NMD) Michael P. Card 4 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: William Dale @ 2001-09-06 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) It seems the Trolls are out to drag politics into a language news group. Go away ... to late. Al Christians wrote: > > For all the commiseration about insufficient interest at large in > Ada, there is a development looming that could possibly remedy that > in a single stroke: the National Missile Defense plan. This is a > system so preposterous that one can only think about doing it with > absurdly great software. Is Ada the way to go for such a grandiose > project? Is anyone lobbying to make Ada the "Official Programming > Language of the NMD"? Why or why not? If the software for this > project gets done primarily in non-Ada, then we can suspect that > Ada's time has passed. If it gets done primarily in Ada, then the > anemia of interest in Ada will be cured instanter by a gross > infusion of pelf. > > Al ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
* Ada in air/missile defense systems (was: Ada and NMD) 2001-09-06 4:53 Ada and the NMD Al Christians ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2001-09-06 16:34 ` William Dale @ 2001-09-06 19:20 ` Michael P. Card 4 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread From: Michael P. Card @ 2001-09-06 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1898 bytes --] Hello CLA- I do not know about the US NMD program, but I do not think Ada will have a significant role in European air defense systems. This seems strange given all the talk about how Ada is more accepted in Europe than in the US. As it is now, the radar mission software for Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), which is being developed locally here at LMC Syracuse, is going to be 100% C++ as I understand it. The plan is to develop a "prototype" MEADS radar system for about 32-36 months under the RRE (Risk Reduction Effort) phase of the contract, with mission software in C++ (presumably to reduce risk?). Now the final contract for MEADS specifies the use of Ada95, but it is not realistic to expect that the MEADS consortium will be willing to throw out hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ in favor of recoding it in Ada95, so the "prototype" developed for MEADS will ultimately be the final system. If the European MEADS consortium is willing to accept this, and if it is true that Europeans are more Adaphiles than their American counterparts, then I would not expect Ada to play a significant role in future air/missile defense systems. - Mike Al Christians wrote: > For all the commiseration about insufficient interest at large in > Ada, there is a development looming that could possibly remedy that > in a single stroke: the National Missile Defense plan. This is a > system so preposterous that one can only think about doing it with > absurdly great software. Is Ada the way to go for such a grandiose > project? Is anyone lobbying to make Ada the "Official Programming > Language of the NMD"? Why or why not? If the software for this > project gets done primarily in non-Ada, then we can suspect that > Ada's time has passed. If it gets done primarily in Ada, then the > anemia of interest in Ada will be cured instanter by a gross > infusion of pelf. > > Al [-- Attachment #2: Card for Michael P. Card --] [-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 369 bytes --] begin:vcard n:Card;Michael tel;fax:315-456-1680 tel;work:315-456-3022 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Lockheed Martin ;Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems - Syracuse version:2.1 email;internet:michael.p.card@lmco.com title:Principal Software Engineer adr;quoted-printable:;;Electronics Park=0D=0ABuilding 7, Room C172 MD42;Syracuse;NY;13221;USA fn:Michael Card end:vcard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-10 23:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 61+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-09-06 4:53 Ada and the NMD Al Christians 2001-09-06 10:27 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-06 11:55 ` Florian Weimer 2001-09-06 18:03 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-07 19:31 ` Florian Weimer 2001-09-06 11:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 13:57 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 15:11 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 15:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 16:25 ` Off Topic: NMD/Environment was: (Re: Ada and the NMD) Marin David Condic 2001-09-06 17:57 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 18:52 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 19:35 ` chris.danx 2001-09-06 20:01 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 21:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-06 21:46 ` Darren New 2001-09-06 22:13 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 0:28 ` Jeff Creem 2001-09-07 8:42 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 1:27 ` James Rogers 2001-09-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 13:43 ` Marin David Condic 2001-09-07 16:10 ` James Rogers 2001-09-10 14:57 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2001-09-07 13:45 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:06 ` Darren New 2001-09-08 1:59 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. 2001-09-10 14:48 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 15:15 ` Leif Roar Moldskred 2001-09-08 16:35 ` Larry Elmore 2001-09-10 14:35 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 23:01 ` Larry Elmore 2001-09-07 13:38 ` Marin David Condic 2001-09-06 18:56 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-08 0:38 ` Larry Elmore 2001-09-06 17:59 ` Ada and the NMD Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 19:39 ` Larry Kilgallen 2001-09-06 20:15 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 21:31 ` WAY OFF TOPIC was: " Marin David Condic 2001-09-07 14:12 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 16:25 ` Robert Dewar 2001-09-06 20:34 ` James Rogers 2001-09-06 21:02 ` OT: US Green politics (was: Ada and the NMD) Ted Dennison 2001-09-07 2:06 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. 2001-09-07 13:59 ` Off Topic " Marin David Condic 2001-09-07 16:19 ` Ada and the NMD Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2001-09-10 14:53 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-06 22:04 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-07 14:29 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-08 0:54 ` Larry Elmore 2001-09-06 17:21 ` Dale Pennington 2001-09-06 21:54 ` Preben Randhol 2001-09-10 5:51 ` Richard Riehle 2001-09-10 20:57 ` David Bolen 2001-09-10 21:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-10 21:36 ` Steve Howard 2001-09-06 17:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-09-09 11:53 ` Stefan Skoglund 2001-09-06 12:27 ` Marc A. Criley 2001-09-06 16:34 ` William Dale 2001-09-06 19:20 ` Ada in air/missile defense systems (was: Ada and NMD) Michael P. Card
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox