HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:03:25 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

hendrick@ctron.com (Jim Hendrick) writes:
>>We don't even know for sure if ENTERPRISE computers use a binary
>
>I believe the episode 1001101 or whatever it was called sort
>of addressed that point.

I had this episode in mind, but I couldn't remember if it answered the
question explicitly.  Of course the Binars' language and the episode
title do imply binary representation, and that's why I said I think
the representation IS binary.

Remember that we've only had the computer for fifty years or so, and
look how far we've run with the ball.  You'd think that after four
hundred years of such breakneck evolution they'd have thought of
something better.  Okay, maybe there ISN'T anything better, but it's
worth thinking about.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Stardate program now available via FTP
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:46:40 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

The pseudo-stardate generator I wrote is now available via anonymous
FTP from ftp.cis.ksu.edu in pub/Startrek.

Share and Enjoy.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: nin15b42@merrimack.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: dechyons
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:10:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: merrimac.1992Apr11.161055.1586
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA

What on earth is a dechyon?  I have looked for hours, but found nothing 
to tell me what they are.  Are they subatomic particles that repeat in time?


					-Henway

-- 
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
? Henway the Barbarian	|   	"Ruthless director at large"		?
? Merrimack College	|  InterNet: MX%"nin15b42@merrimack.edu"	?
? N. Andover, MA  01845	|   						?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: sjs@torque.bae.bellcore.com (Steve Szymanski)
Subject: Re: Deck consruction (Minor spoilers)
Reply-To: ricks@berkeley.edu
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 14:53:52 GMT

|> 	Think back to ST and you will remember a few indor phasor shots
|> that just leave burns on the metal.
|> --
|> 

I was reading my trusty Tech Manual last night :-) and the one thing
the I went over was the section on phasers.  My understanding 
according to the manual is that the internal datacomm link
to the ships computer that is in the phaser prevents a discharge
that is greater than a setting3 (heavy stun).  This much I remember
offhand, however I am not sure what a prolonged setting3 will do
to an inanimate object.  I would assume that the purpose is of course
to prevent damage to the ship.  Wouldn't want someone going bonkers
with a phaser on setting 5-10 inside of 10 forward, now would you! :->


-- 
Steve Szymanski 
Bellcore 				RRC-1C206
444 Hoes Lane				(908)699-5026
Piscataway, NJ  08854			sjs@bae.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:57:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.090659.18868@newcastle.ac.uk>, Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr10.223607.8679@Princeton.EDU> dandrath@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel H. Drath) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr10.191456.15594@ecst.csuchico.edu> jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) writes:
|> >>In <1992Apr8.222038.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|> >>>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
|> 
|>  My 0.05-worth?
|> 
|> I'd say the defence FIELDS are similar to the SHIELDS but are channeled either
|> within or very close to the surface of the hull, giving some defence against
|> attack, but also strengthening the hull against internal stresses from violent
|> manoeveurs and fluctuations in the drives etc.
|> 
|> The DEFENCE SCREENS or SHIELDS are projected at some distance from the hull,
|> (that circle of little dots!). This would give some advantages:
|> 1. The spherical field may require less energy to maintain its shape, so may
|>    be driven at a higher power.
|> 2. The greatly increased surface area of the shield allows incident energy
|>    (ie enemy fire) to be dissipated and radiated away more efficiently...
|> 

From reading the TNG Tech Manual, there appears to be 2 distinct systems:

1.  The Structural Integrity Field (SIF) which deals with vehicle stress
(e.g. warp stress, planetary gravitation, etc.).  The SIF, as best as I
can tell, operates within the hull of the ship.  That is, the SIF conduits
are encapsulated within the hull.

2.  Defensive shields/deflectors/screens (also include the navigational
deflector) operate on the exact same principle (same building blocks)
but are projected on the exterior of the ship (those grids that are all
over the place and the navigational deflector dish).  The shields are
in place during space-flight but are brought to "tactical configuration"
during alert modes.

I short, both systems use the same components.  The generators are always
blah blah MW graviton blah coupled with a blah blah millichocrane subspace
blah amplifier.

The SIF is used to protect the ship from structural stress and the 
shields are used to protect the ship from being struck by matter/energy
(be it in the form of meteors or disruptor beams).


I would like to see if anyone can explain the numbers of the shields.
The maximal protection afforded by seven shield generators is given in
kW and seems to be less that the nominal output of the generators, given
in MW.


--
Gordon Edwards                          Email: gordon@meaddata.com
Mead Data Central                               ...!uunet!meaddata!gordon
P.O. Box 933                            Phone: (513) 865-7724
Dayton, OH 45401, USA                     FAX: (513) 865-1655
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: thanatos@iastate.edu (Bradley C Karsjens)
Subject: Re: STAR TREK SHIP TYPES
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:33:55 GMT

Hmm... I hope this gets posted.

A few little tidbits from the ST:TNG manual to correct the earlier posting:

The USS Lantree, Reliant, Saratoga, and Brattain(Spelled this way in the
manual) were all Miranda class ships.

The Enterprise-A was a modified Constitution class.

The Enterprise-B was an Excelsior class.

The Enterprise-C was an Ambassador class.

And from the Star Trek Star Fleet Technical manual:

All of the following ships were Constitution class:
Constellation NCC-1017
Valiant NCC-1709
Intrepid NCC-1708    (This is obviously not the same one as in ST:TNG)
Farragut NCC-1702

The STSFTM has lots and lots and lots of ship names, but not all that many are
mentioned anywhere else in the whole wide universe of Star Trek.

-- 
| Bradley C. Karsjens               |  "I know this ship like the  |
| internet: thanatos@iastate.edu    |   back of me hand! <oof>"    |
|                                   |  ---Montgomery Scott,        |
| netrek: Jean-Luc Picard           |     Star Trek V              |
From: Shinji.Kono@newcastle.ac.uk (Shinji KONO)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:08:48 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

In article <XXs4iB2w164w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper) writes:
>That is exactly what I was thinking.  A ship could be looked over easily, or 
>lost in the piles of names already existing.  A class would give him the 
>credit that he really deserves.

I think there are no detailed description of *very* large ship in his
novel. But, there is a class of starship which he prefered. A small starship
contains less than 10 people, which has a kind of continuous warp and
very fast. You know, it is a starship appeared in "Foundation's Edge" and
"Foundation and the earth". I think it is a suitable Asimov class candidate.

BTW, if it has a stealth facility, it will be called Smith class. If it has
stacis field and General products shell, it will be called Niven class.
-- 
Shinji Kono @ Computing Laboratory, University Newcastle upon Tyne
kono@csl.sony.co.jp                     Room: 616 Claremont Bridge
from Sony Computer Science Laboratory, Inc, Japan.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: justin@lkba (Justin Blische)
Subject: Re: Ent D vs Star Destroyer
Reply-To: uunet!lkba!justin
Organization: LKB Associates, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.180314.1@cstp.umkc.edu>  writes:
> 
> 
>   I would like to make a point about lasers vs. NCC1701D shields.
> 
>   Granted, the book says lasers don't doi diddly to the Enterprise's  
shields.
> Let's look at this reasonably.  Lasers are composed of coherent trains  
of
> photons.  > 
> Now, to the matter of photon torpedoes.  As many people have pointed  
out, the
> most damaging yield of a photon torpedo is the burst of gamma rays it  
puts out. 
> The gamma rays are responsible for most of the damage.
> 
>   But, Gamma rays are composed of photons of electromagnetic energy.


> 

 But a laser beam's waves are all on the same frequncy (sp).
The shields job is to protect the ship by maching that frequncy (sp).
Now the computer would have no problem maching a laser, but they may have  
a problem with the whole electromagnetic spectrum.And some of those gamma  
rays may get in.



                                            Justin
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: comp138w142@camins.camosun.bc.ca (Scott)
Subject: Re: Yamato Vs. Enterprise (was  Re: Prime Directive vs. The FORCE?!?!?)
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:27:26 GMT

> 
> Now some of my own suggestions:
> 
> Enterprise vs. Gunbuster - Enterprise. No contest. (Any other mecha, for that
> matter).
> 
> Enterprise vs. Exelion - Enterprise.
> 
> Enterprise vs. a Santovasku cruiser (Outlanders) -  Without a null-space
> shield, the cruiser is toast (remember what phasers do to living tissue). With
> a first-class officer on board to generate the shield, the cruiser will win.
> 
> Enterprise vs. the Lovely Angel - Both undamaged, all nearby worlds get
> destroyed. 
> 

How about Enterprize vs. Vogon Constructor ship - Vogons

Scott.
"You're a JERK... Dent... A complete Asshole."
From: sdh5@po.CWRU.Edu (Scott D. Hurley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Asimov Lost
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:49:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr6.194938.7095
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Isaac Asimov, died this morning April 6, 1992 A.D.

WHo's left?
-- 
Though it will take me to Forever's Rim,
I sail through the reaches of Time's Twilight Dim.
Questing for Knowledge, on Night's Darkest Sea,
Bound for those shores enshrouded by Mystery.  --Thaliaer's Oath
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: kratnam@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Kapila Ratnam)
Subject: Re: Stardates and Timelines (was Re: Stardate conversions)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:28:06 GMT

Bravo ! Your explanation makes so much sense, it must be correct.


-- 
"Even in this corner of the galaxy, captain, two plus two equals four"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cs201139@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs201139)
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:58:30 GMT

>Is there a USS Asimov?
>
>If not...There should be!

Damn straight! And it should be more of those unnamed Galaxy Class ships...
From: asweeney@camelot.sw.stratus.com (Andrew Sweeney)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Basis for transporters
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:07:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc., Marlboro, MA.


OK I was just at lunch and after a few beer the talk got into star trek and this statement
came out.

	"There is no scientific basis for the transporters (as opposed to most of the
	other technical stuff). The only reason that the transpoters exist is
	because when TOS was first started there was not enough $$$ in the budget
	to have landing ship (shuttle craft) scenes."

Can anyone verify this?

Thanks 

Andy
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.222038.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
>What's the story on this?  In the first attack by Kahn, the big E has
>energized defensive screens (accompanied by a graphic of the ship being
>"colored in" section by section), but hasn't raised shields (graphic of
>dots encircling the ship)...

I don't think there's an official explanation, but the "tech fandom" 
reasoning is that screens are the gridwork along the hull, that simply
strengthen it, while shields are a "bubble" projected around the
vessel at some distance.

-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 19:24:16 CDT
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
 <1992Apr5.202222.23627@hellgate.utah.edu>

Gents, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but...............
     Special relativity doesn't care which method you use for circumventing the
light speed limit. As long as you go from point a to point b in less time than
it would take traveling at velocity c, you get into paradoxes.

Why ? Look up the Lorentz transformation from any textbook on Special relativit
y. Notice that if point a and point b in space-time lie outside of each other's
light cones (i.e. you can't reach one from the other traveling at velocities
no greater than c through space-time) then there are inertial frames of
reference in which point (i.e. event) a precedes event b, and vice versa.

Thus : If you circumvent the universal speed limit somehow, in some frame of
reference (an inertial one) you will be going back in time. But the laws of
Physics are the same in all inertial reference frames! Thus, one is left with
the conclusion that time travel is possible in all inertial reference frames.

In a purely deterministic theory like (unmodified) relativity this is no proble
m, but when one tries to reconcile relativity with the nondeterministic nature
of quantum mechanical phenomena, time travel (and the ability to know an
undetermined future) leaves one with some fairly nasty contradictions.

Sorry, but the smart money says that you can't even make it to "warp 1".

                                             Joseph B. Dunphy
                                             Graduate Student
                                             Mathematics and Electrical Eng.
From: yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Video screens: back light or post-editing?
Distribution: na
Date: 4 Apr 92 16:05:31 GMT
Organization: Blue-Knight Productions

In article <1992Mar24.194947.29862@ecst.csuchico.edu> davros@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tyler J. Yip) writes:
>>As far as I can tell...
>Static displays are back-lit,
>High-resolution video pictures that don't have hands waving in front are 
>  computer post-edits,
>and Complex seens with people hitting buttons on changing displays are
>  the ones with monitors behind plexiglass...
>
>Any inside story insight? (Other than "Mike Okuda at a creation con said...",
>I've seen him three times and still can't get a straight answer...)
>I'm really looking for people with experience in this field, i.e. people that
>have done this.

	Well I do this regularly and its no bid deal at all to do it. Most
of the things on it are generated with a computer. 
	If a hand is waving behind a screen its no problem to capture the
frame and birmap the image around the hand and then single frame it back
to film.... or tape. There is also a thing called Chroma keying... where
all of the Panneles will be Blue!!!! and when filmed the computer images
are after or during... filming are encoded on. Since only the blue part
will be filled with a computer image It can be done with no problem.
As for displays. I would think that having a touch screen with the actual
setup in the set is no big deal. I can set one up the same way in your
house if you want... total cost (around 5-6 thousand. And since we only
see about 2 of them. at any time... They can always reconfigure the touch
screen within minutes to the other display.

--

    _____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                     |
   | Yury German                  yury@bknight or yury@bknight.jpr.com   |
   | Blue-Knight Productions      GENIE EMAIL: Blue-Knight               |
   | (212)218-1348                (Graphic Design and Video Productions) |
   | (718)321-0998		  P.O. Box 985, Queens, New York, 11354  |
   |_____________________________________________________________________|

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: imfletch@athena.mit.edu (Robert P Bosch Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yamato Vs. Enterprise (was  Re: Prime Directive vs. The FORCE?!?!?)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.172726.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca>, comp138w142@camins.camosun.bc.ca (Scott) writes:
|> > 
|> > Now some of my own suggestions:
|> > 
|> > Enterprise vs. Gunbuster - Enterprise. No contest. (Any other mecha, for that
|> > matter).
|> > 
|> > Enterprise vs. Exelion - Enterprise.
|> > 
|> > Enterprise vs. a Santovasku cruiser (Outlanders) -  Without a null-space
|> > shield, the cruiser is toast (remember what phasers do to living tissue). With
|> > a first-class officer on board to generate the shield, the cruiser will win.
|> > 
|> > Enterprise vs. the Lovely Angel - Both undamaged, all nearby worlds get
|> > destroyed. 
|> > 
|> 
|> How about Enterprize vs. Vogon Constructor ship - Vogons
|> 
|> Scott.
|> "You're a JERK... Dent... A complete Asshole."

Ah yes, but now the most important question...

The Enterprise vs....

DA BEARS!
-- 
Robert Bosch
imfletch@athena.mit.edu

"You've got the wrong number, this is 91...2."
	-Chief Wiggum, *The Simpsons*
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: STII screens vs shields
From: ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:20:38 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

Having just acquired the laserdisc of STII and re-watched the movie 
several times, I noticed something I never noticed before:

The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
What's the story on this?  In the first attack by Kahn, the big E has
energized defensive screens (accompanied by a graphic of the ship being
"colored in" section by section), but hasn't raised shields (graphic of
dots encircling the ship)...

Energizing the screens sure didn't do them a damn bit of good!  Have
we seen these before/since?
                                        __
                                       / /\  
Tom Tullio                            / / / 2                   The face of a
Wesleyan University                  / /  \           child can speak volumes.
----------------------------*       / / /\ \      *---------------------------
TTULLIO@WILLET.WESLEYAN.EDU         \_\/\ \ \       Especially the mouth part.
                                         \_\/
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:24:02 GMT
 <1992Apr12.183423.25221@nic.umass.edu> <92106.143257KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr15.203050.28308@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Wherever it lands, it stays 'til I need it

In article <1992Apr15.203050.28308@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
(Matt Hucke) says:

>>What about a Roddenberry class?  Why does Asimov get preferential treatment?
>>I don't believe he ever even wrote an episode of Star Trek, did he?
>(Would've
>>been neat if he had, though.)

>Since Star Trek, the TV show, did not exist in that other universe, Gene
>was not as important as Asimov or Heinlein there.

Well, since he didn't do Star Trek in the other universe, don't you think
he would have taken all this extra time and done something else noteworthy?

...I mean, maybe in the alternate universe, he wrote all the Dixon Hill
novels, which were set in the 21st century and presented an optimistic look
at the future... also, w/o Star Trek, there wouldn't have been as much of an
interest in the other universe, so Asimov wouldn't have been such a big deal.

But this is, of course, all unfounded speculation.  As if that were a
bad thing.  :)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 22:56:39 PDT
Organization: TradeNET Corp., Castlegar, BC CAN

scrotch@milton.u.washington.edu (Lou Ciphre) writes:

> sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com (Kent Sarff) writes:
> 
> 
> >>>Is there a USS Asimov?
> >>>
> >>>If not...There should be!
> 
> >>Damn straight! And it should be more of those unnamed Galaxy Class ships...
> 
> >Just name a ship??  Come on, how about a Azimov Class?  He will always be in
> >a class of individuals that have shaped the present and future of science fa
> 
> Asimov already has been acknowledged in the form of Data's "positronic
> brain" (not that the USS Asimov wouldn't be nice too).

The positronic brain just doesn't do it though.  If I was thinking about the 
positronic brain then I would not necessarily also think of "Hey, that is 
Asimov's idea.".  Now actually having a class or even just a ship is more 
like it.