HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: V'GER VS BORG
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:15:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article 9437@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, lcotton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Leeroy F Cotton) writes:

>Hey! Why didn't the Organians intervene when the Borg stomped 
>on the Federation fleet? 

Why didn't the Organians intervene against Q?

And why don't any of those all-powerful races who are always
putting the Enterprise through some sort of political correctness
test stomp on some of the really nasty races that are running
around the galaxy?

The answer is, it would reduce the number of interesting stories.
That's why you can be pretty sure that, whenever an all-powerful
race is introduced, it will be conveniently ignored in future stories.
If it wasn't, Star Trek would soon become Battle of the Gods and the
Enterprise and her crew would be either irrevelent or helpless pawns.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pjb@cci632.cci.com (Phil Busardo)
Subject: Re: Holodeck Hijinx
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:42:52 GMT

In article <starman.03oy@crash.amigans.gen.nz> starman@crash.amigans.gen.nz (Robin Halligan) writes:

>:  *  If one were to have that many people residing in the holodeck at one
>:     time, someone would invariably need to go to the bathroom, which may
>:     or may not exist. (perhaps the holodeck could create one?)

If this were true, and you used the bathroom, what would be left after
an "End Program" was issued?!?!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwells@netcom.com (Jason Paul Wells)
Subject: Re: Questions about cloaking
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:27:15 GMT

Reference manuals and the like often take the easy way out and simply
say that cloaking technology has advanced just as much as sensor
technology has. Hence, an equilibrium.

Whether you are cloaked or not, if you have the impulse engines engaged,
you leave an ion trail in space. If you were actually looking for those
specific ion trails, you would be able to locate the ship--in theory.

That's my opinion. =)

-- 
 ______________________________________________________________
| jwells@netcom.netcom.com     |"Citizens of the Planet Earth, |
| wells@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu | we bring you greetings...and  |
| jaywells@aol.com             | we come in peace."    ---John |
|______________________________|_______________________________|
Subject: Animals Have No rights 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:20:18 +0000

Please take this to alt.flame or a political forum - it has nothing to
do with r.a.s.t...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Why is Data So Limited 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:27:50 +0000


In article <11NOV92.15827218.0071@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CXMP@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA writes:

>Another thing to keep in mind was that when Data was originally
>introduced in "Encounter at Farpoint", it wasn't actually said that he
>was an android but an artificial being, a "synthesoid".  Later, in
>"Datalore", Data was given a history, including a creator and a brother
>and he was established as an android.  This is how come Data was able
>get drunk in "The Naked Now".  It doesn't make sense in retrospect, does
>it?

If you select the right postulates, it does <g>.  There are two aspects
to getting drunk - one is intake of alcohol (I'll have a double of
Grand Tully, thanks!), and the other is social.  I can have had quite a
large alcohol intake and be (mentally) cold sober, in the wrong
circumstances.  Or have had very little alcohol and be drunk in others.
So I think that Data was playing with disrupting his 'mental' processes
using the alcohol as an excuse...

Just my tuppenyworth...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Next Class of Starship...?
Keywords: beyond galaxy....
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:39:39 GMT
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: mackenzi@quetzalcoatl.mcrcim.mcgill.edu


The next class of starship definitely needs BETTER SHIELDS!!!!  Like
the power coupling someone mentioned, the shields seem to fail every
other episode.  The NCC-1701's shields did not fail that often.  Granted,
weapons could have improved since TOS, but shouldn't the shields also
have improved?

Paul
From: v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Virtual Generation!!!
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov9.201419.5510@desire.wright.edu>, cse0611@desire.wright.edu writes...
>I don't seem to be getting much response from people about this
>but here goes...
>Has anyone heard much about the Virtual Reality (VR) centers that paramount
>contracted Spectrum Holobyte to design for a Next Generation simulation 
>that will be a 50 player simulation of the bridge, engineering and the
>holodeck...supposedly these centers will debut in the next 1 or 2 years in your
>neighborhood shopping mall, but after a call to Spectrum Holobyte they seem to
>still be in the very early developmental stages...so if anyone has any thoughts
>about this maybe we could organize and shape the future of entertainment!!!
> 
>Ken Runner

	I recently spoke with an engineer/spokesman of a highly prestigous
flight/groundsupport/groundvehicle simulator company.(They were recruiting
systems engineers) He spoke about a new system in which one could hook
up 50-70 simulators, be they tanks, F-14's, ground troops, and simulate
an all out warfare scenario.  My understanding was that this technology
was relatively recent and very expensive...

	Also, I THINK virtual reality equipment is also very expensive.

Wouldn't such a bold enterprise(no pun intended) by prohibited by cost???

				Jim
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: Neutronium (was Re: Atmosphere in the Dyson Sphere)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:11:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Erick Singley (singley@helix.nih.gov) wrote:
: 
: MY picky point was the notation "Mp + Me = Mn, (+1) + (-1) = 0 charge." The
: later part is right, but Mp usually means MASS and threw me for a loop since
: I thought the first part went with the last (mass of a proton=+1 and mass of
: an electron = -1? huh? that can't be what he's saying...) :)

Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing.  No, I actually meant it as two
equations, the first for mass, the second for charge.  And I know about
the neutrino component of breakdown which is not present for p+e fusion
into neutrons.

CJW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
From: 92bbb@williams.edu (Bradford Behr)
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:15:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.110840.7331@aston.ac.uk>
evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>The odd thing about data is more why having been given a form which is
>with in the human norm he is then given a completly odd skin and eye colour

If I recall correctly from the episode "Datalore", Data was purposely
made to speak in a halting (no contractions) fashion, so that people
could tell he was not human and wouldn't feel as threatened by him.
Data was version 2; his "older twin brother" Lor, who spoke in a more
natural fashion, was deactivated and disassembled for this very
reason. Perhaps Dr. ??? (Data's designer's name escapes me for the
moment) made him look a little off for the same reason.

Then again, maybe Dr. ??? was color-blind.   :)

--Brad
From: tscott@plains.NoDak.edu (Timothy E Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Decks/levels question
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:47:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.Bxn1Bx.BwM
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Is there a FAQL regarding what different sections are located where
in regards to decks/levels for the NCC 1701-D?  I've got the
Star Trek TNG Tech Manual, but it says next to nothing about what
is where (presumably to give writers room to 'flesh' the ship out.)

Thanks in advance..

--tim
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!plains!tscott OR tscott@plains OR tscott@plains.nodak.edu "Call collect!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: kelsey@redwing.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Subject: theory vs. theorem (was Re: time and warp speed)
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:37:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.224923.4705@news2.cis.umn.edu>, fin@unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.193315.17320@njitgw.njit.edu>, crl0195@hertz.njit.edu (Curt R Lindmark) writes:
|> 	...
|> |> Well, it's rather simple.  When Zephram Cochrane developed the Warp Drive,
|> |> (at least, I think that is who did it), Einstein's Relativity theory was
|> |> just thrown out the window.  Considering that it is *JUST* a theory, 
|> |> scientists are free to do with it as they please.
|> 
|> I believe that you are confused.  The term "theory" (in this context)
|> means that it has been _proven_.  You are probably confusing the
|> meaning with that of "conjecture," which means that it has been stated
|> but not proven.
|>
You are confusing a scientific _theory_ with a mathematical _theorem_.  A
theorem can indeed be "proven", and until it is it should be referred to as a
"conjecture".  A good example of this is Fermat's Last Theorem, which has
remained unproven for nearly two centuries, and should be called a Conjecture,
but for the force of tradition.
 
|> This does not mean that a theory cannot be later shown to be wrong
|> (original proof was faulty) or incomplete.  The Theory of Relativity
|> has been reproven so many times that it is unlikely that the original
|> proof was wrong.  It is quite possible, however, that new observations
|> will be made that show that the Theory of Relativity is simply A
|> special case of a more general theory.  (Actually this is exactly the
|> relationship that Relativity has to Newton's Laws.)
|>
The Theory of Relativity has *never* been proven.  It has been shown to be
internally consistent (there are no logical or mathematical contradictions 
in it), and it has been _verified_ by experimental data many times.  However,
there is always the possibility that someone will do an experiment tomorrow
that contradicts it.  According to Popper's thesis, it is precisely this
falsifiability that makes relativity (and any other _theory_) a Scientific
Theory, and not metaphysics.
						-- Mike Kelsey
-- 
[  My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government  ]
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire off
the shoulder  of Orion.   I've watched  C-beams glitter in  the darkness
near the Tannhauser Gate.  All these memories will be lost in time, like
tears in the rain."  -- Roy Batty
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jhgreen@cs.sandia.gov (Jethro H. Greene)
Subject: Did anyone record Riker's computer description?
Followup-To: jhgreen@cs.sandia.gov
Originator: jhgreen@cs.sandia.gov
Organization: Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 04:36:41 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: small@boswell.egr.msu.edu (James Small)
Subject: Re: Trans Warp Drive
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 09:41:50 GMT

In article <2NOV199209402835@sigma.tamu.edu>, mrh0631@sigma.tamu.edu (Mark Hesidence) writes:
|> In article <30OCT199221452551@rosie.uh.edu>, cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787) writes...
|> >In article <92Oct30.225827.11431@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes...
|> >>>TransWarp Drive was suppose to be the equivalent of warping through
|> >>>a dimensional door.  It's suppose to be based on the Enterprise's
|> >>>miraculous escape in OST "Tholian Web".  
|> >>>As far as speed is concerned, well, it is suppose to be faster
|> >>>than what any conventional warp engine can muster.  In other words
|> >>>this puppy can *exceed* Warp 10 limit in TNG and *not* exactly
|> >>>do a time travel bit.
|> 
|>    No matter how much you try to explain it below you said, "...this puppy
|>    (TrasWarp) can *exceed* (the) Warp 10 limit in TNG and *not* exactly
|>    to the time travel bit."


Hmmmm.....

From what I've read about warp speed from the Star Trek Tech Manuals in my Star
Trek club, by TOS standards, warp was calculated by the following:
(warp)^3
and the TNG standard is:
(warp)^5
According to the manual, the "Dr." that designed the new warp drive used in TNG
"proved" that warp 10^5 was the max speed possible by warp travel.  Where did you
hear that warp 10 is "infinite" on TNG?  (I'm not doubting the validity of any
of the above statements, just curious).

Re: small@forest.egr.msu.edu
Please respond by E-mail as I don't have much time to read news (unfortanutely 8-[ )

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: kelsey@redwing.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Subject: Re: "The Royale" Question
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:49:14 GMT

In article <7926@transfer.stratus.com>, det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.155516.3935@usl.edu> tlb2665@usl.edu (Burleigh Thomas L) writes:
|> >
|> > In "The Royale" episode, at the beginning and ending of the show, Picard
|> >refers to an unsolvable equation/theorom.  What was the name of this
|> >equation? What was the equation itself?
|> >
|> 
|> Fermat's Last Theorem is as yet unproven, which is NOT to say it's
|> unprovable.
|> 
|> The theorem is:
|> 
|>         For all n > 2, there are no integer x, y, and z such that
|> 
|>                 x^n + y^n = z^n
|> 
|> Fermat is supposed to have written this conjecture in his notes together
|> with the annotation "Remarkable proof!"  Either he meant that the conjecture
|> was remarkable, or he had thought of a "proof" that was in error, or he
|> saw some key point that no one has since picked up on, because there is
|> as of yet neither a proof confirming the conjecture nor a refutation.
|>
He wrote both the conjecture and his note in the margin of a mathematics
textbook at the library of the (French) university where he taught.  The actual
notation was "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem, which
this margin is too small to contain."  It is this assertion by Fermat that he
had _proven_ his conjecture which has confounded mathematicians for the last
century and a half.

Recently, a number of computational mathematicians have verified Fermat's
conjecture for specific values of n up to some large value (well over 1
million), but no inductive proof, or any other _general_ proof, has been found
to date.
						-- Mike Kelsey
OB Trek:  Hey, Rascals wasn't that bad!  Did you notice at the end how
wistfully Picard put his hand to his (now bald) head?  Nice subtlety there.
-- 
[  My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government  ]
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire off
the shoulder  of Orion.   I've watched  C-beams glitter in  the darkness
near the Tannhauser Gate.  All these memories will be lost in time, like
tears in the rain."  -- Roy Batty
From: w5y092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Todd Leroux)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:05:24 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.rick.cs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov9.230625.19928@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, f017@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:
> 
> On the TNG tech manual keeps mentioning kiloquads when referring to computer
> memory, etc.  What I would like to straighten out iswhat a kiloquad is!
> my guess is that it is a trillion megabytes.
> 

Here's my guess:

Federation computers use quaternary arithmetic.  I could be way off, but
I don't own a tech manual so I don't know what it says in there.  Considering
that Enterprise computers are optical, representing four different states
should not all that difficult.  So a quad is actually a "QUAternary Digit".

Now about the kilo part, I'm not sure.  1000 quads isn't really a whole lot
of storage.  So maybe it's just a common (ie. misleading and inaccurate) term
for a much larger figure.

OR,
		        4
A kiloquad could be 1000  bits = 1 terabit.  Which means that you can 
ignore everything that I said up there ^^^.  Of course, this still isn't
all that large a figure.  

OR,

A Quad is some weird unit of storage that has something to do with optical
logic and storage and noone really has any way of figuring out what it is
unit we invent one for real.
Which brings to mind a storage device I read about a while ago.  It was an
optical cube -- same principle as an optical disk but working in three
dimensional space.  Perhaps these cubes are called Quads (because a square
has four corners) and we're talking about 1000 of these things, standard-size.


  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
  | Steve Leroux            | My views do not necessarily represent |
  | U of British Columbia   | those of carbon-based life in general |
  | Canada                  | or human beings in particular.        |
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: uril@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Orientation
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:37:38 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <26106@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, william@cs.arizona.edu (gniltreH mailliW) writes:
> In article <192@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>>Use the right hand rule from physics, and your thumb will point to the
>>natural "up" in the universe.  Since everyone needs maps to navigate, and
>>it would be a pain to have a different "up" on each map, it makes sense
>>to me that most spacefaring races would standarize in a similar manner.
>>After all, with the diverse cultures we have on Earth, most cultures
>>have picked "North" to be at the top of their maps.
> 
> That seems kind of silly. All maps may be oriented the same way, but the 
> ship doesn't need to be oriented in any specific direction. After all,
> do we humans need to lie down with our heads facing north to understand a 
> map? No, you can look at the map while facing in any direction, and
> still understand it. You don't even need to orient a map so that north
> is on the top, and you'll still understand it.
> 
> william

Considering the size of the universe, wouldn't it also be hard to create a 
standard map?  Also, in battle situations, I don't think a ship would be 
concentrating on which way was up.
-- 

Uri J. Lessing |  Earlham College |  Richmond, Indiana
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Rascals
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:02:53 MST
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <101755@bu.edu> shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu (Sergey Shimkevich) writes:
>One more thing about "Rascals": the garbage about RNA and DNA was too painful
>to listen to.

A friend of mine who is about to get her degree in genetics fairly
laughed at this episode.  The non-DNA genetic material they named (it
wasn't RNA) which was responsible for development over time was
entirely fictitious, and doesn't even make sense in genetics.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
                    jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stu@black.ursa.cns.umist.ac.uk (Stuart Quick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Why turn the lights off on the Enterprise ?
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:31:44 GMT
Reply-To: stu1@kaa.ee.umist.ac.uk
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

I've just been studying a picture of the Enterprise orbiting a planet and  
something's just struck me:

Why are so many lights turned off in the cabins ?

One could argue that many of the crew are sleeping. Or maybe this a  
demonstation of 'green' issues.
Surely the electrical drain from keeping these things on is *trivial* compared  
with propelling this beast through space at warp speeds.

Stuart.
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Human bodies explode in vacuum?
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:19:36 GMT
Organization: Keristor Systems


In article <1992Nov7.212516.27042@midway.uchicago.edu>
           arxt@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>        Yes, and that is why they don't allow conventional coffee cups on
>space shuttle flights.  If they did, the entire universe would be sucked into
>the coffee cup and destroyed because of the lack of air pressure.  Why?
>Because coffee cups are actually black holes.  Stephen Hawking discovered this
>but it was deleted from A Brief History of Time because of lack of space.

And lots of other stuff...

ROFL!  That takes the prize for the best explanation I've heard this
year!  Thank you...

Chris

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech