HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psyctwo1@cc.newcastle.edu.au (PSYCTWO1)
Subject: Re: Grav/ Antigrav
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:24:42 GMT

In article <Yf8EUsa00WALQ2=HEV@andrew.cmu.edu>, Michael Seth Rostker <mr5m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.startrek.tech: 3-Dec-92 Grav/ Antigrav by
> Andrew Nipperess@f605.n7 
>> I'm not sure that TNG technology has shown us anti-grav.
> 
> Recall that the first episode that had Barkley in it (the one where he
> spends to much time in the holodeck), he was assigned to figure out what
> was wrong with the anti-grav unit on a sort of cart that was holding
> medical samples.


In one of the movies, I forget which one, the camera pans across, and you
see two feet dangling down onto a floating disc.

Fal.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Tricorders -- What's the Difference?
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:26:12 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 <1992Dec19.153839.8759@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> gtapolow@nyx.cs.du.edu (Greg Tapolow) writes:

>I believe someone said the tricorder code TR-580 was meant as an inside
>joke refering to one of the highest (snicker) quality (sniff)
>computers...The TRS-80. >;-()

If that's the case, TR-595 suggests the old TI-59 programmable 
scientific calculator from Texas Instruments.  The H(P) could
be a reference to the TI's old pocket-calculator rival, Hewlett
Packard. 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: poa@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Peter O. Adeleke)
Subject: Enterprise D blue prints and/or tech manuall?
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:07:57 GMT


A friend of mine would like to know:

Are blueprints of Enterprise-D or a tech manual available on the market?

Thanks for emailing your answers.  I don't read this group often.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: disapearances on ship; Improving Enterprise security
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:30:09 GMT

>3c. I don't think implanted communicators would improve voice quality.
>The high frequency components of consonants would be attenuated
>severly.  Try listening to someone speak with your ear against their
>chest.

They wouldn't be implanted in the chest... Just a little pickup on the
jawbone and a little 'speaker' next to the ear canal.. The 'stealth' mode
would be for the enterprise talking to the crew (almost totally silent) and
for the crew talking to the ship, it would be as quiet, at least, as using
their communicators on their chest. Also, if the crew's voice came in a
little bad (I don't think it would) the computer could process it and fix it
up a little. It proccesses ALL communications and translates some, routes
them to their destinations, fixes a bad signal etc, and all of that instantly
so a little change of the voice pattern would be a snap. (Not that I think it
would be needed).

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ahankin1@cc.swarthmore.edu (A. Luke Hankins)
Subject: Re: ropes in TNG?
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:12:15 GMT

it is entirely possible that those hi-tech pitons they were using have a
r/c "detach" thingy that shoots them out of the granite in which they are
embedded. this would seem a highly practical device; one which _any_ rock-
climber/rappeller would cream his/herself over. n'est-ce pas?
-- 
______________________________________________________________________
===Starman-* 		|	ahankin1@cc.swarthmore.edu
			|	tnx luke
________________________|______________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cboerm48@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Boerma)
Subject: Re: ropes in TNG?
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:30:29 GMT

john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:

>In <1992Dec21.092516.28352@u.washington.edu> rene@hardy.u.washington.edu:
>> Didnt anybody else consider it rather remarkable how little rope they
>> appeared to be carrying, particularly in light of the fact that Picard
>> mentions the descent is 1500 feet... ?

>Yes...and they seemed to have just exactly the right amount of rope (it looked
>like there was 6 inches of extra rope laying on the ground at the bottom).  If
>the cliff had been 503 meters rather than 500 meters, they would have been in
>big trouble.  The whole rope thing seemed a bit bogus to begin with.

It's a TV show! Please!

		CtB
From: produit@ux5.lbl.gov (nicolas produit)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Survey disapearances on ship
Date: 21 Dec 1992 20:07:45 GMT
Organization: CDFat LBL
Distribution: world
Reply-To: produit@ux5.lbl.gov (nicolas produit)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

 In many episodes somebody disapear from the enterpise.
It takes a very long time since anybody notice it.
Then they ask the computer to locate the guy and the computer just answer he
is not on bord.
I think it must be really trivial to write a low priority program that each
second account for all the people that should be on bord and yell
immadiately when somebody is missing.
I m sure that data have the necessary privileges and skill to do it.

Nicolas
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate Question
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:30:56 GMT
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <4613@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP writes:

> In article <wjhrc-181292163335@pavel.rc.rit.edu> wjhrc@rc.rit.edu (Bill Hoagland) writes:
> <
> <Oh knowledgeable ones,
> <
> <I understand that the accepted wisdom is that 1000 statdate units equals
> <one
> <earth year.
> <
> <Could someone tell me when this went in to effect by our calendar?
> 
> We don't know when it went into affect.  We only know that it exists by the
> time we get to see the exploits of the Enterprise-D.

There are two possibilities here. Either 1000 stardates = 1 year or 1
stardate=1 day [my theory]. Neither one fits in perfectly with what we know.
If the former theory is true, then stardate 0 occurred in AD 2323. The second
possibility would be AD 2250 or a decade or so before the NCC-1701 five-year
mission began.
---
The latter seems to make more "sense," but is contradicted by the fact that
Wesley spent three years at the Academy and the difference in stardates is a
nice and tidy 3000 - _NOT_ +-1100 as I had hoped it would be. 

> -- 
>       harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
> Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
>       rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
>                                    brown@wi.extrel.com

MARCU$
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Enterprise Hotel Idea
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:23:31 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
: 
: Now, having been to Walt Disney World and Universal Studios
: Florida this summer, I would not want to see an enterprise hotel
: run in the style of the Universal studios theme part. Compared to
: the slick style of Disney, US is sloppy. 
: 
: Lets just hope for a corporate takeover. :)
: 

	Perhaps Sony will buy them....
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Scale 1/1 1701A-impossible dream?: -)
From: accsah@hofstra.bitnet
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:46:53 EST

> 
> I bet that with enough brainstorming, MANY ideas could be implemented. Hey
> Disney seems to be able to make money off almost anything, and Star Trek is 
> already a household name so promoting the place would be a piece of cake.

I certainly would pay to go, so it would certainly make money.


> Ever been to a grocery store before??? The doors have sensors such that they 
> open when you get close enough to them. Don't know how much they cost, but
> maybe you could just put those in the important areas that are public access
> (you wouldn't want someone to be able to just walk into your room) and then
> use elevator-style doors that open by using a key instead of a button for the
> guests living quarters.
> 
> 				Dale
>  

Its also possible to have a small RF signal sent out to the door that a
reciever will pick up as your "personal key".  By doing this you allow the
person to enter only there room.  If person approaches the door, the signal, on 
a certain frequency, and coding will put the "door" into open mode, thus
allowing the sensors to open for anyone who enters into the motion detectors
field of vision.  The pins would not need to be all that complicated, or
expensive, and would solve the problem of the door opening to everyone.  The
entire setup would cost, approximately a $1200 dollars.

Quite expensive, but then again, it depends on how many doors it would be used
for.  If you use it on a everydoor, then cost would fall down to $500 dollars
for the entire setup, quite exceptable, since a room would cost half that much
for a "mission".  Pins would be given away as suveunirs for the "crew" to take
home, and can be recoded with a new code when they return, next year, to spend
more money.

It would also work to restrict hotel guests from gaining access to the hotel
staffs areas.
 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rene@hardy.u.washington.edu (Rene Magritte)
Subject: Re: ropes in TNG?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:25:16 GMT

 
  RE:  Ropes in COC 
 
 	Didnt anybody else consider it rather remarkable how little
rope they appeared to be carrying, particularly in light of the fact
that Picard mentions the descent is 1500 feet... ?



Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: sbarnes@dragger.ifmt.nf.ca (Spencer J. Barnes)
Subject: Re: Holodecks
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:40:43 GMT

In <1992Dec18.201651.29179@ncar.ucar.edu> vicki@steam.atd.ucar.edu (Vicki Holzhauer) writes:

>In article <BzFtG5.K47@news.iastate.edu> ltran@iastate.edu (Lang Tran) writes:

>>I also seem to remember an episode where Wharf was a sheriff and was
>>shot in the arm buy an image of an the "outlaw" data.


>Well, it seems to me as if you get into a whole new category if you
>include holodeck accidents where something "outside" was going on (in
>this instance, Data's influence on the holodeck and the "power
>surge").  There was also the Dixon Hill episode where the historian
>(first season, can't remember his name) was seriously wounded.  In
>that episode, the probe by the Hraded (?? - people with strange
>language Picard had to greet) had disabled the holodeck ...

>The diving accident and kayaking injury apparently (as far as we know)
>took place during a "normal" holodeck program.

>(If they're "normal," can I have one? :-)

>--
>Vicki Holzhauer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
>Boulder, Colorado / / / /  vicki@ncar.ucar.edu

The holodeck programming includes a 'Mortality Failsafe' (The idea
was introduced in 'Elementary, Dear Data') which is supposed to prevent
fatalities.  This mortality failsafe can be overridden by authorized 
command to the holodeck computer.  Given this level of sophistication, it
is reasonable to assume a 'scale of risk' which may be selected by an
user of a given program.  Hence the diving and kayaking accidents.

The 'near' fatalities described above were in fact results of accidental
overrides, but i remember a federation ship described in one of the early
tng novels whose officers routinely turned off the mortality failsafe in 
order to carry out 'realistic' personal combat training.

Why allow any risk??  Because it would be stupid to make anything so safe
its insipid. (Dr. David Marcus)

Spencer
sbarnes/compserv@gill.ifmt.nf.ca
Trekking thru the fog!!

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (M. Lee Smallwood)
Subject: Re: MERRY XMAS TREKKIES
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 02:49:57 GMT

MERRY X-MAS to you, CENOBITE. Looking forward to your next
message...

(serious question -- do you try to get people to hate you? do
you want to start flame-wars? I can respect both of those
things. I'd just like to know)

HAPPY NEW YEAR, CENOBITE.

---
Lee Smallwood	msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu	Tazewell HS
I got me a pocket full of kryptonite...
From: Jeff_Holinski@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeff Holinski)
Subject: Re: ropes in TNG?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:33:37 GMT

One good reason for using ropes on a covert mission is that they would be
impossible to jam. Your anti-grav belt going out hald way down a cliff could
be a bit of a problem.
 Of course if there's a Cardasian at the top with a knife you're still in
trouble.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: shugrue@spatial.eid.anl.gov (Leon Shugrue)
Subject: Re: Holodecks
Organization: ANL
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:09:29 GMT

In article <BzFtG5.K47@news.iastate.edu> ltran@iastate.edu (Lang Tran) writes:
>
>I also seem to remember an episode where Wharf was a sheriff and was
>shot in the arm buy an image of an the "outlaw" data.
>
The holodeck uses transporter technology to give all material objects
substance, i.e. matter. Collision with any of this matter is, indeed, 
possible, and will cause bruises, etc. The holodeck programming does
not allow for the intentional endangering or injury of any occupants,
nor does it allow for the continuation of holodeck-controlled matter
outside of the holodeck's confines. In most of the previosly mentioned
episodes, some outside force ( a probe, Data, etc.) has interferred with
the h-deck's programming, causing the safety features to be overridden, 
or, in at least one case, the computer has created a sentient being, capable
of interacting with the computer and influencing the ship.



Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (M. Lee Smallwood)
Subject: Re: How to Kill a Borg
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 07:14:26 GMT

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The best way to kill a Borg is to elect them to Congress and
program them to make 'sweeping reforms' (like the ones we were
supposed to get under Clinton). HEY, that might be a good idea.
I can just see it:

  Hugh for Senate --- Lobbysts are irrevelant.
                      Money is irrevelant.
                      Everyone will be assimilated into a
                       health care program.

Actually, I'm for replicating some HCl (about 5000 molar), and
transporting the WHOLE Borg ship into a (HUGE) vat of the
stuff. Let them see if that's irrevelant...

---
Lee Smallwood	msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu	Tazewell HS
I got me a pocket full of kryptonite...
From: kiemschies@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Transporters & replicators
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:35:08 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1992Dec30.051310.7625@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>   One of the things I don't like too much about Star Trek is that
> no one seems to want to explore the logical conclusions their
> technology should come to.   They should be able to make an
> exact duplicate of anyone who's been transported simply by
> using the trace and giving it the appropriate amount of energy.
> (Note that I'm ignoring the idea that transporters only look at
> your DNA pattern; it would be completely impossible to reconstruct
> someone based on their DNA alone.)
> 
> Rod
The ST_TNG Tech Manual has some interesting things to say about this. First
off, they don't make a file of data corrisponding to some "pattern" because
that would take MUCH to much data. The transporters are some sort of real time
device (so the pattern buffers are not data buffers, but are some other way of
saving a pattern. The replicators use what they call molecular resolution
(instead of quantum resolutin in transporters) and these devices do use a
computer file of some sort, but due to the lower resolution are not accurate
enough to recreate people. There have been episodes in which transporters have
been used in ways that are inconsistant with this definition, but hey, it's
only a story. This does also leave teh possibility that someone with a DAMN BIG
computer could store his/her pattern and make as many copies as he/she wanted

                                                       ----Ollie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Transporters & replicators
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:13:10 GMT

  One of the things I don't like too much about Star Trek is that
no one seems to want to explore the logical conclusions their
technology should come to.   They should be able to make an
exact duplicate of anyone who's been transported simply by
using the trace and giving it the appropriate amount of energy.
(Note that I'm ignoring the idea that transporters only look at
your DNA pattern; it would be completely impossible to reconstruct
someone based on their DNA alone.)

Rod
From: accsah@vaxa.hofstra.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Federation Marines
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:11:33 EST

> 
> While there might be some Marines abord a cruiser, its function is
> *not* to carry "several thousand troops" from system to system.
> You would need a troop carrier for that.
> 
> -- 

I agree.  Most large Navy ships carry Marines, but only enough to act as a
security force for the ship itself.

Although we know because of Tasha Yar's statement that they can carry "5000"
combat troops.
From: kzollman@phys.ksu.edu (Kevin Zollman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Ode to spot ???
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:44:27 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

Does anyone know which episode 'Ode to Spot' was first heard?

Please e-mail me the answer.
Thank you
--Kevin

--
Kevin Zollman						kzollman@phys.ksu.edu
8-) :-)  8-)  :-)  8-)  :-)  8-) :-) 8-) :-) 8-) :-) 8-) :-) 8-) :-) 8-) :-()
Imagination is more important than knowledge    -- Einstein
Knowledge is power				-- ??
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: lpeters@postmaster@hq.af.mil (Leslie D Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Stardate Question
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:19:28 GMT
Reply-To: lpeters@marge.hq.af.mil
Organization: 7th Communications Group

In article <wjhrc-181292163335@pavel.rc.rit.edu>, wjhrc@rc.rit.edu (Bill Hoagland) writes:
|> 
|> Oh knowledgeable ones,
|> 
|> I understand that the accepted wisdom is that 1000 statdate units equals
|> one
|> earth year.
|> 
|> Could someone tell me when this went in to effect by our calendar?
|> 
|> Thanx,
|> 
|> Bill Hoagland
|> wjhrc@rc.rit.edu

Per my copy of Starfleet Space Chronology, it was either 1 Jan 2000 or
2100 (too much Saurian brandy on Argelius.)
-- 
/============================================================================\
|                                            |                               |
|                    ___                     |                               |
|       ___....-----'---`-----....___        |   I haven't lost my mind --   |
| =========================================  |                               |
|        ___`---..._______...---'___         |    it's backed up on          |
|       (___)      _|_|_|_      (___)        |           tape somewhere.     |
|         \\____.-'_.---._`-.____//          |                               |
|           ~~~~`.__`---'__.'~~~~            |   lpeters@marge.hq.af.mil     |
|                   `~~~'                    |                               |
|                                            |     Les Peters                |
\============================================================================/
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: shuttle craft
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:27:42 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 <102783@netnews.upenn.edu> kkepkep@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (DragonClaw) writes:

>  Does anybody know how many shuttles there are on the Enterprise and what
> their names are?

No.

According to the TNG Tech Manual, there is no complete list.  The
producers don't want to lock the writers into a fixed list of names.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: alexj@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Alexander Jackl )
Subject: Re: Einstein and Warp Speed
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<8950@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:37:33


I just wanted to say one thing.  Jay is absolutely correct in his 
continuous declaration that in our universe AS WE KNOW IT TO WORK NOW
you cannot have FTL travel without a causality breakdown. 

HOWEVER- lest we all forget what Einstein did to the Newtonian universe-
what he did was design a mathematical model, based on local evidence (local
being defined as test measurements here on Earth and near Earth orbit and
EM data from nearby stellar formations), to describe the universe.  

It is nothing more than that.  Sometimes devotees of science forget the 
context that science works in.  IT is absolutley untrue that FTL travel
will ABSOLUTELY cause a causality breakdown- it will though ABSOLUTELY do
so in the framework of the Theories of Relativity. 

We cannot know what is ahead- to think we really do know the basic facts
 of the universe is silly and a little strange.  Imagine a goldfish deciding
it knew what was so about the universe from direct experimentation and
and visual evidence.  Imagine then that that goldfish was born and bred in
fish tank in someone's house.  How accurate a view do you think the goldfish 
could have? If you think that analogy doesn't apply to us think about it 
a little and then think about the size of the universe compared to our 
immediate observable sphere.  Pretty funny, huh?

I also want to be clear that Jay is correct within the context of Relativity
and current knowledge.  

That should do it!  And Thanks for the physics fun, Jay!

Alex


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: Scale 1/1 1701A-impossible dream?: -)
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:29:16 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Dec21.154653.1@vaxc> accsah@hofstra.bitnet writes:

> > 
> > I bet that with enough brainstorming, MANY ideas could be implemented. Hey
> > Disney seems to be able to make money off almost anything, and Star Trek is 
> > already a household name so promoting the place would be a piece of cake.
> 
> I certainly would pay to go, so it would certainly make money.
> 
It could
be useful to have someone familiar with architecture(sp) estimate the costs.
I think it could be quite inexpensive or very, very expensive depending on how
much Paramount and/or Disney want to do. In the low end of the scale, it would
cost no more than the money Paramount have spent on sets for the Star Trek 
feature films & TNG if we are content with an ordinary building containing a
number of sets. A huge scale 1/1 hollow "tent" simulating the upper half of the
NCC-1701 saucer made of fiberglas, plastic and steel might be in the $20-$30
million range. If we want to have "real" rooms, electrical systems, plumbing,
elevators etc. inside this, the costs might rise to $300 million (remember,
there is a lot of space to fill inside). 
---
If it were located in Anaheim, Paramount might find it useful for shooting Star
Trek episodes and films.

Well, what's next? 20th Century Fox's Rebel Base on Hoth [the ice cave
containing full-scale mockups of the Falcon, snowspeeders, X-wings]:-) :-)

MARCU$
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech