HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikecap@planet10.WPI.EDU (Michael Vince Caprio Jr)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Re: Problems with AI
Date: 9 Oct 1992 14:18:24 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: planet10.wpi.edu


Speaking as a total layman with a little reading and some interest in the
topic, I really have to say that I feel present technology, or at least the
way we think about computer systems i.e. our methodology and procedure, is 
at the moment inadequate to tackle the problem of AI.  The entire basis of
all computer process is based on the binary system - that in and of itself
is enough to halt any more progress.  We know that the brain does not work
by using 0's and 1's to communicate; but perhaps there are a number of chemical
signals in the brain that work in a similar fashion (maybe some number
divisible by three to match our genetic code).  At any rate, current technology
really can't give us any other process - on and off are the easiest states to
achieve; anything in between is very indeterminate.  The point is, we have to
change our way of thinking about computer systems before we can achieve
anything even close to a true AI.

Mike
-- 
"A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings
into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the
still pure air and fondly traces out the restful countours apparently built for
eternity."  - Albert Einstein    ***E-mail mikecap****
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: jaynes%gr.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Chris Jaynes)
Subject: AI, CogSci, the Future
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:05:09 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


>(1)
>
>there are diverging goals.  half of us try to make computers do useful
>and interesting things; the other half try to learn something about
>the brain and the mind using computers.

>the first half could perhaps work more closely with operations
>research types, while the second half could perhaps work more closely
>with cognitive psychologist types.  the first half can be a blessing
>to our economy; the second half can be a blessing to our knowledge.
>
>at one time, the two were closer, i suppose, with heuristic search
>being one unifying paradigm.  now, there is a pluralism of techniques
>(sometimes it seems like the technique-of-the-month club!), and they
>don't have much in common, much less find expression in search terms.
>
>it seems hard these days for somebody who does, say, planning, to keep
>up with vision, or even to share new fundamental knowledge.  sometimes
>we have different subfields tackling problems with very similar
>structures, using different terms to describe their solutions.  is
>this natural?  will the knowledge ever transfer?  will there ever be
>anything to unify the different subfields again?  i would be
>interested in comments.
>

	I think the half-and-half division of the AI field might
	be an unfair one.  While there are branches of AI that
	work towards building useful commputers and others that 
	attempt to solve human cognition problems using computers
	as tools, there are other areas that, I believe, to be valid.

	For example, I am currently conducting experiments in
	computer vision.  I am attempting to model parts of the
	human vision system.  I look at the physiology and the cognition
	that makes up the human vision experience.  This is a 
	case where I use knowledge about the mind and apply it
	to a computer that will hopefully do usefull things.

	This is why I believe cognitive science is such an important
	field.  I believe sufficently intellegent systems can be built
	using the results of studies like Cog.Sci.

	I agree with the rest of your post.  Programming in practice
	is cumbersome and not elegant enough to provide us with the
	tools we need.  (I just finished a 600-700 line program that
	extracts 3D lines from a scene).

	AI does have its problems, thats true.  But I don't think the
	field should be abandoned, just looked at though a different
	lens.  Hopefully the field will be open to new ideas and
	not stuck (like so many new sciences are) with the original
	ideas and people.  New people are needed in any science to
	keep it moving (I say this because I'm 22 years old)

Chris
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: GMT of Sputnik 1 Launch?
Summary: What time was Sputnik 1 Launched?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  9 Oct 92 18:30:45 GMT

Can someone look up the GMT of Sputnik 1's launch.  I was born on 
October 3, 1957 at 19:35 CST.

Although the official launch date is October 4, the local time in the 
United States was likely October 3.  How many hours & minutes
older/younger am I than Sputnik 1?  

Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: BLACK HOLES
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:34:49 GMT

bill.nunnelee@the-matrix.com (Bill Nunnelee) writes:

>-> 3) Is there a black hole close to our galaxy?

>3.) There are probably many Black Holes within our galaxy, as they are
>the natural result of the death of a massive star (I should know the
>required number of solar masses, but I would have to look it up).  

There's still a vivid discussion on that point at the relativists and
theoretists of stellar evolution, so that it is still open if stellar
evolution leads to black holes at all. All we know is that in Einstein's
GR there are Black Hole configurations as solutions.

Also there was a suggestion some years ago to replace the black hole 
candidates at the centers of galaxies by just anisotropic stellar velocity
distributions... and most *stellar* candidates could turn out to be
Neutron (or some type of even stranger) stars (as most did BTW).
--

 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: SETI NOT POSITIVE
Keywords: HRMS, SETI
Organization: VTT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:43:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.145125.25507@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> eto@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Edward T. Olsen) writes:
>Gentlemen:
>
>The NASA search for signals of extraterrestrial intelligent origin has
>not yet begun. The Initial Deployment of the High Resolution Microwave
>Survey (HRMS) will be October 12, 1992.
>
>Do not propagate misinformation and rumor!
>
>Edward Olsen
>HRMS
>-- 
> Edward T. Olsen
> Mail Stop 169-506, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA  91109 
> Phone: (818)-354-7604   INTERNET: eto@seti.jpl.nasa.gov (Node: 128.149.82.1)

\\\\\\\\\\\\
Just curious - I have a direct question for you:

Is NASA/HRMS going to investigate any previously detected signals, which
it considers might possibly have been of ETI origin? Does NASA say that no
such candidate ETI signals have been detected so far? (We all now that
HRMS is beginning soon, but there have been previous surveys of far less
scope.)

A direct "NO" to question 1 or "YES" to question 2 is what we are trying
to detect. That will kill rumors most effectively.

Also, there has been another interesting question:
Is HRMS capable of detecting signals of power equivalent to terrestial
broadcasts (different frequencies) at distances of say 50 light years or so?

Thanks for your information.
David Harwood
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SETI functional grammar
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:12:34 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
-Subject: Re: SETI functional grammer
-Date: 16 Oct 92 00:42:05 GMT
-Organization: U of Cambridge, England

-In article <1992Oct15.050643.2763@foretune.co.jp>, trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
-|> >ends up on an alien planet and won't come back.  How do you tell the aliens
-|> >to press the right (manual override) button and not the left (self destruct)
-|> >button?  I couldn't figure a way out.
-|> 
-|> Describe it in terms of physical properties, including the RIGHT-HAND
-|> rule.

-Unfortunately, the right-hand rule depends on our conventions for which way
-current flows and which way a magnetic field points. 

-There are bits of particle physics which are asymmetric. Provided we know our
-aliens are matter, then we can ask them to observe the beta-decay of cobalt-60
-nuclei in a magnetic field. More of the electrons emerge going North than South
-(or vice versa I forget). 

That was approximately the technique I read about - thanks for posting it.

-If we don't know that the aliens are matter an even
-subtler experiment is needed, but there is one. 

Last I heard there wasn't, but that might not be up to date. As I mentioned
before, in this case, the aliens would have a sample of our matter to
experiment on. (And as someone else said, those two buttons ought to have
labels that can be described. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:14 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <NICKH.92Oct7182340@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes...

>Someone even suggested that we might turn the sun _out_. Good grief,
>go get some education, why don't you?
> 
>Again, _please_ think about doing some sums, or at least thinking
>about physics, before posting to sci.space. These sums are _very_
>easy. If you can't do them, don't try to answer questions that other
>people post.
> 
>That statement betrays a complete lack of understanding of the scale
>of space, so I'll post some basic numbers and ideas to help the
>clueless.

For someone who so sharply critical of others, I would have thought that 
you would have taken a little care to work out the numbers before you
said this:

>If the Earth were an apple, the whole biosphere shebang, including the
>oceans, would be thinner than the skin on the apple. The sun would be
>a 10-foot sphere about a mile away. The solar system would be forty
>miles across. The nearest star would be on the moon (if you see what I
>mean). And in all this space, there's _nothing_ except a few
>basketballs (the gas giants), assorted small fruit (the other planets)
>and a bit of dust. We can't pollute something that large.

The Sun's radius is roughly 110 Earth radii.  So if the Sun is a 10-foot
sphere, the Earth is 1.1 inch, an awfully small apple, if you ask me.
Even if you meant the sun to be a sphere of 10-foot radius (rather than
diameter), I'd still recommend you find yourself a better greengrocer.

I normally wouldn't be so picky, but since you insist on berating others
for their failure to put pen to paper, I think you should take some
of your own medicine.  Need I point out that these were very simple
ratios that you easily could have done before posting to sci.astro?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Telepresence
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:20:40 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <1992Oct10.144241.8191@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <9210070147.AA09594@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>>  The simulator displays a phantom
>>  image of the robot superimposed on the delayed "real" monitoring image of
>>  the robot. 
> 
> After successfully maneuvering the phantom image, the operator sits back
> and watches the delayed image of the rover slowly fall into a subsidence
> hidden from the scan. The screen image is replaced by the words "GAME 
> OVER. INSERT $1 BILLION TO PLAY AGAIN"

Hmm, this reminds me of a prank that... certain individuals... used to
play at... a major accelerator facility I know of.  

The victim's screen would clear and a message appeared:

    DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, WE REGRET THAT THE CONTROL SYSTEM IS NO
                              LONGER FREE.
      INSERT 25 CENTS FOR 15 MORE MINUTES OF CONTROL SYSTEM USAGE.

In the Department of Energy's funding environment of the late
seventies, this was alarmingly plausible...
                              
                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~              
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
 |       |            
 \       /                          SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -                     
     ~                              Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV 
Xref: sparky sci.space:14337 sci.astro:10611
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 10/09/92 (End of Mission)
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:00:14 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com

In article <1992Oct11.155039.17357@engage.pko.dec.com>, moroney@ramblr writes:
>An earlier post suggested that data on Venus's atmosphere would be gathered
>upon reentry.  I take it that since the probe re-entered on the far side and
>was lost, no data was gathered?

I believe the very act of entering the atmosphere enabled data to be gathered.
As was posted here in <1992Oct11.054006.22953@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, presumably
the article which you are following up, measurements were taken of PVO's
periapsis and the drag encountered as it dipped into the Venusian atmosphere on
each orbit.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: regester@astro.as.arizona.edu (Jeff Regester)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: ASTRONOMY CAMPS FOR TEENS AND ADULTS
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:55:56 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

The Steward Observatory Astronomy Camps for Adults and Teens for the
coming winter, spring and summer have been scheduled. The dates are:
   Advanced Adult Camp   Feb 18-21
   Beginning Adult Camp  Apr 23-25
   Beginning Teen Camp   Jun 7-14
   Advanced Teen Camp    Jun 18-25

The Astronomy Camps are run by Steward Observatory (Univ. of Arizona)
as a non-profit educational outreach project. Attendees use the 40",
60", and 61" research telescopes of the Mt Lemmon and Mt Bigelow
Observatories (north of Tucson) operated by NASA and Steward. A 16"
Schmidt camera and numerous portable telescopes are also available.

The Adult Camps are during weekends and consist of observing (using
eyepieces, astrophotography with film and CCDs, and photometry,
according to participant interest) and lectures, demonstrations, and
discussions. Tours of research and engineering facilities, such as the
spin-casting facilities of the Steward Observatory Mirror Lab, are
also conducted.

The Teen Camps (for ages 13 to 17) each last a week, four nights of which
are spent observing. Activities include those of the Adult Camps plus tours
of Kitt Peak facilities, science demonstrations, lectures (space program,
archaeoastronomy, space art with Kim Poor, etc.) and other activities 
(model rockets, volleyball, orienteering in the mountains, etc.)

For both Teens and Adults, the Advanced camps are for those who have 
previously attended a Beginning Camp or who have prior amateur astronomy
experience. The Camps are run by Dr Donald McCarthy of Steward Observatory.
Other Steward faculty and graduate students, as well as personnel of Flandrau 
Planetarium, participate as guest speakers and camp counselors.

To receive more info about the Camps, contact either

 Don McCarthy  voice: (602)621-4079
               email: mccarthy@astro.as.arizona.edu
               usps:  Steward Observatory, U of A, Tucson AZ, 85721
    or

 Jeff Regester voice: (602)621-6535
               email: regester@astro.as.arizona.edu
               usps:  Steward Observatory, U of A, Tucson AZ, 85721


     Jeff Regester
     counselor, U of A Astronomy Camps
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Thickness of a reflector
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:35:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cmr.9210152335.AA17963
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: Too thin for light pressure? (was Re: Diesen sphere...)
-Message-ID: <1992Oct14.013809.1@fnalc.fnal.gov>
-Date: 14 Oct 92 07:38:09 GMT

-I doubt whether 3 microns is enough to be reasonably opaque, let alone
-a nearly perfect reflector (which you want when building a solar
-sail.)  I don't have a handbook handy, but I think you need dozens of
-microns of aluminum to make a good reflector.  Eric Drexler ran into the
-transparency problem when he was trying to design the most lightweight
-possible sail (in his previous life, before he achieved fame as Mr.
-Dinky).

.............

-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
-Message-ID: <1992Oct14.105230.10629@cs.rochester.edu>
-Date: 14 Oct 92 10:52:30 GMT

-I believe the skin depth of aluminum at optical wavelengths is in
-the tens of nanometers.  You can reduce the mass still further by
-drilling holes << 1 wavelength in diameter.

.............

-From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Message-ID: <1992Oct14.170759.1@fnala.fnal.gov>
-Date: 14 Oct 92 11:07:59 GMT

-In article <Bw4B96.C7H@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
-> Bill has lost three orders of magnitude here...  Drexler made 50nm (I think
-> it was) aluminum that was an excellent reflector.  Around 30, I believe, it
-> starts to become transparent.

.............

And Steve Willner told me a few months ago that the reflective coating of the
HST mirror is ~.001 wavelength (I would interpret that as ~0.5 nm), which 
seemed a little thin to me. Quite a range of numbers here. So - how to find
a reasonable number? The Encyclopaedia Britannica and the American 
encyclopedias here use technical terms such as "thin", which are not very
useful. I finally found it in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, of which our
library has a 1975 edition, thoughtfully translated into English, and 
(very usefully) provided with an index, because the entries are in Russian
alphabetical order.

>From Volume 9, page 358: "To produce a mirror with maximum reflectance,
the thickness of the aluminum coating should be at least 0.12 um." (120 nm).
I can believe that a 50 nm coating would still be pretty reflective. Perhaps
someone who's studied crystallography or who has the atomic weight and bulk
density of aluminum handy can calculate how many atoms thick that is.

This brings back the question I had originally asked Steve Willner:
how can you grind the mirror blank for the primary mirror for HST, coat it
with something nearly 1/4 wave thick, and still have it come out figured
to within 1/80 wave (or whatever the spec was) of what you want? Is the
vapor deposition process so precisely controllable and uniform in its
effects that it does not change the shape of the surface, or changes it
in a precisely predictable manner?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sputnik I - 35th anniversary
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:11:41 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <164@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>In <28242@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson):
>> Today the earth has approximately 7000 moons.
>
>How many of these moons have stable orbits?  In this case, I define stable
>to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years without expending any
>fuel.  (I have a hard time considering something like Sputnik or Echo I to
>be a "moon".)
>
>What would it take to build a sattelite that would stay up for a long time
>without having to be reboosted or carrying large amounts of fuel?  Could you
>use large solar panels or RTG's to power an ion thruster?  Is there a stable
>Earth orbit for a small sattelite?

There are no stable orbits. However, any satellite at least 1000 miles
up is going to stay up for thousands to millions of years unless perturbed
by a third body. If you want it to stay at a particular attitude, that's
going to require energy.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom)
Subject: Pioneer Venus
Reply-To: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:45:06 GMT

I've just read Ron Baalkes message about the Pioneer Venus probe is still alive.
Could someone give me some details about this object.
For example, how old it is, its mission and so on. I don't know a thing about it.


================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
      
Thomas Enblom, just another employee.
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Earth's two moons
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:22:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw8p35.KsI.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU



>I took an astronomy class in high school and my teacher told us that
>Earth really has two moons but that the other one can't be seen unaided
>because it's a lot smaller and farther out. 

>I've been telling some people that Earth has two moons but no one 
>believes me.  Could someone please confirm this?

I'm not sure; it was once suspected that there was a second moon,
but that it burned up sometime in the '50's.

I think this thing was supposed to be pretty small, like ~50 ft.
across...


>-- 
>Cara Cocking               | "Believing I had supernatural powers, 
>cocking@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  |  I slammed into a brick wall" 
>                                           -Paul Simon, "Gumboots"

Nice Album, too...

-- 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.