HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<1992Oct3.202559.4583@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 11:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.202559.4583@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> phillber@nyx.cs.du.edu (Pelle Hillberg) writes:
>  Well, K Eric Drexler's proposal in "Engines of Creation" of hires screens
>  that project different images to each eye seems the most viable to me.

It won't work.  It'll force one eyed people into a violent uproar that'll result
in an overthrow of the government...

Seriously, I have a hard time believing this method could ever go beyond the
same stage as 3D glasses.  Why?  Because, this method must seem like 3D, but
your mind must know it isn't.  I only have one eye and have no problem telling
if something is 2D or 3D.  Holograms are 3D, pictures and movies are 2D...  So,
I'm sure that people with two eyes don't completely loss this ability and rely
completely on paralax.  So, 3D glasses are only effective when you are trying 
to quickly fool someone.(i.e. Don't give them time to observe things carefully.)
This is why you only see 3D movies that throw things at you.

                                       Bill


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Time Travel & Teleportation in Cyberspace
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<kcj.717894800@dptspd> <1992Oct2.071620.5809@techbook.com>
	<2OCT199214445905@reg.triumf.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:05:46 GMT

In article <2OCT199214445905@reg.triumf.ca> advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel) writes:

>  History could be re-written - literally, including peoples memories - by a
>  powerful enough system.

Re-written or repeated...  Now there is a nasty thought.  War is horrable and must
be avioded at all costs.  You love ones and friends need not to have died in vain
or even at all.  Join me in the referendum to restore the world from backup tape
befor the war, so we can relive these last years in peace and harmony...

Obcourse, eventually another race lands on the planet, and finds a computer 
rerunning a war program in an infinite loop.  So, what do you do when your 
computer gets in a loop?  Hit the reset, or reboot.

                                       Bill
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:19:13 GMT

Steinn, could you give a more complete reference for

"Well, there's a real cute paper out on possible fundamental
problems with reconciling QM and GR (Preskill, J. 1992)"

maybe want to post it on sci.astro as well.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3056 rec.arts.sf.written:13282
From: aldis@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Aldis Ozols)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Something Nasty in the Human Genome
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:46:55 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney: +61-2-837-1183 V.32

francis@dogwood.atl.ga.us (John Stracke) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.031844.21399@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>Kind of intriguing...makes me think that information is encoded in the DNA
>>in ways other than the direct code we know about. Hmmm...how about a

>No, no.  It says, "If you can read this, you're too close." :-)

Actually, it's a copyright notice.  And those Human Genotype Project
people are going to be in real trouble when God finds out what they've
been up to ....

Aldis Ozols  
aldis@kralizec.zeta.org.au)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:55:16 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <6400@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu writes:

>  
>  	Here's a question that pertains somewhat to SF:
>  
>  	I've seen it written many times (in stories, popular articles,
>  etc) that at the time of the first atomic bomb test there were some
>  respected scientists who were of the considered opinion that detonating
>  the  Bomb could cause a self-sustaining nuclear chain  reaction
>  (Which would either then just sit there and glow in atomic brilliance
>  for eternity, or propogate across the world and blow it to pieces).
>...  
>  	Second, and more to the SF point -- was there, AT THAT TIME,
>  good reason to hold that view? In other words, was the fact that 
>  nuclear chain reactions of the sort they feared could not happen
>  something that COULD NOT have been known at that time -- that could
>  only be known through research done later?

Hans Dominik wrote a novel about this very problem (/Das Erbe der
Uraniden/, I don't know a non-German title...) long *before* World War
II. He wrote several other novels about nuclear energy and nuclear
arms too, all with really nasty implications.

>  	As a corollary to this -- in view of the answers to the
>  above questions, is it possible from an SF standpoint to have
>  a scientific advance whose science is sufficiently understood to
>  produce a desired engineering result -- a device based on this new
>  principle -- but whose science is at the same time so LITTLE understood
>  that the device could have any one of several radically different
>  outcomes upon operation? Or is the apparent existence of this condition

Surely it is possible. Experience shows that in fact *most*
engineering inventions are *not* fully understood scientifically. Take
the transistor effect: At the time it was discovered, there was no
exact theory how it worked. At that time it was surely imaginable that
each transistor would emit gamma rays that could kill innocent people
listening to the radio news...


MfG,
        Olaf
-- 
    o     Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
 _ /<_    s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_)   +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
What high-level language should one use for system programming? The only
 reasonable candidate today is PL/I. - Fred Brooks (1975)
From: young@wattle.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:48:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Australia

In article <BvIz79.KGE@world.std.com>, ggray@world.std.com (Gary P Gray) writes:
|> It is written in <yh8qb90r@cck.coventry.ac.uk> that mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru) said:
|> >guru sez:
|> >	Those are just my thoughts. Anybody else got any ideas/information
|> >	on current research in the field?
|> 
|> 
|> Well, at my school (WPI) there was a project that created a decidedly lower
|> tech solution for a 3-d display... You make a 2-d display out of LEDs and
|> get the third dimension by oscillating it back and forth at a high speed,
|> turning on and off LEDs at the appropriate moment. I talked to someone who
|> saw it, and they said it worked pretty well, but had crummy resolution (too
|> few LEDs in the matrix)

Better run it in a vacuum!  Given 24 frames/sec (or thereabouts) for video,
the oscillatiion rate would need to be at least that (probably a multilpe).
In order to get a noticeable 3D effect, the amplitude of the oscillation would
need to be on the order of centimetres rather than millimetres.  How many 
decibels can YOU take at a constant, very audible, pitch (and don't say >120).

-- 
Philip R. Young                   | Definitely my own opinions, but they are 
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.  | public domain, so feel free to adopt them.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Date: 26 Sep 92 20:40:59 GMT
	<1992Sep24.212743.422@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
	<STEINLY.92Sep25145257@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Sep26.231913.11305@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu's message of Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.231913.11305@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:

   Steinn, could you give a more complete reference for

   "Well, there's a real cute paper out on possible fundamental
   problems with reconciling QM and GR (Preskill, J. 1992)"

   maybe want to post it on sci.astro as well.

It's paper 9209058 on the hep-th server, I would not
post it under any circumstances, the paper is copyright and
not postable. I would also ask that no-one consider posting
any of the papers on the TeX mail servers (unless of course
you're the author), there are very serious copyright issues at
stake.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: omjb1@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Matthew Bauder)
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Organization: State University of New York -- Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:43:29 GMT

Barring any further discussion on the philosophical meaning of life and 
duplication, etc.  I want to add my two cents:

First, I doubt matter transmission as described by the ST genre, etc. will
ever exist.  We'd have to find a "matter wave" to transmit such thing and
then discover a means of transforming matter into this wave.  

The "duplication" of matter is more likely but still not very possible.
If you are killing the creature and reconstructing it on the other side,
piece by piece, atom by atom, you're also going to have to include all
the electro-chemical energies, balances, etc.  This probably includes any
brain waves, etc.  I don't know if that's likely.

I rather suspect matter transmission will be done more in lines of a   
dimensional shift.  The whole enchilada will go at once; no matter conversion
or breakdown will be involved.  I suspect there is an equation out there,
somewhere, that includes the three space coordinates, (x,y,z) and time (t).
Somehow, you stress the equation (maybe by putting energy into it), force
time to remain constant, and get a change in (x,y,z).   

Of course, this is purely speculative, but then is is a newsgroup for 
discussing speculative science fiction.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: A nuclear question...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:39:18 GMT

In article <6400@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
     seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

>   This is really a two part question -- first, is this true --
>that there were some eminent and competent experts who held these
>views?

   Actually, yes.  There was considerable concern among a small
minority of scientists who, at the time, earnestly beleived that it was
quite possible for the first nuclear bomb to "light the sky."

>   Second, and more to the SF point -- was there, AT THAT TIME,
>good reason to hold that view?

   "What stupid people there must have been in the middle ages.  They
thought the sun went around the Earth, when everybody knows that the
Earth goes around the sun."
   "Yes, I suppose.  But, I wonder what dawn would have looked like if
the sun really _did_ go around the Earth?"  - Bruno Bettleheim.

   Looking back and laughing at the scientists is wonderful when your
average college textbook has the answers in it.  Back in 1943-45,
quantum theory was still fantasy and not the stuff of serious research.
Einstein's theory is _still_ called a theory, after all, even in 1992.
The scientists back then were quite convinced, and had very articulate
papers, demonstrating that _if their theory was true_, then the first
nuclear bomb test would destroy the world.

>   As a corollary to this -- in view of the answers to the
>above questions, is it possible from an SF standpoint to have
>a scientific advance whose science is sufficiently understood to
>produce a desired engineering result -- a device based on this new
>principle -- but whose science is at the same time so LITTLE understood
>that the device could have any one of several radically different
>outcomes upon operation?

   Of course.  The atomic bomb theory proves this, but more to the
point... you need not know how a quartz crystal operates to use a
quartz watch.

   And remember this little fact: The scientists who believed that the
bomb would "light the sky" _were not wrong_.  It _could_ happen under
certain circumstances.  A sufficient density of hydrogren in a given
locale would create conditions that, given enough heat (say, the heat
of a fission explosion), a sustained fusion reaction would begin.

   Such conditions do exist in our solar system.

   We _could_ light Jupiter.

         Elf !!!
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:08:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep29.043918.10743@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>  Back in 1943-45,
>  quantum theory was still fantasy and not the stuff of serious research.

Bullshit.  Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics was worked out in the
late twenties.  By 1943-45, it was old stuff; physicists had been
applying QM to all sorts of problems in atomic, nuclear, astro- and
condensed matter physics for more than a decade.  Quantum field theory
(which melds relativity to QM) was not fully developed until after the
war, but the cruder theory available in the 30s was used to predict the
positron (Dirac).

Moreover, the physics of nuclear weapon design uses almost no quantum
mechanics!  Once you know the cross sections, you can calculate things
classically.  The cross sections were (and are) determined
experimentally.

About the only thing this calculation would depend on that would
be sensitive to QM would be the opacity of hot gases (which would
govern how rapidly heat leaks from the fireball, and would determine
if a fusion reaction could be self-sustained.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide (and further digressions)
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:08:50 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.

gatech!pro-magic.oau.org!mikeu (Mike Ungerman) writes:

>Would the clone be you? Or just
>another organism with your memories and feelings?

>Would that robot or computer be you?

_They_ might think so, and other persons may not notice anything.
_I_ wouldn't think so. If I die, I die, and that my memories 
would continue in someone else will not change that.
--
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 "In order to make someone a nervous wreck, apologize while they still 
  haven't used their best arguments." -- Runer Jonsson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....) 
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:06:15 GMT

In article <zyy-wH-@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
writes: 
>In article <1992Sep26.072339.4734@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: 
>>Oops, lost track of the past there.  :-)  That explains the confusion: you are
>>assuming the existence of solutions, and I'm trying to prove that without that
>>assumption they need not exist.  
>>
>>Anyhow, proving that it's logically consistent seems a bit moot: you've pretty
>>much covered that in your assumption...
>
> Boy, I'm setting records for expressing myself badly these days...:->
> What I meant was that there is no _a_priori_ reason to think this unlikely,

Does habitual pessimism count?  ;->

>save our own habitual notions of time (which weren't evolved to handle
>time travel anyway). Nor any reason to consider it likely, of course, but then
>we won't know until the first time machine is built...
> (oh, okay, maybe before, this is a time machine...:-> )

Err, who says any time machines will be built?  They might all exist in
loops... :-)

SR
"Which would be kinda like the universe suddenly deciding to do cartwheels..."
---


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: marcb@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:03:58 GMT

From article <8344@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, by hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson):
> 
> Here`s another thought for those of us who believe in the existance
> of some sort of soul. Perhaps the body can be constructed in different  
> places from raw material by non-destructively scanning the original, 
> but the copies would basically be vegetables without the soul.  So a 
> method is found for transporting the soul from one body at the 
> original location to another body at the destination.  The vacated 
> body could be used as raw material, or it could be kept "alive" in
> suspended animation until the transportee returned. 
> 

Or...as stated in the tech manual, the body is duplicated in exact detail
down to the quantum level, which would certainly also include the "soul".

Besides, I don't think anyone's every proven that the soul has a seperate
existence from the body.

Electricity is the same everwhere. I don't see what's so hard about adding
a few volts here and there to a "copy".

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Time Travel & Teleportation in Cyberspace
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:16:20 GMT

In article <kcj.717894800@dptspd> kcj@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (Kevin Jones) writes:
>You folks are all missing the easy way to do time travel (and teleportation 
>for that matter).  When the sum total of what you experience in 
>your life is computer generated, anything is possible. 


Not absolutely true, but a very interesting observation.

Teleportation is quite feasible, but time travel is somewhat limited.
We can't create the future to travel into, because it is indeterminate.
Even if there were no random or quantum-world inputs, we'd run into the 
halting problem.  We can travel to the past, observe, and change some
variables, but only insofar as we are running algorithms with different
input.  We can't change the actions of people or real-world events that
impacted the system, except insofar as the people come back and
consciously change them in cyberspace.  The crudest example is the
"undo" function on good computers which allows us to step back one
data-increment into the past to undo a mistake.  Standardized 
"real-world" time will continue to be useful, eg for regulating
stock exchanges so that somebody can't set the clock back and buy
a stock at yesterday's (or last second's) price. 


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: kcj@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (Kevin Jones)
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....)
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:13:20 GMT

You folks are all missing the easy way to do time travel (and teleportation for that matter).  When the sum total of what you experience in your life is computer generated, anything is possible.  Teleportation will require that you load an 8byte pointer.  For time travel, you'll have to load from archives.  True virtual reality is only a hundred years away.  (We all just missed it).

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:31:59 GMT

mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru) writes:

>guru sez:
>  in a lot of SF there's an assumption that 3D television will be as
>  ubiquitous as is 2D now, and I got to thinking, just how would you
>  make one?

>  In the end I came to thinking about a foot-thick laminated LCD screen,
>  in which the laminates are made of the same stuff as those little
>  LCD TVs you can buy now. Since the upper layers are transparent, you'd
>  be able to see the background without any problem. 

This doesn't give you much depth-of-field (namely, 1 foot).  Plus, the
resolution would be pretty low (LCD's aren't very thin).

>  Of course, the processing power needed to control this would be pretty
>  high, particularly if you're going to get an acceptable rate of
>  movement. This could be reduced by only changing the parts of the
>  screen in which things are moving, say people, trees, cars etc.

Actually, it wouldn't be that bad.  It's just like having a bunch of
TV screens stacked on top of each other.  Just multiply the processing
power needed to run a normal TV by the number of layers in your screen.
-- 
___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________

"S.E.T.E.C. : Special Extra-Terrestrial Earthling Counter"
"A turnip cures Elvis = Universal Studios"                -- from "Sneakers"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:27:54 GMT

In article <6400@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>
>       Here's a question that pertains somewhat to SF:
>
>       I've seen it written many times (in stories, popular articles,
>etc) that at the time of the first atomic bomb test there were some
>respected scientists who were of the considered opinion that detonating
>the  Bomb could cause a self-sustaining nuclear chain  reaction
>(Which would either then just sit there and glow in atomic brilliance
>for eternity, or propogate across the world and blow it to pieces).
>
>       This is really a two part question -- first, is this true --
>that there were some eminent and competent experts who held these
>views?
>
(I promised to get back with names.)
Yes. The original concern was raised by Teller, whose calculations for
heat dissipation should you could start a fusion reaction which
would involve atmospheric nitrogen using a fission bomb. He subsequently
changed his mind because his original calculations neglected the
energy dissipated in radiation. There was some question about
the accuracy of the estimates of how much energy would go that
way, and a group of concerned individuals ran some calculations which
gave a 3 in a million chance that an atmospheric nitrogen fusion
reaction would be initiated, with lower probabilities that it
would be sustained long enough to destroy the world. This was regarded
as an acceptable risk.
******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science