HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Next class starship
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:32:56 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Summary: Flames to all "Next class responses"
Keywords: starship class Enterprise

Everyone overlooked one small thing.  So small you can't even see it.
I'm talking about Wesley's Warp Bubble.  The next class Starship will not
travel at Warp speeds.  It will all be computational.  The "ship" will be
enclosed by a Warp Bubble and mathematically repositioned in the Universe
(much like transporters, but more range)  Once Wesley can get this technology
to be stable, Picard's successors will be riding around in the universe's
biggest bubble blower!!  :)
 -Dean
Feel free to gripe at me (Telnet): dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
__________________________________________________________________
|*			       					*|
|			Admiral Dean Hall	 		 |
|						        	 |
|	Resident omnivorous, bipedal, binocular, prehensile-	 |
|		  thumbed, ugly bag of mostly water		 |
|*								*|
==================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cboerm48@ursa.calvin.edu (Christopher Boerma)
Subject: Re: The Next Class of Starship...?
Keywords: beyond galaxy....
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:42:31 GMT


Hmm, it would be interesting to see a a colapse of the Federation due to the
economy or goverment problems or whatever. Would a "New Federation" evolve from
it like the Asimov's Foundation? I'd like to see something like that. But it
seems like that'd be hard to run with TV episodes. Better for like books (or
even movies maybe). 

I don't think we'll see it though, TPTB stand to lose to much if it doesn't 
work out. I think we're seeing problems with the High Command simply for plots.
I would like to see a little less of those.


As far as New class of StarShips, I think we'll see a definit two groups 
imerging. First, a Science class, these would be similar to the present type
of StarShip, strongly armed, but mainly for exploration and general type stuff
and then War class ships. These would be smaller, no need for all the family
and school and stuff like that because there wouldn't be any. These would be
heavy armed but only used during war situations and maybe patroling around
the boarders with hostils, like the Romulans and the Ferengi.

I think they'd definitly need these two types to do well, but we'll probably
never see them in the episodes or movies. (masybe)

Anyways, these my two cents. 


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber)
Subject: Re: Enterprise computer system
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:59:52 GMT

In <17588@mindlink.bc.ca> David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth) writes:

>So, does the Enterprise-D computer run unix, dos, or windows?  And, where can
>I get a copy of whatever it is they use?

>:-)

I suspect it actually runs Windows NT.  Microsoft has likely finally
managed to deliver this piece of vaporware by the 23rd century!!!


Without change,                         *David Barber*
   nothing can ever get better.            @}-->----

UUCP: ucsd!crash!dbarber
INET: dbarber@crash.cts.com
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.tech:6342 rec.arts.startrek.current:18679
From: pmm3w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Paul Moore Mckee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:55:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

>In article <1992Nov14.215559.2488@news.acns.nwu.edu> markb@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mark Brodsky) writes:
>        As for data (a).Built in weapons would alienate him even more from
>	                the crew and humanity and make the message that it's
>			not what you are that makes you human but the way you
>			act that makes you human even harder to get across,
>			obscured by tech. and special effects!
>		    (b).Now i can't remember the name of the guy who made
>		        Data (ah now i can it's Dr. Soong,i think).
>			But i don't think he sat up in bed one day an said
>			"oooh i think i'll make an android today for 
>			starfleet",so why would he have the foresight to 
>			give him an inbuilt comm. or phaser?
>			Also as no-one in starfleet has the real know-how
>			to do it how would they explain it,"oh sorry captin
>			  i turned my back for a moment and it suddenly
>			  appered!".

IMHO, when Dr. Sung created Data (and Lore, for that matter), he WAS trying
to make them human ("Oh that beautiful face" from Datalore), or at least as
close as his skills would allow.
I'm sure he could have added a subspace transceiver assembly (STA) into Data's
head, but then what would happen if another, more efficient or powerful mode
of communication developed, and the STA was obsolete?  The engineer would 
reply that if Dr Sung had made the STA a modular circuit, it would be a simple
matter of swapping out the old circuit for a newer one.  That, however
is the entire problem:  when you set out with the goal of making something
human, one of your design parameters is not to have little chunks of your 
creation being able to be swapped out and discarded later on by some clown 
that thinks that he or she has made a better mousetrap.  I beleive that Dr.
Sung would have wanted his original design to remain more or less intact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul McKee      pmm3w@virginia.edu
Dept of Grad Physics, University of Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Enterprise computer system
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:42:55 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

So, does the Enterprise-D computer run unix, dos, or windows?  And, where can
I get a copy of whatever it is they use?

:-)

--
The difficulty with this conversation is that it's very different from most
of the ones I've had of late.  Which, as I explained, have mostly been with
trees.

                   david_woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Not the Technical Manual 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:29:02 +0000


In article <8738@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
           hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu writes:

>First,  I do have a problem with many time travel stories in Star Trek.

Not just in Star Trek, I assume, but most other time travel stories as
well...

>No one seems to realize the impact that changing one single thing in
>time can have on future events.  Star Trek always comes out with some
>way of handling it, such as Samual leaving his watch where he knew it
>would be found.  But he HAD to do that, so he didn't have free will.
>But time travel is another discussion all together.

It depends on your model of time.  One theory says that small changes
will only have local effects, so in a few hundred years time it won't
matter.  Another one is that (using the watch incident) two time steams
were created (well, actually an infinite number, but two that we're
interested in) - one where he left his watch, and another where he took
it.  We followed the one where he left it...

>As far as violating causality through FTL travel, I beleive I have a good
>argument as to why it is not done in ST technology.  If it were, we would
>see its effects all the time!  You get a distress call from a planet. You
>are running out of time to get there.  All you have to do is get in the
>right frame of reference out of warp, then enter warp, and you can get there
>any amount of time after the destress signal was sent or even before it
>was sent.  We do NOT see this at all.  This is why I don't think the idea
>you mentioned about keeping the same F.O.R. you have before you enter warp
>is correct.

This I don't see.  Planet (A) sends a call to the Enterprise (E).  This
is not at infinite speed, so it takes a time Tsig = Dae / Vsig.  E
receives the signal, and travels to the planet.  This takes a time
Te = Dae / Ve.  This time is still positive.  Because of relativistic
effects E and A may disagree on exactly how *large* this time is in
subjective time, but both will agree that it is positive.

The only time that Te could be negative is if you try to force the time
dilation equations of Special Relativity to handle velocities greater
than c.  That gives complex values, rather than negative, anyway, which
I don't think means reversing time, but (if it has any meaning at all)
moving somehow 'sideways' in time...

Surely special relativity wouldn't apply anyway, because E is
accelerating wrt A?

Chris

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: joseph@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Joseph Dawson)
Subject: Holodeck
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 04:40:44 GMT

The way I understood the Holodeck worked was that it projected
distance images on the walls, and closer things where replicated. 
Now when you run in a straight line on a Holodeck the things around
you are re-replicated and the images projected on the walls are
changed.  

This is all quite logical as long as you have one person in a
Holodeck, but when you have many people going in many directions
within the same holodeck...  

Someone explain this please?

Joe
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Not the Technical Manual
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:57:18 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland) writes:
<hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
<|This idea has never seemed realistic in the least to me.  Someone once
<|pointed out that all you have to do is run around a town on any given
<|night and knock on doors and run.  By doing this, you are going to
<|"interrupt" some people, and since time of conception can change the
<|type of child born, you probably have changed who will be around to
<|effect furure events.  Just think of when you personally tell someone
<
<I think modern chaos theory would contradict you on this.  Most chaotic
<systems have "attractors", the result of which is that you can introduce
<or remove random data points, causing a local perturbation, but the overall
<system remains substantially the same.  I think that the probability of
<changing history depends on the magnitude and focus of the perturbation,
<AND on the stability of the event in question.
<
<If Hitler's birth were prevented, there may have been a major change in the
<course of WWII, but it still probably would have occurred, because of the
<economic and social factors throughout Europe after WWI.  If Goering had
<not been born, someone else would have taken his place and there would have
<been virtually no deviation from the course of history as we remember it.


Actually, I thought chaos theory supported my idea.  According to chaos, 
some systems become completely umpredictable.  Very small changes in
initial conditions can have great effects in the outcome. One meaning 
behind "the butterfly effect" is the idea that the simple movement of a
butterfly's wings can change the initial conditions of the weather 
situation so that the outcome in the weather down the road is quite 
different than what it would have been. 

I have seen simple experiments in chaos which show this sort of thing.  Try
as hard as you can to create the same initial conditions for a system, 
and you still can't get the outcome to be the same.  The more complicated
the system, the more likely this is to be the case.  

With a system as complicated as our society, I have little doubt that
small chages can have tremendous effect in the future.


-Jay
From: squigg@gssec.bt.co.uk (Stephen Quigg)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: An ANALOG computer: Possible??
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:36:24 GMT
Organization: BT Glasgow Systems and Software Engineering Centre, Scotland.


-- 
In article <1992Nov12.190145.8691@iscsvax.uni.edu>, perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
|> 
|> A couple of months ago, I was reading an article in Popular
|> Science about TeraFlops computers of the future and I came to
|> wonder if there wouldn't be a better way to build a computer.
|> 
|> I'm no computer engineer or programmer or anything else, but
|> I'm gonna throw this idea up here and see if any of you can
|> provide some feedback. Here goes:
|> 
|> Why not make an ANALOG computer? Instead of working with On/off
|> (represented by 1s and 0s), why not have something like 3/4 on, 
|> 1/4 off or 1/8 on, 7/8 off (represented by #s 1-9). Something 
|> like that?
|> 
|> There are on/off switches for lights, but then there are dimmer
|> switches too. Why not make a computer full of dimmer switches,
|> instead of on/off switches. See what I'm trying to say here?
|> 
|> You're welcome to post a reply, or email me anytime.
|> 
|> --Tim Perdue

Computers/Electronics work on the priciple of logic , yeah ?
ie. there is always a clear cut decision ... that is why they work in binary.
Clear cut decisions would not be possible with an analogue computer ..

Anyone agree with this ?

Stephen Quigg
squigg@gssec.bt.co.uk 
British Telecom , GSSEC , Glasgow
(Nothing in any of my mail represents my Employer in any way)
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: An ANALOG computer: Possible??
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:56:17 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <1992Nov13.042412.29949@ncar.ucar.edu> jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu (John  
Sloan) writes:
> From article <1992Nov12.190145.8691@iscsvax.uni.edu>, by  
perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu:
> > Why not make an ANALOG computer?
> 
> <sigh> Please tell me that I'm not the only person who reads this
> newsgroup that's old enough to remember analog computers. I've even
> programmed one (although a more accurate one might be "wired"). 

I, too, am ancient enough to have programmed a hybrid (digital/analog)  
computer; one made by Harris, as I recall. It was at General Dynamics and was  
being used to test vibration-dampening devices for large space structures.  
..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  We hackers linger by our leading edge
CTO, Pages Software Inc      |  Forgetting what is pending in the cache
bwebster@pages.com           |  Till practice hurtles past us, and we crash.
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> |            -- Jeff Duntemann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:31:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Nov19.223118.10324
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <56379@dime.cs.umass.edu> robinson@elux3.cs.umass.edu (RICHARD ROBINSON) writes:
>In article <FH87TB18w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>>gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>
>>> Thats the best theory I have heard yet......
>>> 
>>> kiloquad = 1000 x quadrillion bytes
>>
>>Why wouldn't it be a thousand quadrillion bits?  Bits are much more 
>>fundamental than bytes; a byte can be any number of bits, depending on 
>>what system you're talking about . . .

I must have missed the original post of the paragraph above. I was thinking
this same thing myself, and thought it might be more logical for it to
be a thousand quadrillion bits. Since the actual size of the byte would
change depending on their computer architecture. Sure today a byte is often
refered to as 8 bits, but how can we be so sure it will be in 400 years.

>BTW, when one says a 'byte' one means 8 bits. Any system with non-standard
>bytes will have the word 'byte' qualified left and right when talking
>about them.

Just my point above, which make me even more convinced that were talking
bits here, and not bytes.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: time and warp speed
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:11:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <8737@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
[attempt to explain warp vs. relativity snipped out]
>The problem is that all you have to ensure is that ANY ship can still 
>travel at high speeds (SLOWER than the speed of light), and then you can
>add to this another ship can travel from point a to point b faster than
>light could.  Once you do this, a causality problem can occur.  It 
>doesn't matter HOW the ship bets there, only that it does so before light
>could.

While I'm still hazy on the causality problem as a whole, I'm
interested in knowing how it applies on a quantum scale, ie
_real_ interactions between physical particles. Whereas special
frames of reference for starships are fine and dandy, but (at
least to me) rather bulky, if the problem can be narrowed down to
its most basic form, it might be possible that some subspace
interaction allows causality problems to be avoided on a quantum
scale.

I'm thinking along the lines of a 'tachyon interaction' between
particles on opposite sides of a subspace field wavecrest. If the
particles need to interact between their frames, tachyons are
exchanged, allowing a FTL information update that bypasses
the normal causality barrier (ie, cause still occurs before
effect).

Since I don't know the problem, I'm not sure if thats even
anywhere close to a treknobabble solution. Comments?

>I am working on a FAQ that will give a simple introduction to special 
>relativity and explain how the causality problem comes from.  I will 
>then suggest one way (the only way I know) to get around it.

I'll be looking forward to it. :)

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Time Travel (was Re: Not the Technical Manual Sections 1 and 2)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:07:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <8806@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:
>jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
><	"It is not the present which influences the future, thou
><	fool, but the future which forms the present. You have it
><	all backward. Since the future is set, an unfolding of
><	events which will assure that future is fixed and
><	inevitable." (Leto Atreides II, p278, _Childen_of_Dune_,
><	Frank Herbert)
>
>OH, I see. You simply don't believe that any of us have free will.  
>Well, whatever floats your boat.

Well... a coin toss isn't random. Its chaotic. If you knew its
position and momentum exactly, you could tell how it was going to
work out. Same thing seems to apply on a quantum level, and the
most recent theories I've read indicate that quantum events are
the result of chaotic behaviour on a level we cannot measure. 

In other words, what you think of as 'free will', or the ability
to make a choice, is being made by a non-random set of electro-
chemical reactions occuring in your brain. In other words, you.
Unless the mind somehow manages to break the laws of physics, its
bound to the same rules as everything else. Sure, you have free
will, but _you_ are simply a electrochemical reaction yourself.

And if you'd like to contradict that, please offer some physical
evidence to the contrary that _your_ brain violates universal
laws. I'm pretty sure mine doesn't.

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
From: kzollman@phys.ksu.edu (Kevin Zollman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Beaming away
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:59:23 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: piaget.phys.ksu.edu

Lets say that someone is wairing a long train on a dress and go to be 
transported.  They step onto the pad but there train is of the pad.  The 
operator doesn't notice and the person is beamed away and what happens to the 
train?

--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: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Enterprise computer system
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:31:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <17588@mindlink.bc.ca> David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth) writes:
>So, does the Enterprise-D computer run unix, dos, or windows?  And, where can
>I get a copy of whatever it is they use?

A Macintosh, actually, running Aldus Freehand, and Microsoft
Excel (thats all that I've heard of) and sitting on Michael
Okuda's desk. :)

But seriously, it'd be kinda fun to have TrekOS, or an OWM (Okuda
Window Manager)... I'm sure its doable in X. Just need to get a
touchscreen for the workstation. Hmmm... 

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ppawels@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL  PAWELSKI)
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Originator: ppawels@c00571-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: ppawels@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL  PAWELSKI)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:36:14 GMT


In article <1672@seqp4.sequoia.com>, ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison) writes:
|> There is the other speculation that StarFleet may be as gulliable, I mean,
|> enthusiastic as the US Government when it comes to purchasing Computer
|> Solutions.  Since they have some defense related functions, StarFleet memory
|> capabilities are designed a couple of orders of magnitude larger than their
|> anticipated requirements, "Just in Case."
|> -- 

I just wish that was true for all of the government.  I spent the last five
years 'impersonating' an engineer for the Air Force and my group had to 
survive with 8088 processors running non-standard DOS.  It would be interesting
to see the little nooks of Star Fleet that are ignored in the budget process;
I guess that is the idea behind the spinnoff series.

Paul Pawelski
MAE Dept, N.C. State U
(just another engineer who can't spell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech