HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: bodies going ka-boom in vacuum
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:19:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.224524.24072@news2.cis.umn.edu> crick@tsp.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:
|In article <1992Nov4.192525.8994@nevada.edu> snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev Inst of Tech) writes:
|>Ok - no more theories.  It has been tested at the Southern Nevada
|>Institute of Technology.  Not with a human, for our Hover wasn't large
|>enough, but with a lab rat (a species roughly equal to a lawyer).  Our
|>results:
|>
|>
|
|Much detailed descriptions of the horrible vivisection deleted.
|
|
|>So, there you have it.  People (or at least rats) can survive a
|>vacuum.
|
|I was understandably outraged by the horror of this post.  

? ?  :-/

|To subject any
|animal to the violent whims of humans is against every moral code that we
|follow today.  Animals have as much right to exist on this planet as humans
|do, and to think that they are here in our service displays the nauseating
|arrogance of humankind.  

!   :-)

|Animals should share the earth and not be treated
|as sources of food or objects for questionable scientific "research" using
|dubious experiments to pursue an equally obscure goal.  

:-) :-) :-)  !  :-)

|We as humans shall not completely be liberated until we free other members
|of the animal kingdom from their slavery and indenture.  

:-)  <chuckle> :-)  :-) 

|The disgusting tone of this message should be eschewed by all, even in a
|morbid, tasteless attempt at humor.

:-) :-)  <Hahahaha> :-) :-) :-)

|Please support generously PETA, Animal Rights Coalition, and your local
|organizations to free these poor creatures from their torture, using
|whatever methods that provide results.

:-) :-) !!! :-) :-)  <HAHAHAHA> <thump!> <Hahahahahahaha>  :-)

Excellent flame, man.  I loved it.  "Share the earth.."  Hahaha!

Now this, THIS is a man with a sense of humor!

		Svoboda
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144)
Subject: Re: Q
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:48:26 GMT

>>> I want to know all there is to know about the Q, and the Q continuum.
>>> please post any replies here, or E-mail to me.   

>> So do we all! Unfortunately we have never seen the comtinuum so about
>> nothing is known about that and since we have only seen 3 Q's (Main Q, The
>> Q who gave him back his powers, and Amanda) we know very little about them.

>	Also, we have seen the shadow that seemed to be a superior to Q (as
> played by De Lancie(sp?)) - any guesses as to who that may be ---- or what?

To give a dumb analogy [for people who watch Darkwing Duck ;) ] maybe Q is
the analog of Steelbeak and that shadow creature is the analog of one of
those FOWL leaders? Nah...Just a wild guess!

A better hypothesis would be maybe we saw it that way, but Q saw something
different and the people on the Enterprise saw nothing?

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker)
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:45:29 GMT

In article <gf06ciW00WB0020ERJ@andrew.cmu.edu> "Stephan A. Zdancewic" <sz24+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>A kiloquad is a unit of energy.

As I remember...
.
A quad is a quadrillion BTUs (British Thermal Units, who's definition I
forget, but you can find in any physics book).  A kiloquad is a thousand
quads.  That's a whole lot of energy.
.
++rich

-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       rkolker@sccsi.com
                          It's been a long, long time
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Warp Shield Dropping
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 23:40:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <mpp1x8k@rpi.edu> petitc@rpi.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.043103.12751@usl.edu>, tlb2665@usl.edu (Burleigh Thomas L) writes:

>|>  I believe that *some* type of shielding is up when travelling at high
>|> (a.k.a warp) speeds - navigational deflectors. Can't claim it is canon, but
>|> it makes sense considering the presence of interstellar dust and debris in
>|> the Galaxy.

>  No, I never said that there was NO shielding when IN warp, but during that
>period when the Warp Field is being generated, and we aren't yet in subspace,
>you can't have shields on during that time.

Given that things can quite easily leave an active Warp Field
(the subspace distortion that drives the ship around in Normal
Space - it doesn't 'enter subspace' at any time), like Photon
Torpedos, Shuttlecraft, the Primary Hull (saucer section), one
would theorize that they can, quite happily enter the subspace
distortion as well. Thus, the ship will smack into anything in
its path when it goes into Warp. The Warp field is constantly
generated - this is why the ship can only run at Warp 9 for a
short period of time. And this is also why when the drives are
damaged the ship drops out of Warp - the field decays rather
quickly. (Exceptions are special designs, like Warp probes and the
Saucer section which 'coast' along on a slowly decaying warp
field).

However... according to the NGTM, Navigational deflectors and
Deflector Shields, while operating along nearly identical
principles, are completely different systems.

"Shield operation also has a significant impact on warp drive
operation. Because of the spacial distortion inherent in the
shielding generation process, there is a measurable effect on the
geometry of the warp fields that propel the ship. Warp drive
control software therefore includes a number of routines designed
to compensate for the presence of deflector shields, which would
otherwise cause (at maximum rated output) a 32% degredation in
force coupling energy transfer. Simultaneously, shielf generator
output must be upshifted approximately 147 kilohertz to
compensate for translational field interaction." NGTM, p139.

It looks as through Warp and Shields get along fine - and I doubt
that the software isn't able to handle the transition into warp
itself - though thats probably as good a time as any to try and
nail the ship.

Joshua
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Klingon Home World???
Organization: Aston University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:02:08 GMT

km2011@andy.bgsu.edu (K. Errick Mebane) writes:
: A serious question.
: 
: Where is the Klingon homeworld after ST:TUC?  I mean, in the novels, it's
: called all types of names (Klingon, Klinzhai, Kling, etc), which one is it?
:  And did the Klingons actually relocate to a differnt homeworld after
: ST:TUC?  This question has been bugging me for a long, long, LONG time. 
: Can someone please give me an answer?

Might it be just one planet, but called different things by different people.
after all are earth, tera and sol 3 different planets.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:41:40 GMT
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Nov12.222054.25244@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <92Nov12.081109.1685@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>>
>>trillion megabytes = 1^12 * 1^6 bytes
>>                   = 1^18 bytes
>>                   = 1^3 * 1^15 bytes = kilo-quadrillion bytes
>>
>>If 'quad' was slang for 'quadrillion bytes' (Petabyte sounds too
>>goofy), I can see 'kiloquad' coming into use to describe an
>>Exabyte. As always, no canonical answer yet.
>
>Thats the best theory I have heard yet......
>
>kiloquad = 1000 x quadrillion bytes

I'm starting to like that amount even more after doing a little figuring.

Using one of our standard large format peices of media (the CD ROM), that
would mean that a kiloquad was the equivalent of between 1.5 and 1.7 billion
CD ROMS, and if a single isolinear chip is 2.15 kiloquads, that would be
the storage of about 3.5 billion CD ROMS.

This is just to put it all in a little perspective, and isn't based on
anything scientific.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
From: barry@seas.smu.edu (Robert Barry)
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Organization: SMU School Of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.113856.29888@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>joseph@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Joseph Dawson) writes:
>
>I said humanoid and listed the other species for a for a reason.
>It is mentioned in the episode "measure of man" that the demonstration of
>data's strength was not relevent since many species have strength greater
>than humans
>
>Why not have communicators wired up to all starfleet presonnel, after all
>it's just a case of hooking then up to the appropriate neuones (the
>same level to technology as the VISOR)
>Or build in a phaser into everones hands. 

This is the Borg way of thought, eh.  Borg lover. ;)

Besides, didn't Picard answer this question when Data asked him
(paraphrasing) "why didn't all starfleet officers have Giordi's
visor, since it was inherently better normal human eyes."  

The answer is because humans dont want to use their humanity. 
If you think the fear is unreasoned, look at the Borg. 
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
>+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
>+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |


Robert
From: perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: An ANALOG computer: Possible??
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:01:45 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa


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
From: mikeb@aeis22.cis (Mike Brogley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: V'GER VS BORG
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:08:37 GMT
Reply-To: mikeb@aeis22.cis
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 9437@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, lcotton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Leeroy F Cotton) writes:
>Hey! Why didn't the Organians intervene when the Borg stomped on the Federation 
>fleet? Oh, that's right, Picard and crew were there...who needs the help of a 
>powerful interventionist race when ya got the Enterprise (TOS or TNG)? :-)
>
>And while we're at it, why didn't other starfaring societies (read: Romulans)
>reach out and take a hunk of Federation space while it's fleet was space
>debris? A year is a long time to rebuild a fleet given travel capabilities of 
>the enemy. Otherwise, that's some impressive productivity on the part of the 
>Federation. Dozens of cutting edge technology, large size vessels built in a 
>year.... Productivity measures must be incredible for the average Federation
>worker!
>
>Lee Cotton
>lcotton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

In the UFP, all workers are above average. :)
From: bcasey@redorc.chi.il.us (Bob Casey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Well Im new, so dont kill me!
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:40:35 GMT
Organization: Red Oracle Bbs/Network

If anyone wants to know, my favoriye episode was on a few nights ago, where
Beverly Crusher was trapped in a warp bubble.  The traveller came to help out
but Whesely did most of the work.  It was cool to see him fhase in and out just
like the traveller did before.  I wonder if he will take the ship to new
places, like the traveller did before.  That would be exciting!
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Where's the bowls?
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:26:36 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <gp2001-131192011956@m248-101.bgsu.edu> gp2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Greg Pallenik) writes:
>Does anyone know what happens to the plates and bowls and stuff after
>people are through eating?  I'm sure Picard has a closet full of used tea
>cups.

Simple.  They're placed back on the replicator shelf (we see Wesley do this
with the chocolate mousse in "The Dauphin"), and the replicator will then
convert the leftover and containers back to raw form (energy plus
undifferentiated matter) for subsequent replication.  I also suspect
that, to put it as delicately as possible, all other byproducts of
life are similarly recycled.  You couldn't ask for a more sanitary
means of dealing with it.


-- 
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Holodeck Hijinx
From: <JAL127@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:10:49 EST
Organization: Penn State University

Please correct me if I am wrong but the wall is an integral part of the ship th
erefore can not be beamed out to some other location. BTW where the computer pu
t  it if it did. and would that not be like the computer trying to beam aperson
s head somewhere without his body
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: malecki@dvs.com (Dave Malecki)
Subject: Re: Animals Have No rights
Organization: Digital Video Systems
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:28:04 GMT

Ed, do you feel guilty when you have a beer?  Think of all those poor yeast
colonies that basically suffocated in their own waste so that you could enjoy
a cool one.  You did say that all animals have rights, regardless of species.
Does this include plants and microbes?  What about insects?  Is it because lab
animals have fur and can be considered cute, that you have a bleeding heart
attitude towards them?  Are you a vegetarian?  Don't you feel awful when you
have a steak?

Animals are here for our use.  Cruelty only applies to sentient beings.  Are
animals sentient?


-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The opinions expressed herein are mine alone. | GOAL IN LIFE:                |
| Who I am:  David Malecki                      | Graduate and remain sane.    |
| Email:     malecki@dvs.com                    |                              |
| Phone:     (416) 299-6888 ex. 379            	|                              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Joke o' the week:                                                            |
| What's the definition of a gay engineer?                                     |
| Someone who likes to blow his PALs.                                          |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: fin@unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth)
Subject: Re: time and warp speed
Organization: University of Minnesota, Networking Services.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:49:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.193315.17320@njitgw.njit.edu>, crl0195@hertz.njit.edu (Curt R Lindmark) writes:
	...
|> Well, it's rather simple.  When Zephram Cochrane developed the Warp Drive,
|> (at least, I think that is who did it), Einstein's Relativity theory was
|> just thrown out the window.  Considering that it is *JUST* a theory, 
|> scientists are free to do with it as they please.

I believe that you are confused.  The term "theory" (in this context)
means that it has been _proven_.  You are probably confusing the
meaning with that of "conjecture," which means that it has been stated
but not proven.

This does not mean that a theory cannot be later shown to be wrong
(original proof was faulty) or incomplete.  The Theory of Relativity
has been reproven so many times that it is unlikely that the original
proof was wrong.  It is quite possible, however, that new observations
will be made that show that the Theory of Relativity is simply A
special case of a more general theory.  (Actually this is exactly the
relationship that Relativity has to Newton's Laws.)

Craig
From: perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Galactic Engineers Concordance
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:37:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: iscsvax.1992Nov12.183722.8684
Organization: University of Northern Iowa


For all of you out there who enjoy reading about the technical
aspects of Star Trek/ST:TNG, there's an excellent book put out
by a friend of mine called THE LOGBOOK OF THE GALACTIC ENGINEERS
CONCORDANCE. Very informative and discussion-oriented.

To find out more, write to ROY FIRESTONE at 11400 Abby Lane, SE
Clackamas, OR  97015 and tell him TIM sent you!  Or e-mail me
at PERDUE4575@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU

--Tim Perdue
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144)
Subject: Re: Q
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:01:01 GMT

> I want to know all there is to know about the Q, and the Q continuum.
> please post any replies here, or E-mail to me.   

So do we all! Unfortunately we have never seen the comtinuum so about nothing
is known about that and since we have only seen 3 Q's (Main Q, The Q who gave
him back his powers, and Amanda) we know very little about them.
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:51:07 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker) writes:

> In article <gf06ciW00WB0020ERJ@andrew.cmu.edu> "Stephan A. Zdancewic" <sz24+@
> >A kiloquad is a unit of energy.
> 
> As I remember...
> .
> A quad is a quadrillion BTUs (British Thermal Units, who's definition I
> forget, but you can find in any physics book).  A kiloquad is a thousand
> quads.  That's a whole lot of energy.

_Kiloquad_ seems to be an undefined unit of data storage within Star Trek 
the Next Generation.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gp2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Greg Pallenik)
Subject: Where's the bowls?
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Bowling Green State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:19:22 GMT

Does anyone know what happens to the plates and bowls and stuff after
people are through eating?  I'm sure Picard has a closet full of used tea
cups.
From: petitc@nuge110.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Warp Shield Dropping
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:41:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.5-n13ml
Reply-To: petitc@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.


  If Warp fields are senesitive to gravity wells, then why doesn't the E need
to drop its shields before going into warp? 

-- 
Trust:  A very precious social commodity, due both to high value and terrible
scarcity.
MATWDTM:  Mothers Against Teenagers Who Drink Too Much (failed name for MADD)
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.tech:6192 rec.arts.startrek.current:18293
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:43:21 GMT
 <BxKLA9.FJF@acsu.buffalo.edu>  <1992Nov12.125733.17547@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu


 Don't forget Kahn and the Eugenics wars!!

**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
From: ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Did anyone record Riker's computer description?
Summary: It was right out of the Tech manual
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:51:14 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

In article <1992Nov9.033140.23503@panix.com>, rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan) writes:
> Out of curiosity, why do you want Riker's description of the computer?
> I was assuming that he was making a lot of it up as he went.  That
> interpretation makes Riker's crack, "well, you do know what a xxx is,
> don't you?", funnier.  By making it up he (a) doesn't reveal any secrets
> to the Ferengi; and (b) isn't limited by his what he doesn't know about
> the system (he can just keep going and going and ...).  Perhaps he may have
> been telling the truth but it seems equally plausible that he was making
> it up.  Regardless, I would hesitate in taking that description as
> canon.


Actually Riker's description of the Computer was almost verbatim out of the
TNG-Tech Manual.  All the way down to the enslaved sub-processors networked
into the Main-cores providing distributed and (fault-tolerant) redundant
processing capability.  The point where it started sounding like trek-nobabble
was the ferro-magnetic drives.  Which started sounding an awful lot like how
I might paraphrase a floppy disk, but unfortunately my VCR is on the blink
so I'm unclear on the exact phrase Riker used on the Ferengi.

I was really impressed with Frakes.  In less than 30 seconds he used almost
the entire Computer "Treknology" Vocabulary From FTL processor cores to
isolinear chips and the optical data network in a comprehensible and
competent way.  If not for the fact that Frakes is not a computer
professional, and I'm barely one, I would want to ask him to give a detailed
talk on the Big-E's computer resources.  (Anyone know if his count of the
slave processors was right?)

As for canonicity, this feeds right into the TNG - Tech Manual debate.  Is
the work of Mssrs. Okuda & Sternbach considered canon?  My opinion won't
appear here, but Riker's "Talk" was lifted almost directly from the book.
I'd even venture that Sternbach/Okuda may have loaned their floppy/ies to
the script writer just so he/she wouldn't have to type Riker's speech a
second time.

Now here's an interesting idea.  Is Dr. Daystrom's work Public Domain?
We've seen numerous mentions that his duo-tronic circuitry forms the basis
of every computer system in the Federation (or is that Starfleet?)  Could be
that the best and most efficient way of getting standardization is to just
give it away free (shades of what happens today, yes...) to anyone who can
understand the material.  Riker did not distort the facts, because all of
the material is PD, and as a bigger slap against the Ferengi, they'd know
how it worked if they had ever bothered to log-in to the Bulletin-Board.

-- 
when everyone is out to get you, being paranoid is just good thinking.
         - Dr. Johnny Fever <in other words, standard disclaimer>
A.J. Madison                                           ajm@sequoia.com
Sequoia Systems Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech