HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pksuk@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Alien configuration
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:28:02 EST

In article <1992Dec9.155730.21570@ugle.unit.no> 
leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:

[deleted]

>In article <346@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, pjhst10+@pitt.edu (Peter   J Hill) writes:
>  
>>The aliens remind me of the buggers in OS cards Ender series.  The big
>>difference of course, is that the aliens are still evil.  

IMHO, the aliens are NOT evil.  I suppose turkeys, if they were sentient, 
would view US as evil.  Especially around November.  The Aliens aren't
any more evil than, say, an earthquake.  Still wouldn't want them in my 
neighborhood, though.

>>Think of the evolution of the aliens, what kind of environment
>>must they have been subjected to in order to produce the qualities
>>that they possess.  Since the only way that they reproduce is through
>>a host organism, the species would have a difficult time surving once
>>they killed of all of the other life.  Do you think that the aliens
>>can die of natural causes?
[deleted]

It seems that the Aliens depend on the extreme longevity and hardiness of
their eggs to ensure that SOMETIME, someone will find them and get 
impregnated.  And given the capabilities of the creatures from the movies,
it would seem reasonable that the adults can go into biostasis.

>What kind of environment, indeed.  It would be sort of interesting to
>see the ecosystem these aliens evolved in.  Hmm....how about if the
>movie guys could be persuaded to make a sequel where the aliens'
>original homeworld is discovered?
>
>-Leif Kj|nn|y

Once an organism got to the level of hardiness that the Aliens displayed, 
they would evolve more slowly.  In fact, as they developed their traits
over time, they would evolve more and more slowly.  (IF they evolve in
the same way we do, through the mechanisms of permutation and natural
selection.)

In fact, the behavior of the species doesn't seem very compatible with 
any kind of evolutionary origin.  The only explaination that I can think of
for the aliens is that offered in the Aliens Vs. Predator series by Dark
Horse Comics.  (Where the Aliens are seeded by the Predators throughout
the galaxy to provide entertaining hunting.)

Their incorporating the host's DNA makes sense in this context.  One can
imagine the Predators genetically engineering this creature.  It would
essentially double the number of species the Predators could hunt.  

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk



Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3834 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7054
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time Travel and Causality Violation
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:38:45 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <Y+T=rV@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> I *think* you may have misunderstood 'Niven's Law.' The idea is, *if you
>can change the past,* then eventually time travel won't happen.  

You're right.  Actually, I miss-paraphrased him.  I do understand the
concept -- I don't have my copy of _AtMW_ with me.  (in THIS reality
at least :)

> But there's no _a_priori_ reason to assume that, if paradoxes are disallowed
>and you're travelling to *the* past, that time travel won't happen. The
>simplest configuration is that no time travel is invented... but how many
>things in nature are in the simplest possible configuration? :->

Generally, things want to get there.  Eventually, they will.  (You can't
win.  You can't break even.  You can't get out of the game.)

> Small argument here. Somebody posted a bit a while back about "Langevin time,"
>which is a conceptual tool in physics, I gather. It can be interpreted
>(though I gather most physicists would shudder in horror at the idea) as
>a 'hypertime.' This someone claimed that a paradox was set up on a computer,
>and the simulation was aged in Langevin time- and came to a stable (non-
>paradoxical) equilibrium that still involved time travel. I still have it
>on file somewhere...

You've GOT to show me this!  I won't have peace til I see this now.

And, since langevin time is NOT time, wouldn't the progression happen
instantaneously from our point of view?  (Or, more accurately, wouldn't
it have always been the way it is?)

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:55:23 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <1992Dec14.195008.5521@newstand.syr.edu>
pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:

>In article <Bz5JpH.BLx@brunel.ac.uk> 
>mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
>
>>Want to bet the 'Kzinti' get 'enlightened' well before the other two?
>
>This is a very good point.  Macro-life "expansion" will be very much
>faster than the traditional colonizing gambit.  Such squeezes will
>encourage species to do this.

Actually, I was just being sarcastic, but I see now that what you are
describing (as pointed out by another poster, whose name I can't find now)
is the birth of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and British empires.  Bear
in mind, though, that there is nothing to stop parts of a macrolife civ
from 'going poshrat' as soon as it finds itself in empty territory.  This
would lead to a complicated system of mutually-interpenetrating empires:

K boxed in			        H | K | P

K leaprogs     		            K | H | K | P | K

H follows      		        H | K | H | K | P | K | H

P 'catches on'     	    P | H | K | H | K | P | K | H | P

K leaps again	        K | P | H | K | H | K | P | K | H | P | K

(I hope that looks alright on all your readers.  Apologies otherwise.)

This would require no enlightenment at all on anybody's part.
-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3801 alt.folklore.science:4388
From: zlg1409@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Zhenhai Li )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The Marching Morons (was Re: Cindy the Disco Queen)
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:38:31 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:

>Okay, I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.  Why should any of these be
>the case?  Reductio ad absurdum -- does this mean that if a person is
>only educated through 11th grade, then he's worthless?  If so, what's
>magical about the senior year.  If not, repeat question inductively until
>he's never attended school at all....

hey, we had to do it. Why shouldn't he suffer? :-)

>Why is universal education important?  And *particularly*, why should everyone
>be required to follow *my* opinion of what constitutes a good education? 
>Should people be required to study a second language?  How about calculus?
>How about Asian-American literature?  And why should someone with no talent
>for or interest in calculus be required to be exposed to it, when there are
>all these other more interesting and relevant (to that person) fields to
>learn?

Hmmm, I've also thought about this quite a bit. Why should everyone be
educated? So that those that are smart realize their potential and can
go further. So (Hopefully) the average citizen can tell the truth from
B.S. So everone knows how to read. So people understand how our country
works and how to fix it. (I wish I took an automotive class.) Hopefully,
to keep the masses from being ignorant. (HArd to imagine, but then, I'm
on internet.) however, I still think that 8th grade math, 10th grade eng,
and a bit of history and science is the level that the average american
uses. we REALLY need to define what kind of education is needed for what.
(College deg to be a desk clerk? come on.) That a college degree is nice,
but if you take a kid out of H.S. give him a job in an engineering firm
for four years. Would you want him working for you or a guy who majored in
it? 

Stuff from the mind of,
Z.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jdunning@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning)
Subject: Re: request on old topics..
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:47:59 GMT

In a related vein, is this newsgroup archived anywhere?  I just discovered
it, and it seems I've come in on the tail-end of some interesting 
discussions.  I'd like to find the beginning of the threads.

John
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: The Marching Morons (was Re: Cindy the Disco Queen)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:33:57 GMT

In article <1gnr5vINNik@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <15DEC199216015557@rover.uchicago.edu>, frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:
>>	A good education thru 12th grade is a primary:
>>
>>	A/ Privilege
>>	B/ Right
>>	C/ Absolute necessity
>
>None of the above.  It ought to be C, but...

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.  Why should any of these be
the case?  Reductio ad absurdum -- does this mean that if a person is
only educated through 11th grade, then he's worthless?  If so, what's
magical about the senior year.  If not, repeat question inductively until
he's never attended school at all....

Why is universal education important?  And *particularly*, why should everyone
be required to follow *my* opinion of what constitutes a good education? 
Should people be required to study a second language?  How about calculus?
How about Asian-American literature?  And why should someone with no talent
for or interest in calculus be required to be exposed to it, when there are
all these other more interesting and relevant (to that person) fields to
learn?


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: HELP! (was: Do starships collapse when flying near c?)
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<85f2qwd@rpi.edu> <BCR.92Dec11200710@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<If_bwNC00gpIMPZ3Ye@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:16:21 GMT


In article <If_bwNC00gpIMPZ3Ye@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>   Um, by that argument you should never be able to reach the speed of 60
>   mph either.

To qualify this:  By my argument you should never be able to reach a
speed 60 mph faster than your own nose!  However, you have no problems
going 60 mph faster than the radar gun in a hidden police car!

>   A slightly clearer (but counterintuitive) statement: Light (any photon
>   you care to measure) always moves at c, relative to you. So you can't
>   reach the speed of light because light is always moving relative to you.

Yes perhaps you are right.  It is better just to byte the bullet and give
this  counterintuitive statement than to go through all the acrobatics I
went through to aviod it.

>  This may be what Bill Riemers was trying to say above, but I couldn't
>  tell. 

So I must have failed in making the argument understandable anyways...


                                      Bill


--
"Yeti!  Saw them in the London Underground twenty years ago.  Ghosts!
A headless woman used to walk through my bedroom at midnight.  Mermaids?
Grandpa was rescued from the Marie Celeste by one.  Vampires?  I always
wondered where my dad went to at night.  Telepathy?  Right now you're
thinking that I'm talking crap.  So what can you tell me that I won't
believe in?" - Andrew Hunt, "CAT'S CRADLE: WITCH MARK"
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3764 rec.arts.sf.misc:3472
From: young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:21:44 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: Data General Australia

mabw0164@ac.dal.ca writes:
|> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
|> 
|> < stuff deleted >
|> 
|> > 
|> > I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
|> > 'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
|> > would abandon the concept entirely.  
|> > 
|> > 	--Peter Kwangjun Suk

For the heavens' sake, Why???  Hand over decision-making powers on land use,
resource allocation, etc. to a committee which would include non-members
of that civilization (in the non-trivial case)?  Aside from the obvious
extra costs of bureaucracy, can you just imagine the Committee's
deliberations ...

LittleGreenMen Rep: "Let's raise the sea level on planet X by 300' so the
                       spratlings will have some swimming room!"
BlueHorror Rep:     "Let's freeze planet X so it'll be comfortable for
		       our eggs!"
GreySlime Rep:      "We want a CO2 atmosphere!"
Chairman:   	    "Let's refer the issue to the Standing Committee on ***"

			[several years pass ...]

Repressive governments in our own not-too-distant past have tried to ban
self-interest, and the results have spoken for themselves. A "truly
enlightened interstellar civilization" would surely be beyond such mistakes.     

< more stuff deleted >
|> 
|> Nope, I just can't believe that any creature that develops even remotely 
|> similar to a human is going to be so devoid of personal ambition as to 
|> revoke the concept of territoriality. It would be nice, but I think I'll
					 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> just keep the laser cannons oiled and ready. :-)
|> 
|> Joe

I mostly agree, Joe, except for the "It would be nice" bit. 

-- 
Philip R. Young                   | 
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.  | 
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Title/author?? (please help me remember)
Reply-To: baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:39:56 GMT

In article <1gso64INNo1c@mirror.digex.com>, nbull@access.digex.com (Nicholas Bull) writes:
>Dear sci-fi readers,
>
>I'm trying to remeber the title &/or author of a sci-fi novel I
>read 20 years ago, when I was about 12.  I kind of remember the
>plot:
>
>Location: Earth (maybe) or a planet somewhere.  There are two
>cities, one which specializes in Science and the other in
>Art--but the two cities don't know about each other.  I think the
>action starts in the Art city.
>
>Main characters: A young man (or oldish boy--maybe 14-18 yrs old)
>and an old man.  The old man is sort of a mayor of the city but
>also sort of like the grand wizard of the city.  The young man is
>a bright kid who sort of becomes the old man's apprentice.
>
>There is a statue of the founder of the city; the founder is
>pointing down towards some sort of mosaic of tiles around the
>base of the statue.  Somehow the young man figures out that the
>tile the statue is pointing at controls a door which opens onto a
>subway-type system.  As it turns out, the subway is connected to
>the other city (which may be underground???).  The young man
>makes the journey to the other city.  Maybe he falls in love with
>a young woman there, I can't remember.  Anyway, the two cities
>Need Each Other for some reason which I have forgotten.  Of
>course, each is suspicous of the other so it takes the young
>man's idealistic naivetee to bring them together.  Presumably all
>live happily ever after.
>
>I read this around the same time as I read the Foundation Trilogy
>(back when it was one), the Cities in the Sky books, and Earth
>Abides.  Guess that doesn't mean it came out at the same time,
>though.
>
>I appreciate any help anyone can give me. 
>
It sounds like a certain Arthur C. Clark story, whose title I
keep forgetting. The young man is Alvin.  He is of an age to 
reason, but is still treated as a child because he is the most
recent baby born. (No need to replace people very often; probably
a 1:1 correlation with deaths) I think Alvin could be anything 
under 35 (If he were older his friend from the other city, who is 
closer to 18 with what we consider to be a 'normal' life expectancy,
would not be able to relate to him.) This age thing is part of 
why the cities need each other; the old guys are TERRIBLY conservative.
& don't do anything, and the artist-types are living (relatively)
low tech, and don't accomplish anything of note. I don't 
think there's a girl involved.

Any help? Try looking in the tail end of that Clark/Lee Rama book
(the 1st one, not Garden of Rama). There are excepts from several
of Clark's books that include titles. I think the one you want
is there.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: Time Travel and Causality Violation
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:21:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.165816.25061@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.154730.15628@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher) writes:

>>My favorite time paradox is this one:  One builds a time machine, of any
>>sort.  It could have a receiver and a transmitter if you like.  One
>>gathers together a group of people, and some unique object.  One
>>announces that at precisely 8:00, one will put the unique object into
>>the time machine, set to go back in time half an hour.  At 7:30, if an
>>object emerges from the time machine, one destroys the time machine and
>>the unique object.  Now what happens?

>In the parallel universes scheme, there are two resulting universes.
>In Universe 1, at 7:30 you received no object, so you put the
>object into the time machine.  In Universe 2, at 7:30 you received
>an object, so you destroy the time machine and the object.

Where does the object in universe 1 go?  Where did the object I received
in universe 2 come from?  Could I use this as a duplicator?  Does this
teleport the object from one universe to the other?

What happens if the object I declare that I am going to put through the
time machine is a Gold Brick?  If I get one, I take both bricks and
leave.  The next night, I do the same thing with two bricks. After 64
nights, I have enough bricks to cover california to quite a depth.

>In the single-universe no-paradox scheme, you do not receive
>the object at 7:30.  When you try to send the object at
>8:00 you fail.   

Since this is true no matter how the time machine works, then I have a
proof that in the single-universe no-paradox scheme, no time machine
could work....

Chris



-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: WASTE HEAT
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:51:31 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <1992Dec10.183545.21250@black.ox.ac.uk> wa94002@black.ox.ac.uk (Mark F W Charsley) writes:
>I'm not entirely sure why this topic is called waste heat, as it seems to have 
>developed into a discussion on Space Warfare. I've got two points to make about
>the high g stealth space-craft:

Welcome to the Space Warfare topic; it developed into a discussion on
waste heat.  Got it?

>[snip]
>Secondly, on the discussion about ways to hide ships for spying on the planet,
>why not just disguise it as a large comet? If you disguise the ship as such 
>well outside the perimeter of the defences, and don't mind waiting a couple of
>years, it should work.

Been there, done that.  In order to make it a convincing comet, you have to
be 1) no warmer and 2) no faster than a real comet.  1) means no crew up
and about, and no machines running, including the ones that may be keeping
a hibernating crew alive.  2) means that if you start making like a comet
at Oort Cloud distances, for 'a couple of years' read 'several millenia'.

It was the Stealth aspect of space warfare which started the Waste Heat
discussion.  Gene Spafford has suggested that an unfamiliar topic should
be read for at least a fortnight before chipping in.  This and other gems
of advice can be found on new.announce.newusers, I believe.

-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: The Marching Morons (was Re: Cindy the Disco Queen)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:46:52 GMT

singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick Singley) writes:
>pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes...

No I didn't. The second paragraph below is mine, but the first paragraph
was one I was replying to. I don't know who because the poster before you
cleverly deleted the attribution. And I don't know who he was because _you_
cleverly deleted the attribution. So, please, Erick and whoever-it-was@rover.
uchicago.edu, be more cautious when trimming your quotes. The fame you save
may be your own.

>>>> The real problem is the sorry state of our educational system, which, like
>>>> [...]
>>
>>>Woah Jim, while I agree that the US government is noxious, the morons 
>>>are breeding far faster beneath the considerably less enlightened 
>>>governments that afflict most of the human race.

>>[Stuff relating to education system deleted]

>[steps up on personal soapbox]
>Hey! Watch where you point that gun! Some of us here in the "noxious US 
>Gov" are working on food, drug, and health research.  Four floors in a wing 
>of building 10 here at NIH are for AIDs research alone. 

I really appreciate your efforts. Keep up the good work.

>Other branches clean up the private sector's (and government's) chemical waste.

And plaudits for them too.

>We are not all paper pushers sucking your tax dollars away while doing 
>crossword puzzles! [meekly steps down]

Well, none of you are sucking _my_ tax dollars away :-) But I guess we're
talking about different things here - my definition of government means
the folk who govern, not the whole public sector. Of course that defintion
is fuzzy too, but I think it is common.

-- 
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au             UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete
                       I am a big pond in a small fish.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: Time Travel and Causality Violation
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 15:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.203246.6614@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>In article <1632@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>>Actually the greatest argument against the existance of time travel was brought
>>to my attention by my brother:
>>
>>If it is possible why aren't we up to our ears in temporal archaeologists and
>>time tourists?

>Quite properly, you note that this is an objection to the existence
>of time travel.  However, it is not an objection to time travel
>being possible post-1992.

>Consider the development of a time machine that can send you back
>in time, but no earlier than the machine itself came into 
>existence (e.g. a technology that relies upon a receiver).

>The closed-timelike-curve mechanisms for time travel (worm holes,
>rotating Kerr black holes, etc) meet the restriction.

My favorite time paradox is this one:  One builds a time machine, of any
sort.  It could have a receiver and a transmitter if you like.  One
gathers together a group of people, and some unique object.  One
announces that at precisely 8:00, one will put the unique object into
the time machine, set to go back in time half an hour.  At 7:30, if an
object emerges from the time machine, one destroys the time machine and
the unique object.  Now what happens?

>at Bell-Northern Research

Chris



-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science