HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:46:14 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department


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. 

Well, there's my idea for you to ponder. It's not Star Trek, but I think
it would make some good Sci Fi.

-Jay
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:52:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.183912.11559@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <BvM3r5.FMD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas) writes:
>>be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.) writes:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>I think it would be more likely, though, that the 3D system would use glasses
>>>that alternately 'black out' lenses through use of LCDs. All it would require
>>>is a receiver in the glasses to sync to the "3-V" set. This is possible with
>>>today's technology.
>>
>>I would much rather have a system without glasses, since I don't want to
>>wear glasses whenever I watch TV.  I think you'd have trouble getting
>>consumers to accept such a system.
>It's worse than that. I wear glasses all the time, and the only way I
>can see a 3-d movie is to slip the "glasses" behind my own. I'd expect
>the system you describe to be too bulky to wear with my glasses, and
>therefore useless to me.
>
I wear glasses and have used the X-specs liquid crystal blinker
system with an Amiga computer to get 3-D images of molecules.
The X-specs glasses are designed to fit over regular glasses.
Not at all uncomfortable for up to an hour - they strap on.
Good image quality, too. The major problem is that the images
are a little dark.

Don't give up hope if it goes that way.
******************************************************************************
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
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 19:35:27 GMT

be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.) writes:

> [...]
>I think it would be more likely, though, that the 3D system would use glasses 
>that alternately 'black out' lenses through use of LCDs. All it would require
>is a receiver in the glasses to sync to the "3-V" set. This is possible with
>today's technology.

I would much rather have a system without glasses, since I don't want to
wear glasses whenever I watch TV.  I think you'd have trouble getting
consumers to accept such a system.
-- 
___-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: mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:29:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.154048.12433@news.acns.nwu.edu> myboy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lewis Murtaugh) writes:
>
>The Human Genome Project is chugging along, gaining speed as advances come
>down the pike.  There will be payoffs.  At first just new drugs and new
>diagnostic tools, then (mark my word) the eugenics debate will reappear as it
>becomes easier to plot unborn children's genetic history.  Eventually
>something bad will result from this.

guru sez:
	I thought the HGP had run into hot water because the main guys behind
	it had fallen out out some petty matter, as scientists tend to do.

	Sorry, I can't recall any names, but I was only half-paying attention.

	Whatever does come out of it, I'd hate to be caught up trying to 
	decide for real what should be done with the knowledge.

	Still, as a thought-experiment, I'd prefer to see a "minimum action"
	policy taken up, whereby genetic disorders are removed from the genome.
	Interestingly, this would only need to be done for a relatively short
	period of time, since only a few generations would be needed before 
	the disorder was wiped out. Of course, that's when new mutations crop
	up...

	As soon as you start getting involved in "selecting" for specific
	properties, you hit very shaky ground, and the argument between those
	who do and don't want to will big the biggest and bloodiest ever seen,
	IMHO.

	Just my half-baked thoughts on the matter.
-- 
      /~~~) /   / /~~~) /   /  
     (___/ (___/ /     (___/   These mind-expanding drugs have given me so much
        /                      imagination, I'm hallucinating grey vividly....
   (___/ mei172@cch.cov.ac.uk                       Victor Lewis-Smith
From: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:30:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) says:

>Here's a thought.  Imagine a teleporter that scans you (non-destructively),
>and then sends the information to the receiver.  At the source end, you,
>unharmed by the scanning, are atomized to provide raw material for the next
>incoming passenger.  Naturally, the details of how this works are kept
>secret from the general public.
>
>First of all, there is no particular reason to make the atomizing process
>painless.  The teleportation company might as well concentrate on making
>it cheap (and reliable) to keep costs down, rather than worrying about
>pain.
>
>Second, consider taking a ride, late at night.  There aren't many passengers.
>The operators are bored, and perhaps inclined to experiment.  They might do
>fun things like turn off the atomizer and, er, "play" with the passengers
>after the scan is done.  As long as they kill and atomize them eventually,
>whose to know?
>
>--Tim Smith
>

There's an even larger potential problem... where does the raw material for the
first _receiving_ station come from? An execution?  <<grin>>
-- 
 Joe Ellis  o/~ The Synthetic Filker o/~    |     TesserAct Studios
     Internet:   usr6184a@tso.uc.edu        |       P.O. Box 18577
        GEnie:   J.ELLIS22                  |     Fairfield, OH 45018
    All filked up and no place to sing!     |   New Dimensions In Filk!
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: re: Anaesthetics (was re: Teleportation...)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:57:34 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Sep24.123818.1@skcla.monsanto.com> jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com writes:

>  > I saw a program on television some time ago that suggested that people
>  > regularly submit to exactly the process you mention. It's called surgery.
>  > The program said that some researchers feel that some anasthetics work
>  > by a) disabling motor control and b) short circuiting long term memory.
>  > Thus you do experience the pain of surgery but a) you can't do anything
>  > about it and b) you don't remember it.
>  
>  I believe curare works in this fashion.  You are not able to respond to pain
>  because the muscles do not respond.  They don't use it much anymore, except in
>  conjunction with other drugs.

Wrong. Curare (and similar drugs) paralyzes the muscles BUT does not
affect other reactions to pain. If you would perform surgery under
curare alone, the pain would increase heart frequency and blood
pressure up to the point of heart failure. Therefore it has to be
combined with analgetics (and is still used yet, though other methods
of anesthesia become more popular).


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?
Woe to the land that's governed by a child! - Shakespeare
From: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Date: 28 Sep 1992 18:14:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) says:

>
>	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).
>                                 Sea Wasp
>                                   /^\
>                                   ;;;
>


Hmmm... a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, feeding and growing on normally
non-reactive materials... There's a good yarn in here somewhere.

Anybody remember Doc Smith's "Vortex Blasters"? <<grin>>

-- 
 Joe Ellis  o/~ The Synthetic Filker o/~    |     TesserAct Studios
     Internet:   usr6184a@tso.uc.edu        |       P.O. Box 18577
        GEnie:   J.ELLIS22                  |     Fairfield, OH 45018
    All filked up and no place to sing!     |   New Dimensions In Filk!
From: ggray@world.std.com (Gary P Gray)
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:04:20 GMT

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)



-- 
 ---- WARNING!!! The above opinions may be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed ----
			Gary Gray -- ggray@world.std.com
    "Newest in the line of election year toys... the George Bush inaction
                                  Figure!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:48:39 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> NO, NO, NO! I understand why you think this way, but it's NOT what I've
>been talking about!
> In the worldview under discussion, I *already* appeared back then. In
>fact, part of the reason history turned out the way it did is because I
>was there to "change the positions of air molecules, block and reflect
>photons, etc."
> History in this view is a static sculpture in four dimensions. Past,
>presnt, and future all 'already' exist, just in directions we can't
>normally perceive or gain access to. Whether this view conflicts with
>free will is another topic.

	How does quantum uncertainty fit into your model? Seems to  me
that some past conditions can't be specified precisely.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: sacke@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeff Hanna)
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 17:47:08 GMT

In article <ins450m.718301571@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles) writes:
>max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>
>>omjb1@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Matthew Bauder) writes:
>
>>> 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).   
>
Remember the episode where the terrorist faction abducted Dr. Crusher?  They 
teleported by using dimensional shifts.  Every time they used it it scrambled
their DNA a little bit.  Pretty soon they died.

If you are interested in x,y,z and t equations, read Robert Heinlein's
"The Number of the Beast"  It deals with space time movement based on
6 dimensions (3 spacial dimensions and 3 time dimensions).


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+|----------------------|+|------------------------------|+
+|                      |+|  Studio J Video Productions  |+
+| Jeff Hanna           |+|  PO Box 3086                 |+ 
+| Animation Consultant |+|  West Lafayette, IN 47906    |+
+|                      |+|  (317) 743-2983              |+
+|----------------------|+|------------------------------|+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+|-----------------|+|-----------------------------------|+
+| GEnie: J.HANNA5 |+| InterNet: sacke@gn.ecn.purdue.edu |+
+|-----------------|+|-----------------------------------|+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:09:08 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.) writes:

>There's an even larger potential problem... where does the raw material for the
>first _receiving_ station come from? An execution?  <<grin>>

Easy! People going in the other direction, of course.

But if you have that level of technology, you can of course assume
the atoms beeing transmuted from other elements and assembled into
molecules as need arises.

Regardless if the scanning process is destructive, or not, you
can have lots of problems on the transmitting side. But instead
of keeping the transmittee, consider that the operators probably
will have the ability to manufacture spare copies of those who
travelled with this system, when and in whatever number they like.

(I wouldn't use such a system, just as I wouldn't consider the
possibily of total mind+body backups a possibility for immortality.
If _I_ die, what do I care about someone whom everyone else thinks
is me is walking around?

I'd prefer a transportation system that "bends space-time" or 
whatever between two points.)
--
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se
 "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 07:23:39 GMT

In article <Vxy-Vv+@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
writes: 
> Yup. You're right. Time exists before and after. The same as space
>exists both inside and outside a well. Naetheless, there are things
>like boundaries. One can look at things in such a way that knowing
>something about the future establishes a constraint on the path history
>will take.

Naetheanyhow, you have causal coupling between the outside of the loop and the
inside, whereas your idealized quatum well exists in splendid isolation.  With
nontrivial boundary conditions, the question about the existence of a
solution becomes slightly complicated...

>In article <1992Sep25.063711.1666@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
>rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: 
>>That's my whole point: where's the proof that inconsistencies are indeed
>>forbidden?  
>
> Uh, well, actually, it was an *assumption* and labeled as such at the
>start of this thread... I have been attempting to show that this is
>logically consistent and then exploring the consequences...

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...

SR
---


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:12:51 GMT

max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:

>omjb1@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Matthew Bauder) writes:

>> 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).   

>You're talking about a space fold which bends spacetime?  God forbid if 
>two of these things are running at once . . . may bend the fabric of 
>spacetime in a way which is Not Good.

bloop!!! You're two feet wide and half a foot long.... but look the same?
Argh! My brain just fell out. How 'bout a four-space dimensional continuam?
i can think of lots of reasons why not, but a response or two won't be
scoffed at....

Eccles
Who, me tired? Nah.

flames to labor_party@VCE.Victoria
anything else to ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:12:12 GMT

sacke@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeff Hanna) writes:

>Remember the episode where the terrorist faction abducted Dr. Crusher?  They 
>teleported by using dimensional shifts.  Every time they used it it scrambled
>their DNA a little bit.  Pretty soon they died.

Well, that's the Star Trek version.  Let's all remember just how little
bearing Star Trek has on reality.

>If you are interested in x,y,z and t equations, read Robert Heinlein's
>"The Number of the Beast"  It deals with space time movement based on
>6 dimensions (3 spacial dimensions and 3 time dimensions).

If you can call that "dealing with it".  There is no real science in the
book.  The 6-dimensional stuff is just a plot device, and Heinlein explains
it away with a bit of physics-sounding mumbo-jumbo that has no meaning.
Don't get me wrong -- it's not a bad book.  Just don't bother reading it if
all you're looking for is information on how to travel through space-time.
-- 
___-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: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:09:30 GMT

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>
>   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.

Was I really this vague? I agree absolutely; maybe you should realise
that from the average size of my posts. I meant post the *reference*.
I thank you for having done so.

Let me add my voice to Steinn's: DO NOT post whole papers.

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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Subject: Re: Time Travel & Teleportation in Cyberspace
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.071620.5809@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>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.  <deleted>

Let me assume a virtual world running on a supercomputer, where either the
inhabitants are native info-forms, or people that have been 100% digitized
into the system so that there is no organic part left. Everyone exists as a 
piece of self-aware software inside a simulated environment. Then you could do
various forms of time-travel. The virtual world could be backed up at some
point, so that one could return to that point from a later time. Changes made
in that world could split the timestream, meaning that there were two copies
of the world. The operating system could keep both copies running, or
arbitrarily delete one of them. You could jump into the future, but only into
a time that already existed, by being put in stasis (archived to tape??).
You could jump into a simulated future, and back, where the system simulated 
the external indications of time passing.
History could be re-written - literally, including peoples memories - by a
powerful enough system. Time could be made to run at different rates for 
different people, even made to run backwards.

--
 Andrew Daviel, Vancouver, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science