HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:46:42 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

  cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black) writes:
>jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>>Remember that we've only had the computer for fifty years or so, and
>>look how far we've run with the ball.
>
>How far we've run with the ball?  Ha!  Computer science is still in
>the proverbial dark ages.

Maybe where YOU went to school it still is. (Geez, what some people
will argue about).

>I would hardly call our slow, inefficient
>networking capabilities advanced.

I would, compared with fifty years ago when no one even thought of
connecting two computers together.

>Not to mention the fact that most
>computers in use today rely on one, or even a few, processors.

Well, ENIAC's processor was contained in huge banks of equipment
filling an entire room, and could barely manage a few hundred
computations per second.  I would even hate to put a price tag on it.

But today a processor capable of tens of millions of computations per
second is available at a price well within the budget of the average
middle class American and can be carried around (the chip itself, that
is) in one's shirt pocket.

Okay so it's got one processor.  But look how that processor has
changed in fifty years?

>Except for the external aspects we see when watching ST, due to our
>current limited technological capabilities, I would like to think that
>the Enterprise computers bear little resemblance to their current day
>predecessors.

My point.  The evolution of the computer in the past fifty years has
been so phenomenal that I'd expect to see great and marvelous things
four hundred years from now.

>IMHO, computing has a *long* ways to go.  And, of course, I hope to be
>a part of helping it get there, wherever that may be.

Well then you'll have to start getting up before noon :-).
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: davros@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tyler J. Yip)
Subject: Phasers, Disruptors, and Romulan ships.
Organization: California State University, Chico
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 22:59:09 GMT

I look at phasers this way...
Phasers use colonated (whatever that means) energy to send short term but
predictably stable high energy particles out a directed orofice towards the
intended target.  Upon interaction with this target, the particles (nadions)
in the phaser beam decay and release their stored energy within the matter
of the target, thus creating sub-atomic nuclear explosions incinerating the
target.

Romulan disruptors used some sort of arranged energy to vibrate the target
matter apart, much like a microwave excites water, until that target is
sufficiently disturbed.  

Look at it this way...using a defenseless Ferengi as an example.
A phaser shoots tiny explosives into the Ferengi that then blow the Ferengi up 
from inside.
A disruptor shakes all the matter in the Ferengi until the Ferengi falls apart.

As for the Romulan ship designs.  Common agreement is that Romulans, back when
they had practical cloaking devices, but no warp tech, convinced the Klingons,
who incidentally wanted cloaking devices and had warp tech, to trade.
Whala, Klingons have small but good cloaking device (Scout vessels only in
Movies) and Romulans have warp engines (Klingon designs in TOS and new Warbirds
in TNG.)  

For the Warbird design, I've noticed (and people will argue over this) that
all of the ships that cloak well (i.e. not the old ships) all have their
warp engine nacelles close to the body of the ship.  The Klingon L-42 Bird Of
Prey has the warp coils actuall in the main body of the ship, and the
Romulan War Bird has small nacelles close to the main decks of the ship.
The old impulse driven romulan vessel had its impulse engines on the outer
edges of the ship, and their older designs matched the current NON-CLOAKED
D-7 Battle Cruisers that all have their nacelles on the extreme edges of the
ship pointing out like Reliant's.  I've heard that the emissions of the
warp coils are closer or farther from the ship due to safety precautions, but
inorder to have more practical cloaking, the Klingons and Romulans may have
decided to dump the safety for a descent sneak attack vessel.


-Tyler Yip
-davros@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: bperles@iastate.edu (Brian P Perles)
Subject: Re: Imminent Collapse of the Federation? (was Re: Transporting Explosives)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:12:20 GMT

In <6qyttg_@rpi.edu> petitc@nuge106.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:

>|>      Why even bother with transporting such exotic things as anti-matter
>|> or nuclear bombs when small, well placed bricks of C-4 (or equiv.) or some granaids could be very effective. The use of chemical agents such as nerve
>|> gases or blood agents may be useful against targeted lifeforms.
>|>      This coarse could be used to either just disable, or even destroy
>|> the objective. 
>|>      The problem with the federation is their overbearing "morality"

hmmmm.....   I dont think it realy matters, the Federation is alive only
because it writen in the script. The new Romulan Warbird (this is taken
from the Warbird poster) has 2 cloaking devices. With both on, its the
"ultimate" cloaking machine, No-one can see them.  With only one on, they
can charge their wepons(yes, a spin off form ST6).  Think of this....

	The whole Romulan fleet sneeks across the nutral zone.  No one would
see them, and since there usally cloaked, they wouldnt be missed.  Suround
key ships, planets, outposts, etc and let her rip while cloaked!  Repeat 
till the Federation in on its knees.  Scary?

				brian (thats all)

PS, and dont say that thacaon(sp) trick from Spocks show will work, cuse it
wont!  (anyone to change sides?)
From: jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Dilithium replication
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:14:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ecst.1992Apr07.171452.3426
Organization: California State University, Chico

In article <1992Apr07.080154.139971@zeus.calpoly.edu> jmartine@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Martinez) writes:
>(James Gordon Currie) writes:
>>
>>          Dilithium can't be replicated for a simple reason... It has a 
>>"fourth" dimentional aspect to it (for lack of a better word). It extends into
>>the same dimention used for sub-space communications.
>>
>
>Isn't Dilithium made of anti-matter? At least that's what my roommate told
>me.
>
	If Dilithium were made of anti-matter, all the ship which use it
would have gone KABOOOMMMMM!!!!!!.  According to the technical manual, DL
allows the energy from the matter/atni-matter reaction to be channelled,
somehow.

Jess Stuart
CSUC Chico CA
From: scrotch@milton.u.washington.edu (Lou Ciphre)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:01:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

sarff@gsrc.enet.dec.com (Kent Sarff) writes:


>>>Is there a USS Asimov?
>>>
>>>If not...There should be!

>>Damn straight! And it should be more of those unnamed Galaxy Class ships...

>Just name a ship??  Come on, how about a Azimov Class?  He will always be in
>a class of individuals that have shaped the present and future of science fact.

Asimov already has been acknowledged in the form of Data's "positronic
brain" (not that the USS Asimov wouldn't be nice too).
From: Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed and Relativity?
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:15:17 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

Jay sed:
>Smart money once said you couldn't break the sound barrier.  Smart
>money once said the atom was indivisible.  Smart money still says the
>bumblebee can't fly.  Around the turn of the century, everyone thought

Couldn't resist this totally non-trek red-rag...
The story *actually* was "If bee muscle has the same power output as human
muscle, bumblebees couldn't fly"
So, they studied BB muscle kinetics: surprise! x3 - x4 greater power to
weight ratio, therefore no-one is offended about the poor bumble bee, and the
world can stop wobbling...

That said, I too hope that we can reach warp1+ Life would be boring otherwise.

Remember: All our current physics knowledge comes from experiments performed in
one very specific location- 93 million odd miles from a G-type star... 8)

Later,
       Mark
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: eaustin@ll.mit.edu (Eric J. Austin)
Subject: Re: time travel
Originator: eaustin@ll.mit.edu (Eric J. Austin)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:59:26 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.222439.10059@nevada.edu>, snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev Inst of Tech) writes:
|> In several startrek episodes (at least TOS) and in STIV the enterprise
|> crew travels back in time, and then returns to their time. I basicly
|> understand the theory of traveling *back* in time.  You add linier and
|> rotational volocities pushing yourself faster than light in real
|> space, and that send you back in time.  Or something like that.
|> 
|> How about going forward in time?  How do they get back?  Faster than
|> light travel in real space sends you *back* not *forward* in time.
|> 
|> Any explainations?

I have no explanations, I am just amused that someone claims to 
"understand the theory of traveling *back* in time" but can't imagine
a way to go forward in time. I'm not sure how things work in Nevada
but here in Boston we go forward in time all the time. :)

On second thought, I can think of a method of travelling forward through time
in such a way that
    (your percieved time change) <<  (percieved time change rest of universe).
Namely, travel at highly relativistic speeds.

-- 
 Eric J. Austin                       EMAIL: eaustin@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mueller@cage.eng.mcmaster.ca (Edna Mueller)
Subject: Re: Yamato Vs. Enterprise (was  Re: Prime Directive vs. The FORCE?!?!?)
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:10:08 GMT

Robert Bosch of imfletch@athena.mit.edu
[stuff deleted]
>|> How about Enterprize vs. Vogon Constructor ship - Vogons
>|> 
>|> Scott.
>|> "You're a JERK... Dent... A complete Asshole."
>
>Ah yes, but now the most important question...
>
>The Enterprise vs....
>
>DA BEARS!
-- 
For my clarification, would that be :
	a) the Care Bears
	b) the Chicago Bears
	c) Pooh Bear
	d) all of the above

			Edna
			(Just call me Schmeby, everyone else does!)
					    mueller@cage.eng.mcmaster.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                "Oops". -- Jean-Luc Picard, "Pen Pals"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Transporter nightmares
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:03:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.135205.1@pa881a.inland.com> nason@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>
>Assume over the next fifty years we manage to develop the technology.  Sure the
>energy costs savings alone would push it to instant popularity.  Then imagine
>the employment demagraphics etc.. etc...

Read Larry Niven's books. (always a good idea! :)
He addresses this question in several short stories, about the effect the
invention of transport booths (needed to transmit and receive) have on
society, including their uses for crime...

-- 
        Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
                      hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
                      Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
From: cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:34:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr16.143446.18767
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Utah

In article <1992Apr16.140326.17003@hellgate.utah.edu> jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>Remember that we've only had the computer for fifty years or so, and
>look how far we've run with the ball.  You'd think that after four
>hundred years of such breakneck evolution they'd have thought of
>something better.  Okay, maybe there ISN'T anything better, but it's
>worth thinking about.

How far we've run with the ball?  Ha!  Computer science is still in
the proverbial dark ages.  I would hardly call our slow, inefficient
networking capabilities advanced.  Not to mention the fact that most
computers in use today rely on one, or even a few, processors.

And, to speculate (even lightly) that there ISN'T anything better?
Except for the external aspects we see when watching ST, due to our
current limited technological capabilities, I would like to think that
the Enterprise computers bear little resemblance to their current day
predecessors.

IMHO, computing has a *long* ways to go.  And, of course, I hope to be
a part of helping it get there, wherever that may be.

              ----------  Charles W. Black  ----------
                  ------  cwblack@asylum.utah.edu  ------
                     ---  Department of Computer Science  ---
               ---------  University of Utah  ---------
From: bvan@ncs.dnd.ca (Bryan Van Blaricom)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time travel
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:49:43 GMT
Organization: DND, Ottawa, CANADA

In article <1992Apr9.222439.10059@nevada.edu> snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev Inst of Tech) writes:
>How about going forward in time?  How do they get back?  Faster than
>light travel in real space sends you *back* not *forward* in time.
>
>Any explainations?

Ahem, actually, in reality, it's theoretically quite simple.  IF you want
to go forward in time, just fly really close to c, or really close to an
intense gravity well (like a black hole) (_theoretically_ simple, I said
:-).  You don't suddenly pop into the future, but the effective results
would be the same.

Bryan
From: s5223927@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Daniel Lescohier)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: USS Asimov?
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:34:23 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr12.160848.685@newcastle.ac.uk>
Shinji.Kono@newcastle.ac.uk (Shinji KONO) writes:

>In article <XXs4iB2w164w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> 
>genius@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Cooper) writes:
>>That is exactly what I was thinking.  A ship could be looked over easily, or 
>>lost in the piles of names already existing.  A class would give him the 
>>credit that he really deserves.
>
>I think there are no detailed description of *very* large ship in his
>novel.

	Bite your tongue!  What about those huge Empire battleships?  If
memory serves, they are much larger than the Enterprise.  I also seem to
remember lethal weaponry (wasn't it some sort of nuclear blasters?).  And
they had the force shields to protect themselves, which are probably as
effective, or better, than the Enterprise's deflector shields.

	I know, this is just fodder for an Asimov's Galatic Empire versus
Enterprise debate.  But I'd bet that the Empire would win...

	Of course, in Asimov's books, the Empire was in decline, and the
battleships only caused the Foundation some annoying troubles.  So, it
might be better to concentrate on the Foundation's ships, which were 
generally small, well-armed and -defended merchant ships.



-- 
 Daniel Lescohier        | InterNet: s5223927@titan.ucs.umass.edu (until May)
 Univ. of Massachusetts  |---------------------------------------------------
 Amherst, MA (until May) | FidoNet:  1:101/138 (permament address; after May)
  [quote deleted]        |        (Daniel.Lescohier@f138.n101.z1.fidonet.org)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time travel
From: kcypher@eve.wright.edu (James T. Kirk)
Date: 11 Apr 92 22:47:03 EST
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Apr10.162521.1@camins.camosun.bc.ca> comp138w142@camins.camosun.bc.ca (Scott) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.222439.10059@nevada.edu>, snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev Inst of Tech) writes:
>> In several startrek episodes (at least TOS) and in STIV the enterprise
>> crew travels back in time, and then returns to their time. I basicly
>> understand the theory of traveling *back* in time.  You add linier and
>> rotational volocities pushing yourself faster than light in real
>> space, and that send you back in time.  Or something like that.
>> 
>> How about going forward in time?  How do they get back?  Faster than
>> light travel in real space sends you *back* not *forward* in time.
>> 
>> Any explainations?
>
>How about visualizing time as a rather large loop. If you go back far 
>enough you reach the future.
>
>Scott.
>"You're a JERK... Dent... A complete asshole."

	Actually, to fully understand the workings and implications of
time travel, a good book to read would be "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy."  It explains everything from speaking about it (grammatical
tense) to how to deal with being your own grandparent.  Actually, I
agree with the idea of relativistic velocity to "fast-forward" through
time.  If when you're in a ship at V > c, you age much slower than
everyone at "normal" velocities, then you are technically travelling
through time.  Just my simple, humble opinion.

--
Kurt Cypher		| Bob:  "But you've never driven a big rig before."
kcypher@eve.wright.edu	| Doug: "It's a 10 speed.  That's a five speed times
			|        two.  Besides, this is a beer truck, eh?"
			| - Bob & Doug McKenzie "Strange Brew"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: stirling@ozrout.uucp (Stirling Westrup)
Subject: Re: Q: Quad / KiloQuad, what is it ?
Organization: Andre P. Ozrout
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:04:09 GMT

kellyfj@vax1.tcd.ie writes
>Question:
>
>Whilst reading the ST:TNG tech manual by Sternbach and okuda, I came across the
>mention of a measure of computer storage called a "Quad". Can anyone tell me
>what it means and how it translates into modern kilobytes or megabytes (if
>possible).

There's no such measure.  I think Sternbach or Okuda stole the term from
the book "ME" by Thomas T. Thomas (which is about a future AI system).
That book often uses the term Quad along with several others.  When I first
read the book I surmised that there was enough information to determine how
big a Quad actually was.  Since reading the tech manual, I've decided to
reread ME to see if I can figure out the measure.
-- 
||    BUNGEE SIDEWAYS!                              o   )))
||                                                 /-- ///
|P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\_  \\\      __ -_
||    stirling@ozrout.uucp                                 ((( (_)T(_)
From: u1155@jsp.umontreal.ca (Cholette Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: RE: Warp speed and relativity ( precisions )
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:08:09 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal
Originator: u1155@spb62.jsp.umontreal.ca





Dear ned,

 I'm sorry if I have to point out some " flaws " in you explanation,
but there is stuff in there that is untrue or unclear.

you say: (.4c - c=Speed of Light) not so, by definition, c=speed of of light (this was unclear)


you say: aging for the object begins to slow to a crawl; by the time the object is at c, 
the effect of Time upon it doesn't exist.

 This point needs clarification. first of all, the people aboard the speeding ship would notice
 nothing unusual, to them and their clocks, time would be normal. This is due to the fact that
 the ship is motionless relative to itself, therefore no time distortion.
 However an outside observer would see the ship's time as slowing down as the ship approaches c.
 In normal space, a ship could not attain the speed of light, Einstein proved that as something
 approaches c, it's mass increases, the closer you get to c, the faster the mass increases. and 
 that an object moving at c would have infinite mass. This is why it is impossible to attain c.
 If you use the equation F=ma, then to push a ship to c, you would have to expose it to an
 infinite unbalanced force, which of course is impossible.

you say: This is all based on Newtonian physics... FALSE, Newton never dabbled into relativistic
         theories. This is all the work of the great A.Einstein.
                                                               

 Also there is no reason why you should reduce the mass of a ship in warp space, since the ship
 does NOT move when it is in warp. It is the warp space carrying the ship that moves through
 NORMAL space.

 
                 						Martin Cholette
 								u1155@jsp.umontreal.ca

P.S. As Einstein once said : " If you were travelling at the speed of light in normal space, you WOULD
                               BE LIGHT !"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman)
Subject: Re: Yamato Vs. Enterprise (was Re: Prime Directive vs. The FORCE?!?!?)
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:55:22 GMT

Robert Bosch of imfletch@athena.mit.edu writes...
[stuff deleted]
>|> How about Enterprize vs. Vogon Constructor ship - Vogons
>|> 
>|> Scott.
>|> "You're a JERK... Dent... A complete Asshole."
>
>Ah yes, but now the most important question...
>
>The Enterprise vs....
>
>DA BEARS!

Hmmm... If Ditka is on Weight-Watchers, Enterprise by a safety, but
otherwise Bears by 3000.

Adam Elman
aelman@cs.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dandrath@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel H. Drath)
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:36:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.191456.15594@ecst.csuchico.edu> jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) writes:
>In <1992Apr8.222038.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>>Having just acquired the laserdisc of STII and re-watched the movie 
>>several times, I noticed something I never noticed before:
>
>>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
>>What's the story on this?  In the first attack by Kahn, the big E has
>>energized defensive screens (accompanied by a graphic of the ship being
>>"colored in" section by section), but hasn't raised shields (graphic of
>>dots encircling the ship)...
>
>>Energizing the screens sure didn't do them a damn bit of good!  Have
>>we seen these before/since?
>>
>>ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu

I can hear this part of the movie in my head-- Saavik says, "Energize
defense FIELDS", and then they cut to a picture of a person turning a
knob, and then they have that graphic of ship sections being filled in.

I always imagined that defense fields were some kind of interlocking
network of something-er-others within the hull; similar to the
structural supports that Okuda and Steinbach talk about in the ST:TNG
tech manual.  Those supports help hold hull integrity despite all the
different stresses experienced in space.  I imagine that the defense
fields are extra-strong versions of those supports, and they are
energized before battle or unexpected maneuvers in case the ship will be
experiencing undue stress (as in evasive maneuvers).

Hope that helps...
-- 
Daniel Drath
dandrath@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech