HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Spock biological impossible?
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:16:11 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

I've heard here that it would be impossible for humans and vulcans to 
interbreed, and heard also something about Spock being a product of
genetical engeneering. But I remember some episode in which Spock's
father (vulcan) and mother (human) were on the enterprise. (It had
something to do with adding a planet to the federation). How does
this match? Is Spock's mother only the person who carried him?
Anyone knows?

 ********************************************************************
 * J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 *
 * johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   *
 ******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   *
 *     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   *
 *     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
 ********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:26:48 GMT

In article <9208202238.AA12745@tyrell.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM>, ottoh3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM (Otto Heuer #3) writes:
>
>While I won't argue on either side of the "holodeck replicating matter"
>debate, someone (Richard Arnold or Okuda or someone?) said at a con 
>shortly after that ep was aired that there were a scene that ended
>up on the cutting room floor (due to time constraints) that made it more
>clear that Geordi was showing the paper to Data to show him that it
>could leave the holodeck and therefore Moriarty could also leave the
>holodeck (if he had only known) and not just showing him the picture 
>of the Enterprise (which was upside down as well, I believe).
>
I'd heard a slightly expanded version of this story from Stewart (Picard)
at a Creation Con. It wasn't just for time that they cut out the
implication that Moriarty could leave. Remember that Picard did not
defeat Moriarty, but persuaded him that he had no possible independent
existance [outside the holodeck]. Then Moriarty consented to let
Picard store his program until he could really live at some future date.
According to Stewart, a cut scene showed that Picard knew Moriarty could 
leave, because of that paper. However, Picard didn't trust the sweetness, 
light, tea & crumpettes that he was showing.Picard deliberately lied, 
because he would not free one of the worst villains in 
English-language fiction.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment.
From: feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:17:13 -0700
Reply-To: sean@digaudio.byu.edu

In article <1992Aug11.205909.42278@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>  writes:
>Mark Schlegel writes:
>>                                 Repeat after me,"it's only a tv show,
>>                                 it's only a tv show..."
>
>	If this is your attitude, don't post on this newsgroup.  

Whoa!  Chill out!  This newsgroup was created for people *interested* in  
ST, which covers a wide range of personalities.  It is not the sole domain  
of people with ST on the brain.

I think ST and STTNG are great.  But, of my own free will, I can stand up  
in the middle of a show and get a drink of water.  So does this mean, by  
your definition, that I can't post in this newsgroup?

--

Sean Luke
Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: fkilpatr@afit.af.mil (Freeman A. Kilpatrick)
Subject: Re: communicators
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:33:50 GMT

jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:

>"During initial message routing, there may be a slight processing
>delay until the computer has heard the entire name of the
>recipient and located same. From that point on, all transmissions
>are realtime."

(I know this is from the tech manual.  I'm arguing against it,
not you :)

Processing delay???!!!!  Come on!  Even with today's computers it
would be easy to keep a look-up table of the locations of every
member of the crew at any given time, that information should be
available instantaneously.  As far as hearing the entire name,
that is equally trivial.  If you have ever used an 'active' text
search in a text editor, you know the computer can rapidly prune
down the number of possible alterntaive from the first few
letters (or sounds in the case of voice).  As a matter of fact,
the computer should bve able to easily notify the person *before*
you have evn finished saying the recipients name.  Sheesh!  Of
course, the voice recognition part *is* quite difficult, but we
assume that is already solved by then.


ak
-- 
Alex Kilpatrick  fkilpatr@afit.af.mil  
"Where the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." 
---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Galactic Calendar
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:14:48 GMT

In article <138@sbe.csuhayward.edu>, sauron@sbe.csuhayward.edu (Sauron) writes:
>I was wondering if anyone has put any thought into what would make a good
>'galactic calendar'... a sort of metric system for the galaxy.
>
[cut]
>
>Can anyone thing of a system that different worlds could agree on, and 
>something that makes a bit more sense than the one we use now?

One SF novel I read measured everything in seconds, with metric 
prefixes. (A megasecond makes a great calendar unit.) If you really 
want, you could use a "second-ish" kind of unit based on a binary
multiple of vibrations of a cesium atom* (not all folk have 10 fingers, you
know). When you're talking galactic, a lot of things you thought were
universal aren't really, so maybe the best you can do is make an arbitrary
unit & make it consistant.

* Cesium atom vibration is used for atomic clocks, because it's supposed
to be extremely regular.

>
>While I'm at it... Can anyone think of a system of measurement that might
>be used? So far I've only been able to come up with a system based on the
>division of the galaxy such as 1/100th, 1/1000th... etc.
>

Again, I'd base a distance unit on a binary multiple of some significant
wavelength of photon from atomic orbital jumps. Hydrogen 1 (as opposed to
deuterium or tritium) might be good if it compares favoably with other 
atoms for consistancy. Again, you might use metric prefixes in their 
computer forms (1K = 1024, 1M = 1024K, etc) to make things easy to 
handle.

RB
From: jorgi@cs.uow.edu.au (George B Zamroz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Spock biological impossible?
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:07:41 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:

>I've heard here that it would be impossible for humans and vulcans to 
>interbreed, and heard also something about Spock being a product of
>genetical engeneering. But I remember some episode in which Spock's
>father (vulcan) and mother (human) were on the enterprise. (It had
>something to do with adding a planet to the federation). How does
>this match? Is Spock's mother only the person who carried him?
>Anyone knows?

The episode was "Journey to Babel". Amanda Grayson is Spock's mother as far
as the original series was concerned. There is nothing official that I have
heard of.
-- 
George B. Zamroz, University of Wollongong, Australia
ex-Masters Student (Computer Science)        
Internet: jorgi@cs.uow.edu.au
From: archive@arb.uucp (CARL  L  SAGE)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Who cleans up?
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:13:41 EST
Organization: Not an Organization

  In STIII:The Search For Spock we see a human custodian with a 
backpack vacuam cleaning the "observation lounge" while Kirk and 
company back the Enterprise out of spacedock.
   We also see a custodian with a backpack vacuam in the hallway at the
Starfleet Academy in the first few minutes of STII:The Wrath Of Kahn.
  By logical extension,I would think that similar jobs exist onboard
ship ("...To boldly scrub where no one has scrubbed before."). 
<GRIN-GRIN-GRIN>


"Any sufficiantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C Clarke-
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -Walter Elias Disney-
C.L.Sage-Disney University(Class of '90)
jwt!arb!archive@peora.sdc.ccur.com     <INTERNET>
peora.sdc.ccur.com!jwt!arb!archive     <  UUCP  >
From: elee9sv@rosie.uh.edu (92H01722)
Subject: Beyond Infinity
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:27:00 GMT

But, in the traveller episode they go beyond warp 10. Theoreticly everything
beyond warp 10 is STILL warp 10. Infinity + 2 is STILL infinity!!!

                             Garrett
From: "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: video response
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:53:59 EST
Reply-To: "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

On 08-12-92 at 6:03pm, Quentin . Snow wrote to All:

>> Ive been wondering ..  Why do you never see any delay in the 'on-screen'
>> communication that the enterprise has with others?  For example, in the

I've wondered about that also. I don't recall having seen an explanation
for it in TNG, but I may be mistaken.

If you recall in TOS, there would sometimes be a delay in the amount of
time to send and receive messages, and although scientifically
interesting, it was mainly a plot device to allow Kirk to act on his
own.

Maybe this is the answer. In TNG, Picard is supposed to be following
Starfleet's orders, so there's no reason for this plot device.

There could be another possible explanation. Perhaps space stations can
send out messages at a much faster speed than a starship can (don't ask
me how). In this case, the limiting factor would be how long it takes
for the message to get from the ship to the nearest space station. They
might even only use a relay beacon to send out the message.

Now, in TOS there were likely fewer space stations and relay beacons, so
there would be a noticeable delay in the TOS world but not in the TNG
world.

David Gebhardt
ComputerPlus
(416) 727-2167
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #8170  England's government - a limited mockery.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rakast@bluemoon.rn.com (Matthew Vogley)
Subject: Re: Holodeck Tech
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 01:02:29 EDT

trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort) writes:

> I've seen two different explanations of how the holodeck
> works. 
> 
> One says that all of the stuff in there gets replicated
> just like the food replicators do their thing.
> 
> Another says that there is some other suspension created via
> some transporter-type action that wasn't developed until the
> 24th century.
> 
> The former sounds more reasonable since it would allow physical
> interaction with the holodeck stuff like riding horses and battling
> alien aggressors, but how does the holodeck generate apparently
> *living* things? Are those living things simply dead masses that
> are somehow manipulated by the holodeck program using tractor beam
> type controls? They seem to be alive as Moriarty appeared to have
> some sort of sentience that went beyond the holodeck program - or
> was that just another manipulation of the dead matter?
> 
> Does the TNG Tech Manual have any insight on these quandarys?
> 
> -- Tim

Well, it uses holographics (What you see) Force Field Projection (What you 
can touch) And Enhanced Surround sound recreation.

Force fields can be used to create sounds..by air compression, and 
cibration..

er vibration.

See the STTNG Reference for a further explanation.

See, the reason why they didn't have it previously, 

Was that computer technology wasn't able to  manipulate that much at one 
time..

Rakast Geldorian

 .  . /\ . . + .   . .  +  Rakast Geldorian  .+ .  _     .  .    .  
  .  /\ \   ./\  .     .   .    .     .    . .    (_) .    .+ /\   .
 +  / /\ \. /\ \ > rakast@bluemoon.rn.com <   .    .   . /\. /\ \ . 
 . / /\ \ \/ /\ \ .  .  .    . .    .       .    +  /\  /\ \/ /\ \  
  / / /\ \ \/\ \ \ + The Ohio State University .   /\ \/ /\/ /\ \ \.
 / / / /\ \ \/\ \ \ .   .   . .  .   .  .  .  .   / /\ \/ / / /\ \ \
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Anti-Anti-ST:TNG Sentiment.
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:12:36 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

crick@htlv.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:
>Remember when William Shatner hosted Saturday Night Live, and in one of the
>skits he was appearing at a Star Trek convention.  Well, like he said then,
>"Get a life!"

Hope you don't think you're the first person to ever post a reference
to that skit in this group.

Of course, the common, childish response is: "Got one.  What's your excuse?"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Re: communicators
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:10:48 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>Simple. The computer recognises "ENTERPRISE" as a call to the
>duty officer, i.e. whoever is "in the command chair" on bridge.
>After all, the Captain could be off duty and not fully briefed 
>on the current situation.

Not quite so simple.  We've seen people call "Enterprise" and start
talking immediately to a specific person.  For instance, Riker says
"Riker to Enterprise.  Geordi, are the warp engines on line?" or
"Riker to Enterprise.  Data, how much longer until the star explodes?"
Each transmission of this type contains information which would help
the computer route it to the correct destination, in this case the
recipient's name.  But we also frequently hear "Riker to Enterprise.
Three to beam up."  In this case the computer must interpret the
message as a request for transport and route it to one of the
transporter rooms.

The duty officer is not involved with any of these calls, but the
computer seems to be in charge of routing the transmission base on
contextual clues, as can probably be done with intership calls.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "Okay, NOW I'm worried."  -- Batman
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: paigen@tfs.com (David Paigen)
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:13:30 GMT

hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:

>I wrote the following message to someone who asked me to explain why FTL
>travel/communication impies a causality problem, and I thought it might
>be of some interest to readers of r.a.s.tech:

Ok.

>senario:
>Person A is on earth, and person B speeds away from earth at a velocity v.
>To make things easy, lets say that v is such that for an observer on
>earth, person B's clock runs slow by a factor of 2. 

Right, person B has a slow clock.

[deleted]

>NOW we must switch to B's point of view.  From his point of view, A has
>been speeding away from him at a velocity v.  So, to B, it is A's clock
>that has been running slow.

*BZZT* wrong, but that you for playing :-)

If A thinks B has a slow clock, then B thinks A has a fast clock.  From
this point onwards your scenario is meaningless.  I have seen arguments
about this causality violation before, but I can't remember how it works.
Please try again, only with a bit more care.

I have been unable to construct a scenario that violates causality using
telephone (instantaneous) communication and horseback (c) travel.  Is it
required that one party be traveling near the speed of light in order to
violate causality?

----------------------->"Lay on, McDuff,    14th c. ideals in a 21st c. world
David Paigen            and damn'd be he        N: PLO Bush IRA CIA KKK
TRW Financial Systems   who first cries,        S: terrorism pipe bomb kill
paigen@tfs.com          'hold, enough!'"        A: assasination maim
Subject: communicators 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:22:40 +0000


Re. communicators.

The computer can make a good *guess* at names, but in most cases
wouldn't be certain until the end of the statement.  Of course, it can
refine its guesses as it goes along, and can get some 'pruning'
information from who is calling.  If Riker says 'Geordi', it's probable
(although not certain) that he means 'LaForge'; if anyone says 'Captain'
they mean 'Picard' unless there's another one on board.

However, in a lot of cases it won't be able to tell until the whole name
is recognised.  As an example:

"Riker to Lieutenant Anderson-Smith"
               |       |  |  |
               |       |  |   --- still not unique
               |       |   ------ could be Anders, etc.
               |        --------- could be Andrews, Andy, ...
                ----------------- not at all unique

And then there could be one in Engineering, one in medical (families on
board, remember, and it's quite likely that a couple could be of the
same rank).  I've never heard the computer query the name though I
would expect it to do so in the above example:

Riker:      "Riker to Lieutenant Anderson-Smith"
Computer:   "Engineering or Medical?"

On top of that, there's the probability that the caller stumbles over
the name (perhaps coughs in the middle), or mispronounces it (with the
number of different accents around this is a good possibility - imagine
Scotty or Chekov?), and the computer has to correct for the originator
and match probabilities.  In fact, what is surprising is that we don't
get lots of connections with the wrong people - if the computer takes a
second or so to be sure that it's got the right person, *I* wouldn't
complain...

(Hmm, there's a plot device - the computer gets corrupted so all the
communicator calls go to the wrong person...)

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: FAQL: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LIST for rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:08:59 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey) writes:
>
>	I don't know if anyone can help me with some reliable information
>	on this, but is the Romulan Warbird much larger than the Enterprise-D
>	as is indicated in the Starlog STNG Technical Journal, or is it 
>	somewhat smaller as is indicated in the somewhat erroneous
>	FASA STNG First Year Sourcebook?

Few people trust FASA's stuff, including me.  The warbird is larger,
approximately twice as long as a GALAXY class starship.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "Okay, NOW I'm worried."  -- Batman
Organization: Junior, IM - MCS/CIT Track, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:03:25 -0400 
From: Bryan Michael Kearney <bk1a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: GUTs in Star Trek

>And even though the mathematics is at quite a higher level, having
>Barclay talking to Einstein seems almost the same as a physicist
>today wanting a similar talk with Isaac Newton.  Wouldn't it have
>made better sense in the Star Trek world for Barclay to be talking
>to, say, Zephram Cochrane?

Yes, but the average viewer will know who Einstein is and will not know
who Cochran is.


-- bk

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hora@ecf.toronto.edu (HO ROBERT ANDREW)
Subject: Re: FTL travel/communication
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:32:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.140545.28418@jyu.fi> tm@jyu.fi (Timo Mannikko) writes:
>
>>I wrote the following message to someone who asked me to explain why FTL
>>travel/communication impies a causality problem, and I thought it might
>>be of some interest to readers of r.a.s.tech:
>
>   [Message deleted]
>
>This was a very good explanation, thanks!
>
>>Hope this was helpful... feel free to ask other questions
>>
>>-Jay
>
>I will! Namely, I have always wondered one thing in this so called twin
>paradox. You know, twin A stays home, twin B makes a trip with velocity
>c minus epsilon, and returns home younger than A. Everything OK so far.
>But: From B's point of view it is A who has moved, so shouldn't A be the
>younger brother?
>
>First I thought that it is the acceleration which makes the difference.
>But then again: Let us suppose that B accelerates with constant one g,
>which is the same acceleration as A is experiencing. So, where *is* the
>difference?
>
>- Timo



True, in B's frame of reference, it appears that A is accelerating away from
him at acceleration g, and from A's frame of reference, B is accelerating
away from him with acceleration g.  So how do we know who is doing the actual
acceleration?  We know that it is B accelerating and not A because B will
experience so-called "imaginary" forces from his acceleration; A will not.
Also, A will only appear to accelerate in B's frame of reference and no other
(well, A will also appear to accelerate from other accelerated frames of
references).  From all inertial frames of reference (including A's) B will 
appear to accelerate and A will not.
-- 
=============================================================
Robert Ho               | "Have you got a plan m'lord?"
Univ. of Toronto        | "Yes, and it`s so cunning you could
hora@bullet.ecf.toronto.|     brush your teeth with it."
From: daytonn@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Dayton Norrgard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Speed
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:33:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: hplvec.41790003
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO


In rec.arts.startrek.tech, mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline) writes:

>          This is mentioned in the episode where the there are two Picards (One
> normal, one from the future).  When picard asks how his future self could have
> gotten there, Geordi says that if you travel at greater than warp 10 then you
> go back in time.  I guess you can do all kinds of neat stuff when traveling at
> greater than infinite speeds. :-)

>   Matthew Cline

There seems to be inconsistencies between the STNG and the old ST.  I remember
episodes where over warp 10 was achieved, but the Enterprise did not go back in
time. (i.e. The Kelvins)  :)


A long, long time ago in the late 70s, I saw James Doohran (sp?) at Colorado
State University.  Someone asked the question, "How fast is warp speed?"
Now, being an actor, I don't know if he really knew the answer. He said warp
speed was a power of the speed of light. i.e.


	Velocity = (speed of light)^(Warp Factor) 

Who knows? :-)  I guess he had to come up with something, since he was the 
"Engineer."

Dayton