HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:38:57 EST
From: <CMH114@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
 <1993Jan24.054630.7985@news.yale.edu>

paul@econ.yale.edu (Paul McGuire) sez:

> think authors use feudal societies either due to laziness or to a desire
>for simplicity.  It cuts down greatly on the number of important or powerful
>characters that need to be dealt with.  Want something?  Go talk to the king.
>what's much tidier than stageing a media blitz and lobbying congress and
>buying representatives and persuading power groups to support you....

Simpler? Have you actually *looked* at the processes of medieval legalisms
and politics? They are ablsolutely insane! Nothing would have been as simple
as "going to talk to the king"! It was probably easily as annoying to deal
with as modern government. For the increased complexity of modern governance,
substitute crabbed tradition and uncontrollable fuedal minions and such...



Mitch Hagmaier                  We Can Realize Your Delusions of
Quest Laboratories                          Grandeur
Terraforming Division
State College, Pa
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Neutrino Communication (was Re: Anybody? Anybody? Class?)
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:10:44 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University

In article <1993Jan26.134903.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>> 3) Years ago I heard about some U.S. Navy/DARPA feasability study concerning
>> the possibility of using neutrinos to provide communication with submarines.
>> Whatever became of that?

>It's really impractical, but not *quite* as impractical as other
>posters seemed to think.  Neutrinos are hard to stop, but above an
>energy of 1 GeV they get easier to stop linearly as the energy goes
>up.  Also, you can make them in beams and shine quite a lot on the
>approximate location of your submarine.

The basic problem with these "neutrino communicator" ideas is that,
conceptually, they tend to be internally inconsistent.  Neutrinos are
cited as *great* for carrying information because it doesn't matter
much if something's between your transmitter and receiver -- this
presumably assumes low-energy neutrinos -- but these proposals don't
usually consider that the receiver will then not catch much of the
signal.  If the neutrinos are high-energy, then yeah, your receiver
can catch them, but then you've lost the basic point of mucking around
with the things.  I'm not convinced that there's much of a happy
medium.

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Keywords: this newsreader is quite annoying.
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:57:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.kzm3jt_
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge


 Here's my two cents on the problem of invading a planet. Essentially,
it all boils down to one factor: logistics. 

 Let's look at an attack on a planet. The rock-dropping solution looks 
like a good one, assuming that you have the capability to get to where the 
rocks are and point them in the right direction. So where are your rocks 
coming from? The minimum-energy solution is to use the rocks that are already 
in the target planet's solar system. But if you're coming from another solar
system, your enemies can get to those rocks more easily than you can.
You're going to have to fight for control of the rocks, and you have to 
truck your air, water and propellant over several light-years, whereas the
enemy only has to deal with distances on the AU level. 
 
 Now, a solar system is a big place. Let's assume you managed to establish
a beachhead (an ironic word to use here, but I can't think of a better one)
on a good-sized asteroid. Now you have to get the rocks to the planet. Your
enemy isn't going to just sit there until the rocks are within a few thousand
miles of home. They've got plenty of transit time and distance in which to 
intercept your rocks, and again, they're sitting a lot closer to their supply
sources than you are. 

 What you need to do, clearly, is secure "space superiority" over the solar
system before the invasion can work, just as a planet-based invasion must
have control of the air and sea routes to its target to be successful. So 
you need to send in preliminary strike forces to knock out as many of the 
enemy's spacecraft and bases as possible, or else come in with a completely
overwhelming force. 
 
 Now think about this for a minute. We're talking about having to move your
forces _trillions_ of miles, while your enemy only has to deal with millions
or, at the most, billions. If you've got the resources at your disposal to 
do this successfully, then the problem of securing the solar system becomes
trivial in comparison. And if your opponent also has the resources for this,
then he's probably already attacked _your_ system and you have other things 
to worry about.   
 
 My contention is, then, that the enormous distances and amounts of energy
involved serve to pre-ordain the outcome of any planetary invasion attempt.
It will either be an almost-certain success, or an almost-certain failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
From: bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Invading planets
Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:46:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Okay, okay, all this talk about how to destroy a planet is interesting,
but what if you wanted to take it over?  After all, a planet has lots
to offer besides the metal you'd be extracting from its bits and pieces
if you decided to bust it up.  Now the question is how to take over
an inhabited planet.

If you take the analogy of invading a planet to invading a hostile nation,
I'd suppose you'd strike military targets from space, then when they're
weak, send down an invading force.  But now think of the *SCALE* of
such an operation!  We're talking millions upon millions of troops
here!  Or if you had Star Trek technology I suppose you could
stun everyone from orbit using your phasers.

So...how's this going to work in the future?

  -- Gil

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Pages Software Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:04:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.054630.7985@news.yale.edu> paul@econ.yale.edu (Paul  
McGuire) writes:
> In article <dpn2.230.727838665@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)  
writes:
> >
> I think authors use feudal societies either due to laziness or to a desire
> for simplicity.  It cuts down greatly on the number of important or powerful
> characters that need to be dealt with.  Want something?  Go talk to the king.
> That's much tidier than stageing a media blitz and lobbying congress and
> buying representatives and persuading power groups to support you....
> 

I suggest you go read Churchill's _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples_  
(all four volumes), then come back and talk about the "simplicity" of feudal  
societies or how new and modern the concepts of "buying representatives" and  
"persuading power groups to support you" are. ..bruce..

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  <This space under construction>
CTO, Pages Software Inc      |  <Time for a new set of quotes>
bwebster@pages.com           |                         
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: NETOPRBL@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Brian Lane)
Subject: Range of Energy Weapons in space?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:42:21 GMT

Ok...I have a question for you.
Say you want to look at the question of combat in space...
The two limitations on your hitting the other target would be:
1) The range of the energy weapon. (let's assume its a 250MW Laser of some
sort of destructive magnitude)
How far could it fire and still do effective damage?
2) The range of your fire control.
How far exactly could you pick up another ship through passive or active means?
 
I'd appreciate replies in e-mail. (and i'd post the consolidated replies)
Brian
Netoprbl@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu
Raleigh, NC
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tfish@world.std.com (Tex Fish)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:43:32 GMT

In article <dpn2.224.727767827@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>In article <1jqijdINN8c7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau) writes:
>>If you take the analogy of invading a planet to invading a hostile nation,
>>I'd suppose you'd strike military targets from space, then when they're
>>weak, send down an invading force.  But now think of the *SCALE* of
>>such an operation!  We're talking millions upon millions of troops
>>here!  Or if you had Star Trek technology I suppose you could
>>stun everyone from orbit using your phasers.
>
>Any other ideas?
>-----
>Damien Neil   dpn2@po.cwru.edu    "Until somebody debugs reality, the best

	I would expect that it wouldn't be feasible to treat a battle for
a planet as a single engagement.  You would probably have to treat it as
several different, unconnected wars, each concentrating on a certain
section of the planet.  Dropping rocks does sound somewhat reasonable, but
if you go overboard on flinging asteroids, the planet's not going to be
much use to you (remember, one asteroid will pretty much annihilate a
major city).  I expect a largely mechanized ground war, using something
vaguely akin to Ogrs, or miniaturization, would be necessary just to deal
with the volume.

						-tfish@world.std.com

-- 
					-tfish@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written
From: paul@econ.yale.edu (Paul McGuire)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Organization: Economics Department, Yale University, New Haven, Ct.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:53:50 GMT

In article <93024.013857CMH114@psuvm.psu.edu> <CMH114@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>paul@econ.yale.edu (Paul McGuire) sez:
>
>> think authors use feudal societies either due to laziness or to a desire
>>for simplicity.  It cuts down greatly on the number of important or powerful
>>characters that need to be dealt with.  Want something?  Go talk to the king.
>>what's much tidier than stageing a media blitz and lobbying congress and
>>buying representatives and persuading power groups to support you....
>
>Simpler? Have you actually *looked* at the processes of medieval legalisms
>and politics? They are ablsolutely insane! Nothing would have been as simple
>as "going to talk to the king"! It was probably easily as annoying to deal
>with as modern government. For the increased complexity of modern governance,
>substitute crabbed tradition and uncontrollable fuedal minions and such...

I'm not talking reality here.  I'm talking fiction.  In an SF/F hereditary
aristocracy you go talk to the king.  Reader ignorance and genre convention
makes it creditable.  Going to talk to the president wouldn't be.
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Interstellar War
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:57:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <kkobayas.728116302@husc.harvard.edu> kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi) writes:
>>Surely the most efficient way to wage interstellar war would be to send
>>one von Neumann probe to a solar system near your target, have it make
>>a quintillion more probes, and have the whole quintillion (heavily
>>armed) probes attack your target.
>
>   Sounds good, but after the war's over, or even before that, the probes
>are going to mutate, keep reproducing, and spread out, invading other star
>systems (the probes has to be capable of interstellar flight correct?). 
>How do you prevent that?

Simple: instruct all the probes to destroy any "deviant" probes -- including 
themselves if necessary. Of course, if the people being attacked could 
figure out a way to make all the probes consider each other deviant, this 
could become a problem...

Actually, the probes probably would not have interstellar capability, except 
for the first one. There really isn't any need to waste production on it, 
when they would have no need for it.

This thread reminds me of something a friend of mine said when Terminator 2 
came out: "The shark is the most efficient killing machine in existance. All 
it does is move, kill, and make new sharks. The terminators do the first 
two; if they had added reproductive capabilities, they would have been 
_really_ nasty..."
-----
Damien Neil   dpn2@po.cwru.edu    "Until somebody debugs reality, the best
Case Western Reserve University    I can do is a quick patch here and there."
CMPS/EEAP double majoring masochist               - Erik Green
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Vinge's "Zones of Thought" in _A__Fire_Upon_The_Deep_
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:39:14 GMT
Organization: CUMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: guru.med.cornell.edu
Keywords: weird metaphysics

In article <1993Jan26.231338.5636@netcom.com>, dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
|> The situation in AFUtD is both simpler and more complicated than you
|> make it out to be.  The laws of physics do not change much from zone
|> to zone.  For instance, the speed of light, per se, is not more or
|> less of a limiting factor.  What characterizes the slower zones is

I disagree. (minor spoiler alert!)


When the transceivers at Relay were vaped (love that term), it
was seen at Relay quite soon after the fact, in the normal EM
spectrum.  Since Vinge specifically stated that they were "light years
out," it makes it unlikely that it would have been seen so soon
_unless_ there were some strange physics involved.

|> that there are limitations upon the kind of *computation* possible.
|> In the Unthinking Deeps, organic intelligence is limited.  In the
|> slow zone, effective AIs and supercomputers (by galactic standards)
|> are impossible, etc.
|> 
|> To take the specific case of ftl travel, Vinge assumes it to work
|> by stringing together thousands/millions of microjumps, each of
|> which requires an incredible amount of real-time computation.  The
|> differences in 'speed' as the fleets approach the lower beyond are
|> actually increases in the time required to compute each microjump.

By my reading, the ftl drive simply wouldn't work in the Slow Zone (and
poorly in the Bottom of the Beyond), and not merely because of the
difference in computation.  Remember...the Bottom-luggers had mapping
gear which enabled them to measure some sort of change in space itself
that delineated between the Zones.

(major spoiler alert)


|> rise to a strong suspicion that the zones are an *artifact*, either
|> possessing or backed by tremendous possibly-artificial intelligence.

This I agree with...in fact, Vinge hinted at Powers beyond the Powers,
which would lead me to belive of a "Hypertranscend" way out.  The concept
of the Zones being artificial is also strengthened, IMHO, by the way
that Countermeasure was able to manipulate the Slow Zone into extending up
through the Beyond into the Low Transcend to take out the Blight (or so we
assume).

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro
From: magnasco@research.nj.nec.com (Marcelo Magnasco)
Subject: Historical sky maps
Summary: Need a sky map program accurate to 2500BC...
Originator: magnasco@asterion
Organization: NEC Research Institute
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:57:30 GMT


Hi,
	An archeologist friend of mine asked me for some help with 
dating some events through astronomical annotations. I know there are
programs for mapping the sky (stars and planets) from anywhere on earth;
my problem is that we would need one performing accurate secular corrections,
since the dates I am interested in are around 2500 B.C. ... Is there any
shareware or commercial package that can produce accurate maps to such 
early dates? (accurate rendering of solar eclipses needed too).
	Email or post is fine. Thanks,

Marcelo Magnasco
marcelo@mjf.rockefeller.edu	magnasco@research.nj.nec.com
From: bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:25:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen) says:

>There is a real tendency in science fiction to always think of planets
>as single entities, when our own planet does not bear this out.  If you
>invaded Earth, who would you tell to surrender?  It is safe to assume
>that other worlds will have hundreds, if not thousands, of governments.

True, depending on technology level and government type (ie is this a
homeworld or a colonized planet).  Even if the world had a thousand
separate nations, I'm sure the invading force would do their homework
and figure out which ones they'd have to take over to effectively
take over the planet.  If you were going to invade Earth this year,
you'd probably have to take down nations like the USA, France, the UK,
and any other "strong" nation first and not worry about Zaire or
Burma for now.

>You would have to take them one at a time and probably obliterate a few
>holdouts.

Sure...Iraq comes to mind.  :)

  -- Gil
From: py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Fusion Output
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:01:19 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com (David Wetzel):
>>Would the "waste" products of Fusion be radioactive (theoretically)?
>
>Some are and some aren't.  For example, our heavy elements are the
>products (directly or via heavier radioactives) of fusion, and some
>of those are radioactive.  Radioactive plutonium and non-radioactive
>helium are both fusion products.
	Yes, but thats the process used in the formation of
	the elements that made the solar system, and I thought
	that was due to repeated novas of trillions of years.

	So you would have to have a fusion reactor up and
	running for a bloody long time before you got and 'heavy'
	elements out. 

	As to the waste. Well as I understand it, virtually
	all the waste material would by isotopes of hydrogen
	and helium. Not particully dangerous.

	But you would want to stand next the reactor itself
	though!

	Dumb analogy: The suns waste products are pretty harmless
	but the sun itself is a tad 'hot'.

	Dave Ford : Not a physicist.

	
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  // /||\/| | /^, /| ||	Dave Ford        ||	Come and play at	
\X/ /-||  | | \_7/-| ||py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk||rec.games.mornington.cresent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:33:58 GMT
Organization: CUMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: guru.med.cornell.edu

I recall reading a story called "The Screwfly Solution" in Analog some years
back that postulated an alien race taking over the planet by making us kill
ourselves off.

There was also something similar in one of the "Callahan's Place" stories.

So, the best way to take a planet is to wipe the indigenous population
out, or reduce them to low enough numbers that they're basically no more
than pests.  (This has, BTW, historical precedent with the US providing
Amerinds with smallpox-infected (or so they thought...I'm a little hazy
on the actual vector for smallpox) blankets.

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:51:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.071010.22650@Princeton.EDU>
	jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning) writes:

>One important point about the _Mote_ empire is that while they had the
>Alderson drive, which let them move faster than light between solar
>systems, they did not have FTL communication.

Though it was not mentioned in the books, there is a faster way than
having ships carry messages: keep a ship permanently stationed at the
Alderson point.  Send a message to it at lightspeed, have the ship
jump to the recipient system, send the message, and return.  This
takes less than a day from initial transmission to message receipt.

Bandwidth might be low, but would be sufficient for important messages
and news summaries.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:55:30 GMT

In article <1k79c7INNlrv@gap.caltech.edu> earl@cco.caltech.edu (Earl A. Hubbell) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>Wrong.  Crush Panama and Columbia sneers.  Crush the US of A and
}>Japan marches on.  Think "decentralization".  Which do YOU think would
}>win - technological you or 1/10 of your weight in lo-tech bees?
}>note: You have to get ALL the bees.
}
}Note that for proper analogy to the original thread, that human beings
}>do< regularly 'conquer' bees - at least, people keep beehives,
}collect honey, and don't particularly worry about bees assaulting
}them or their property.  And yes, wipe out swarms that they don't
}like.  

And, from the BEES viewpoint, how could they tell that they had been conquered?


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science