HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 19 Dec 92 13:49:23
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
	<1992Dec14.194432.5452@newstand.syr.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU's message of 15 Dec 92 00:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.194432.5452@newstand.syr.edu>, pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
) In article <724171577snz@keris.demon.co.uk> 
) chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
)>I *don't* want to meet a Kzin who's been unable to get his own territory!

) The name is just a name in this case.  We might as well have said 'race B.'

That is an excellent point, though: Kzin or 'race B,' it's not
unreasonable to suggest that for a species to become advanced enough
to have interstellar flight, they would have to have a strong sense of
territory.

Of course it's quite possible for the species to evolve in some method
vastly different from how things went and are going on Terra, but the
fact that it went this way here means it might go this way elsewhere,
and if that's possible, then consider that the species may, as humans
seem to, have a strong drive for territorialism.

Now it's not necessarily a given that humans have an innate need for
territory, or that we won't "outgrow" any such need we may have at the
moment, but consider the fictional Kzin, or any of a number of other
races in science fiction.

Territorialism is probably not a requirement for evolution to
spacefaring status, and it's true that once you reach a certain point
in your evolution it is more of a hindrance than a help (IMHO), but I
do think it rather likely that any race which evolves that far may
have a strong territorial drive, and social evolution won't kill it.
--
William R Ward                         __o   Bay View Software
VoiceMail: +1 (408) 479-4072         _ \<,_  Internet:  hermit@cats.ucsc.edu
SnailMail: 1803 Mission St. #339    (_)/ (_) BITNet:    hermit@cats.bitnet
           Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: GPS 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90c (ka9q DIS 1.18, CC 1.18c)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:10:55 +0000


In article <pennyb.723873330@otto> pennyb@otto writes:

> Does anyone know of a SF writer (or any other writer for that matter)
>who "predicted" the use of GPS for non-military purposes, like the
>Dick Tracey cartoons of the 30's "predicted" wrist radios? GPS uses
>signals from satellites orbiting Earth to compute the position in latitude,
>longitude and height of the item, as well as its speed relative to the
>satellite, with great accuracy.
>Some applications include marine navigation, surveying and some Japanese
>car manufacturers are offering dashboard-mounted Global Positioning
>Systems, linked to local maps on CD as direction finders for motorists.

I seem to remember that several authors have used absolute terrestrial
location systems, but I don't remember any actual descriptions of how
they worked (i.e. differentiating between a satellite system and a
ground-based one).  Is that important?  I believe that Clarke mentioned
something about a satellite system (manned, of course, in those days).

Other applications include locating trucks and public transport for
timing and location of breakdowns.  Incidentally, the things are getting
cheap - they should be below $250 for a unit soon (if they aren't
already).  That's cheaper than a lot of in-car entertainment systems...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 11:26:19 EST

In message <9212101321.AA04366@phlan.sw.stratus.com> you wrote:

>In article <1992Dec9.120251.15046@newstand.syr.edu> you write:
>
[deleted]
>>>There is a certain type of geometrical problem which comes up when one
>>>thinks about starfaring empires/federations settling border disputes.  
>>>I think that such problems will eventually lead enlightened civilizations
>>>to abandon the concept of 'territory' entirely.
[much deleted]
>>>
>>>I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
>>>'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
>>>would abandon the concept entirely.  
>>>
>>>	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
>>
>>Of course, the only such 'enlightened' civilization I can think of in
>>the Star Trek universe is the BORG!    \8)
>>
>>	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
>
>Try modelling this in three dimensions, and I think you'll find it even
>harder to get a race "hemmed in" (be fair, and use a random distribution).
>

I don't have the time to write the thing right now.  However, I have
been doing gedankenexperiments, imagining this.  No, it's not a likely
occurence.  However, the complications involved im making sure that
everyone has the same room for expansion get EXTREMELY complex, even
when you reduce the thing to such an idealized model.

>For cases in which a race's linear expansion is limited, at least three
>more or less viable outcomes are possible:
>
>1.  War with one or more of the neighboring civilizations, to relieve
>    the constriction (attempt to annex, enslave, or exterminate a
>    competitor - disadvantages are obvious).
>
>2.  Form a treaty or alliance with one or more neighbors, and expand
>    through the common space freely...
[deleted]
>
>3.  Colonize an unpopulated, unclaimed region ouside of the cluster
>    and expand from there.  It is not really necessary to have a
>    connected region.
>

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment on option 1.
Options 2 & 3 debunk the notion of territory.  

Imagine a group of cosmic 'gypsies' with ships and technology like
the BORG -- except that they aren't so irrationaly belligerent.  
They'd travel through the galaxy at high speed, trading information
about cultures and technologies they'd encountered for raw materials.
They could also 'recruit' any willing and sufficiently advanced
beings into the collective.  Ocassionally one of their ships would
reproduce by mitosis.  

These 'gypsies' would always be welcomed by a rational species.
No one could hope to fight (and win) a war with them.  This race would be
immortal.  And they would have no need for any kind of 'territory.'

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: johnsc@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (John Currie)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Orson Scott Card- book signing
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:40:22 GMT
Reply-To: johnsc@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
Originator: johnsc@echt-gw

which one??? is there a new one out??? if so how do i get ahlod of a copy on this sid of the pond?

thankx in advance....
-- 
.........................ooo#####O#####ooo.................................... 
###     John Currie,  Dept. of Chem. Eng., University of Edinburgh.         ###
###     Telephone : +44 031 650 4864         Email johnsc@chemeng.ed.ac.uk  ###
############################-...ooOoo...-######################################
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Subject: Re: TERRITORIAL DISPUTES
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:05:27 GMT

In article <1592.360.uupcb@brent.uucp>, jeff.kling@brent.uucp (Jeff Kling)  writes:
 > -> I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
 > -> 'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
 > -> would abandon the concept entirely.
 > 
 > Or, assuming a warlike race: you could send large masses at near light
 > speed via bussard ramjets at the offending worlds and destroy their
 > existing life forms - at least the higher ones anyway.  Then go in and
 > claim these worlds.  The other side would not have been able to
 > communicate the destruction back to warn the other worlds in time as
 > there would be no communciation faster than that of a ship.  So, at the
 > end of the war you would have some enemy ships out there with no place
 > to go for repairs, who could be mopped up later on at leisure.
 > 
 > I am NOT advocating this, mind you.  Just offering an alternative.
 > 
 > J
 >                                                                                               

"No communication faster than that of a ship"?  

What about radio?     ;-) 

-Leif

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:3506 rec.arts.sf.science:3820 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7036
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Economics of Replication
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:26:44 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

I have been doing some thinking lately about the limits of technology given
the limitations placed upon us by physical laws.  As per Eric Drexler's 
nanotechnology, we will eventually be able to replicate anything composed
of normal matter.

There are articles and stories dealing with the economic impact of such
replication.  (I remember them being discussed on rec.arts.startrek.)
I would be very grateful if people would mail me the titles and
authors of those works.  Also, if anyone could post or lead me to a 
summary of the discussion about the subject that was on this group, 
that would be great also.

Thanks in advance.
	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
	(pksuk@mailbox.syr.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: TERRITORIAL DISPUTES
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:45:34 GMT

In article <1639.360.uupcb@brent.uucp> jeff.kling@brent.uucp (Jeff Kling) writes:

>-> What about radio?     ;-)
>
>What about it?  On the interstellar scale, the message would lose signal
>strength to the point of unintelligibility long before making it to
>another star system.  The signal would depreciate at an expodential
>(sp?) rate.  The same would be true for a laser system.


Wrong.  The signal declines as 1/r^2.  It has been computed that two
Arecibo-sized antennas, with existing transmitter and receiver, could
communicate with one another across the galaxy (if they were pointed
in the right direction).  Any society that has starships will have
even more energy to play with, of course.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:50:08 EST

In article <Bz5JpH.BLx@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.114933.14903@newstand.syr.edu> 
>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>>[Problem where one species gets boxed in]
>>
>>I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
>>'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
>>would abandon the concept entirely.  
>
>Want to bet the 'Kzinti' get 'enlightened' well before the other two?

This is a very good point.  Macro-life "expansion" will be very much
faster than the traditional colonizing gambit.  Such squeezes will
encourage species to do this.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk



Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:3522 rec.arts.sf.science:3845 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7064
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re:  Territorial Disputes
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:02:49 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <1992Dec15.171048.27281@newstand.syr.edu> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>However, Bussard Ramjets are just not practical, at least not at this
>speed.  The amount of hydrogen fuel -- assuming total conversion --
>needed to get a 10000 kg spacecraft to 0.99c is something like the
>number of atoms in the known universe.

How on earth did you arrive at that? Check your arithmetic :-)

Assuming total conversion, getting a ship to 0.99 c requires about 7 times
its own mass-energy, i.e. 70 tonnes of fuel (give or take a bit). In the more
likely case of fusion power, it takes 1000 tonnes of hydrogen.

>Anyhow, it was a try.  Anyone else want to figure out how to wipe out a solar
>civilization in such a way that no warnings are generated?

Carl Sagan and Iosif Shklovskii, in "Intelligent Life in the Universe",
suggest that it may be possible to induce a supernova in a star by firing a
(very!) large gamma-ray laser at it from a range of several light-years.
They intended it as a way of producing heavy elements for a civilisation
short of resources, but it would also make an excellent weapon.


--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
   Mine is the ship bound for Alpha Centauri
   We must be out of our minds
   For though we are shipmates bound for tomorrow
   Everyone here's flying blind                          (Crystal Gayle)
--

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: Silly Time Travel
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:50:56 GMT

In article <9212171631.A01589@mailer.nymc.edu> goldberg@NYMC.EDU (RANDY_GOLDBERG) writes:
>From: duru@cc.ec-lyon.fr (Duru Emmanuel)
>Subject: 'silly' timetravel: it's again me...
>
>* the title of del Rey's story title may be "I am Legion"
>
>Isn't "My Name Is Legion" the title of Richard Matheson's book about the
> last human man on an Earth full of vampires?

Something like that, yes.  But it's also the title of the Del Rey story,
which you can find in _The Early Del Rey_.  I presume that the title is
a quotation from some classical source, though I'm not sufficiently 
literate to recognise it.

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:52:15 EST

In article <1992Dec12.025019.3508@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.114933.14903@newstand.syr.edu>, 
>pksuk@mothra (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>[lots of discussion about why terratories are a Bad Thing deleted]
>>I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
>>'territory'
>
>Territory and protecting the same is a natural outgrowth (at least
>for humans) of the need for protecting one's accumulated wealth
>and other possessions.
>
>To suppose that we would abandon the "right of territory" pre-supposes
>a fundamental and enormous shift in human nature.

Of course, but why does this necessarily mean that people will want 
territory?  There are many examples of cultures and subcultures with 
a relaxed notion of territory or no concept of ownership.  With the
hypothetical civilizations I was discussing, there would be no
motive for accrueing territory, other than to have the resources to
protect a territory.  All the other functions of territory could be
better served by becoming nomadic.  (Protection, the prime example.)

You assume that such human instincts MUST be applied to territory.  
Clearly the territorial/protective instinct could be applied to
a nomad's generation-ship and its population instead.  

>>and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
>>would abandon the concept entirely.  
>
>"and they all lived happily ever after... The End"

Yes.  This is precisely the point I want to drive home.  It is a primarily
aesthetic point, but one which is supported by common sense and physics. 
(See Larry Niven's "Bigger Than Worlds" article in his _A Hole in Space_
collection.)

>-- 
>What I've learned from reading net news #2:
>  Surely the most ignored phrase to be posted to the net is "'nuff said".

Sometimes deservedly ignored.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:46:04 -0500 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
	<BzCsCA.Ksv@ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>

I wrote:
>> The point of Clarke's Law is that
>>there is no visible ceiling on technology.

In article <1992Dec15.085656.22698@newstand.syr.edu>
pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>Ah, but there IS.  There is a limit on how strong we can make normal
>matter.  There is a limit on how fast we can travel.  There is a
>limit on how much energy we can get from 1g of mass.
>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.misc: 16-Dec-92 Re: hard and soft sf
root@ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.C (2069)
> I think you just made his point.  The statements you make are true NOW.
> They may, or may not be true in the future.

I disagree with both of you  :-)

There are indeed limits on *particular* technologies. I believe we know
enough physics to be sure of all three of your (Peter's) statements. 
However, technology in *general* has no such limits. You said "how
strong we can make -normal- matter"; but there are some other kinds of
matter theorized (neutronium, strange-nucleus matter, muonium) and who
knows what else. [Apparently someone has actually made muonium. It's a
radioactive "element" with properties like hydrogen, but considerably
lighter. The "nucleus" is a positively-charged muon, and it has one
electron, as H does. Whee!]

To continue to beat the 18th-century analogy into the ground: steam
engines. There is a limit to how much energy you can get from a kg of
wood; how much pressure you can get in an iron boiler; how fast metal
axles can turn. But 20th-century technology does not consist of pushing
those limits; we're pushing completely different limits. We've
substituted other things for steam engines, which have much higher
capacities to solve steam-engine problems, but avoid all the
steam-engine limits.

We're currently putting a huge amount of effort into making smaller,
faster computer processors. Eventually we'll reach a limit. But there
are any number of ways we could wind up with *better* *computers* even
after we can no longer make *faster* *CPUs*. 

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:28:08 EST

In article <1992Dec15.141750.2877@cs.rochester.edu> 
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>All this talk about galactic empires shows a typical blind spot that
>occurs in a lot of science fiction.  Specifically: it ignores the role
>of time.

Nope.  Thought about it already.  Time effects support my thesis.

>Here on earth, empires collided because they became possible at about
>the same time.  
[stuff about differences in tech development, can't ignore Fermi paradox]

In my original post, you could.  We were only dealing with civlizations
that have reached the pinnacle of what natural law allows.  And once
again, my example is not meant as a archetype of situations that will be
likely to arise.  It illustrates a general principle: power is limited
by cubic expansion.

>Moreover, on a long time scale, stars move!  The average random
>velocities of stars in our neighborhood is about .01% of the speed of
>light.  In 10 million years, stars will separate by about 1000 light
>years.  In 1 billion years, by 100,000 light years: about the size of
>the galaxy.  Some stars travel an order of magnitude faster than
>this.  So even if empires do collide, their boundaries will get
>progressively fuzzier.

The more reason that they should say: "Aw!...Heck with it!"

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk



Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:48 -0500 
From: Brennan Kraje <nk0s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: NUTCRACKER TIX 12/29


    Folks,

    I have three (3) tickets to the Nutcracker Ballet I may be unable to
use. They are in the Benedum Center left-center center section of the
Director's Circle, Row AA, seats 33,35, and 37 (ajoining).

    The performance is for 7:30 pm on the 29th, the last performance of
the year.  It should be quite a memorable one.  I have already seen it
once, and it ranks a close second to a show I saw in DC a few years ago.

    Regular price for these tickets is $123.00.  These are excellent
seats.  However, since I am a season subscriber, they only cost me
$96.00.  I would like to cover my costs, but am willing to part with all
three tickets for $75 at the lowest.

    Three is odd.  I was going to take a date and her sister.  Now is a
chance for you to take the wife or husband and a kid, or just two
friends.  Just e-mail me back @ nk0s if interested...

Brennan Kraje

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Hall of Mirrors
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:38:53 GMT

In article <aq5uVB4w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> dascoser@cybernet.cse.fau
.edu (david serchay) writes:
>kathrynw%radian@natinst.com (Kathryn Whitworth) writes:
>
>> >> travels back in time so that he can be his father, his mother, his
>> >> girlfriend, his boyfriend, his friend, his ... I found it to be the best
>> >> short stories about time travel I have ever read.
>> 
>> No longer sure of attribution, but try "All You Zombies".
>> 
>> There's also a story by William Tenn (the title escapes me) which starts out
>> as an experiment/press conference on sending a ball back in time.  Watch for
>> mutating description . . . 
>> 
>> Kathryn Roth Whitworth
>
>Actually it's "The Man who Folded Himself" by David Gerold. A very weird 
>book. Good though.

I don't think either of these descriptions is quite "The Man Who Folded
Himself".  The main character goes back in time to become, uh, a number
of things to himself, but not father or mother (as I recall).  TMWFH is
not a short story either.  TMWFH certainly doesn't start out with
sending balls back in time (nice pun for those who've read TMWFH).
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc