HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwallis@lunacity.com (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons,rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: Re: ConFrancisco
Date: 25 Dec 92 18:20:06 GMT
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch) writes:

> What does it cost to attend ConFrancisco?  Do the rates increase
> at the end of the year?  Thanks.

Yes, prices will go up on Jan 1st, so get the check, mo, or visa payment
in before next friday.

                        ConFrancisco
                        712 Bancroft Rd, Suite 1993
                        Walnut Creek, CA
                        USA   94598
                        (510) 945-1993
                        confrancisco@tgv.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis -> mwallis@lunacity.com

PLAN:   Live fast, die young, leave a neat corpse.
        Oh ... I'm too old to die young?     Rats!
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
From: jsl@athena.mit.edu (J. Spencer Love)
Subject: Re: Balticon Info Needed
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:55:55 GMT

Speaking of Shawan Road being a tough road to cross, to get from the
alternate hotels (Embassy Suites, Courtyard Marriott) to the main
convention hotel (Hunt Valley Inn):

Fans have been *killed* at Balticons trying to cross that road.  Well,
I've seen ambulances there at least two years, but there's only one I'm
sure died.

Take extreme care.  Maybe drive.  You're safer in traffic with a ton or
more of metal armor, or the evasive capabilities of a motorcycle.  It's
a bit of a trek to the crosswalk, so there is a temptation to live
dangerously -- and on that road I wouldn't want to trust the traffic
light to stop the cars, anyway.  They move pretty fast.  You can park
near the hotel in a large but disused parking lot that belongs to an
office building (and thus it not much used on the weekends).

Balticon is a great con.  But not worth dying for, especially just to
save about $20 a nite on a hotel room.  Get lots of roommates and stay
at the Hunt Valley Inn.  Make your reservations early; they fill up.

						-- Spencer
Newsgroups: alt.filk.music,alt.fandom.cons,rec.arts.sf.fandom
From: rlb@access.digex.com (Richard L. Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: Re: Balticon Info Needed
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:26:54 GMT
Organization: The Fourth Drawer on the Left, Second Column
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

jsl@athena.mit.edu (J. Spencer Love) writes:
>Fans have been *killed* at Balticons trying to cross that [Shawan] road.
>Well,
>I've seen ambulances there at least two years, but there's only one I'm
>sure died.

The only person who has actually been hit crossing the road survived and
apparently suffered no long-term ill effects, although she was in serious
condition.  BSFS gave her a free membership to the next year's con (after
all, she didn't get to see much of the one she paid to get into), which in
fact I handed to her when she arrived to pick it up.

One of the other ambulance episodes was possibly due to the young woman
apparently who took too many (or the wrong kind of) recreational substances,
and who was having what in layman's terms is called "a bad trip".  The Night
Ops people were particularly concerned about her, since they didn't know
who she was (no badge or other ID), if she was actually ill (beyond being
under the not-very-benign effects of and unknown number and mixture of
chemicals), etc.  The paramedics came and took her somewhere safer than
women's room of the hotel.

Which is beside the point.  Like he said...

>Take extreme care.  Maybe drive.  You're safer in traffic with a ton or
>more of metal armor, or the evasive capabilities of a motorcycle.  It's
>a bit of a trek to the crosswalk, so there is a temptation to live
>dangerously -- and on that road I wouldn't want to trust the traffic
>light to stop the cars, anyway.  They move pretty fast.  You can park
>near the hotel in a large but disused parking lot that belongs to an
>office building (and thus it not much used on the weekends).

If memory serves (it frequently doesn't, but hell...), Shawan Road is 5
or 6 lanes wide between the HVM and the other hotels.  Traffic routinely
cruises up and down this section of highway at 50 to 60 miles an hour,
and is moderately heavy, since the ramp down from 83 North empties onto
Shawan less than a quarter-mile from the entrance to the HVM.

As the people from BSFS would tell you, Please Be Careful.  Use the
crosswalk, or drive.  Better yet, stay in the HVM.  They'd love to have
your company.

-- 
Richard L. Butler            rlb@access.digex.com                 301-220-2020
Digital Express Group Inc.   6006 Greenbelt Road #228   Greenbelt MD 20770 USA
Express Access Online Communications --- news, mail, IP services available NOW
Login as "new": Washington 301-220-0462 Baltimore 410-766-1855: info@digex.com
From: xinc@bluemoon.use.com (Rob Streno)
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: MARCON 28
Date: 19 Dec 92 23:38:57 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

Greetings all, 
It's time, once again, to start thinking about Marcon, the largest
CON in central Ohio... Hell, maybe even the Midwest.
 
Dates: April 23-25 1993, in Columbus OHIO.  Rates: $22 until Dec 31, 92,
$24 Until March 31, 93... $28 at the door.  

For more information, contact:

Marcon 28
PO Box 211101 
Columbus OH  43221

GOH: Mike Resnick & Jane Yolen
Animal X will be the Costuming Guest
Local Interest Guest:  Loist McMaster Bujold

Marcon is a Filk-Friendly convention.
Gaming Gaming Gaming (24 hour Tournament) AD&D, Gurps, you name it.
Godzilla vs. ghidorah & Godzilla vs. Mothra

 This is from
     xinc@bluemoon.use.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Xref: sparky alt.fandom.cons:438 rec.arts.sf.fandom:1316
From: kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons,rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: ConFrancisco
Date: 25 Dec 1992 16:52:40 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

What does it cost to attend ConFrancisco?  Do the rates increase
at the end of the year?  Thanks.

Keith Lynch, kfl@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: tuckerr@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Well, what is it?
Reply-To: tuckerr@woods.ulowell.edu
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:18:30 GMT


I don't know if this is a dumb question or not, but is there some sort of
'official' classification for all these 'worlds' in our solar system?  I mean,
with this dispute over how to properly label the newly discovered 1992QB1, I
have to conclude that we either have a very loosely defined classification
system, or none at all.

In either case, does anyone have any ideas as to what should be called what?


--- Stunod Niknud
From: karlw@terapin.com (Karl Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: I wonder...
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:43:42 PST
Organization: BBS

Question still comes up in my mind , is it possible for a moon to have moon?
well I think that if a slow passing asteroid was pulled into a orbit around a
moon it could be called a moon right?
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: I wonder...
Date: 23 Dec 1992 12:59:00 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <karlw.2w5t@terapin.com> karlw@terapin.com (Karl Williams) writes:
>Question still comes up in my mind , is it possible for a moon to have moon?
>well I think that if a slow passing asteroid was pulled into a orbit around a
>moon it could be called a moon right?

The trivial answer to your question is "Yes".  The question is, how long
will this orbit remain ralatively stable?
 
Luna could posess satellites; however, because of mascons and the perturbing
influence of the Earth, the sun, Jupiter, etc, the orbit would deteriorate
and eventually impact the moon, or wander off away from the moon and into
Earth orbit.
 
The biggest problem with an object orbiting a secondary (like Luna) is the
perturbing influence of the primary (Earth).  I suspect that the greater
the distance and the *larger* the mass ratio between the primary and secondary,
the easier it would be to have a body in a stable orbit about the secondary.
But being a mere systems guru, and not an orbital mechanist, I'm not
positive.
-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupi
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:20:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu

JC>     Is anyone willing to demote Pluto/Charon to asteroid status,

One would then be forced (for the sake of internal consistency) to
similarly "demote" Phobos, Deimos, and also most if not all of Jupiter's
and Saturn's moons - I don't think it's gonna happen.

JC>or
  >think about the use of the term "worlds" that some seem to favor for
  >large bodies even if not orbiting the Sun?

That's dumb (IMHO) - science attempts to be _more_ specific - "world" is
deliberately unspecific - I can see ignorant bureaucrats wanting to do
this, but not serious scientists.

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Cosmos Without Gravitatio
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: m23364@mwunix

JM>In _Cosmos_Without_Gravitation_, Immanuel Velikovsky writes:

JM>huh? This appears to be from a 1939 paper.  Any recent observations?

I disremember when _Cosmos Without Gravitation_ was written, but _Worlds
in Confusion_ was published in the early 1950's and based on "research"
done in the 1930's and 1940's - 1939 _is_ "recent" for Velikovsky.

Keep in mind that Velikovsky was trying to reconcile his understanding
of contemporary science with the Bible - he was a creationist - that
explains a _lot_....
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                             
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2621 sci.electronics:21609 sci.energy:6456 sci.engr:2420 sci.misc:1924 sci.optics:1331 sci.physics.fusion:3092 sci.physics:21794
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.misc,sci.optics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:49:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Dec27.174901.7159
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I am not very knowledgeable, but I thought the energy of virtual particles
is an effect of the uncertainty principle and is available only on very
limited time scales after which it must be given up.
-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
1912 Addison Street Apt. 15, Berkeley, CA 94704-1128
(510) 644 3204
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Vacuum-Driven Power Exchange in the Free Electron Gas
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:23:34 GMT

lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:

>In article <1992Dec27.174901.7159@netcom.com> raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu) writes:
>: I am not very knowledgeable, but I thought the energy of virtual particles
>: is an effect of the uncertainty principle and is available only on very
>: limited time scales after which it must be given up.

>That's backwards, I think.  The uncertainty principle is a description
>of the way virtual particles make things look.  The virtual particles
>aren't a consequence of the uncertainty principle, except maybe in the
>sense that evolution is a consequence of how we classify various living
>things.  One generally prefers to state it the other way: that how we
>describe things is a consequence of how things came about.

These days it's usually described in a manner closer to Eugen Raicu's; the
virtual particles are artifacts of perturbation theory applied to quantum
field theory, whereas uncertainty relations are a fairly fundamental 
consequence of how the quantum theory is set up.  

You can see energy as temporarily non-conserved via the time-energy 
uncertainty principle if you use the non-covariant formalism of QFT, or
you can use a covariant formalism and treat energy as conserved, but
allow the virtual particles to violate laws of motion.  These are different
calculational techniques; they describe the same theory, which is really
quantum field theory as it appears when treated perturbatively.

>In a very real sense, it would appear that there are *no* real particles,
>but *only* virtual particles that, by some clever accounting tricks, add
>up to make it look like there's a real particle here, or maybe there.
>Even the speed of light is not a real barrier to virtual particles--some
>can go faster than that, and some slower, but they all average out
>to make it look like the speed of light is what it is.

>That's basically a layman's interpretation of how Diagram Dick explained
>QED, so the professionals might want to disagree or amplify or obfuscate.

That's a fairly correct description of Feynman's view of the situation,
at least at the time he thought it up.  It's still a correct description
of how diagram calculations work.  It's been somewhat superseded
today in the sense that quantum field theory is now assumed to hold in
areas where perturbation theory doesn't work, such as QCD, so a diagrammatic
treatment where the virtual particles are the primary objects doesn't
really make sense any more.  The problem, basically, is that if the
coupling constant is too large, the series you get by summing diagrams
becomes hopelessly divergent (you lose even the iffy, fudged-up sort of
convergence that holds otherwise), and you need other ways of handling
the calculations.  The objects on which everything else is based end
up being the quantized fields.

-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: In defense of crackpots ( was Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture: )
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:07:30 GMT

In article <6774@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
|> Maybe it would be a good point to know which "great ideas in science"
|> started out (supposedly) as crackpot ideas, and some information about
|> how quickly they were accepted would come in handy too.
|> 
|> Here's for starters:
|> Galilei. The people who did not believe him were people outside of 
<example deleted>
|> The Wright brothers.  (Often quoted by TM people). Did people laugh at
<example deleted> 
|> Einstein. Special relativity was thought to be ridiculous by people
|> who didn't know too much about about physics.  How long did it take

It was also thought ridiculous by physicists.  Science is by it's nature conservative.

|> Semmelweis.  Semmelweis's big mistake was that he called everybody
<deleted>

|> Any comments?

To quote Carl Sagan (more or less...my memory of the quote is not exact):
"They laughed at Galileo.  They laughed at the Wright brothers.  But they also laughed
at Bozo the Clown.

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2614 alt.paranormal:2698 sci.skeptic:21707 alt.conspiracy:13418
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Showdown at the OK Corral - Sarfatti vs D. Wollf
Date: 26 Dec 92 17:42:30 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


  The Randi lawsuit affair may well be winding down - should we start a
"Wolff defense fund"?  Of course, I doubt that Dr. Sarfatti will in
fact sue.

  Dr. Sarfatti:  parody is not defamation.  By capitalizing oddly-
selected words in your article, Mr. Wolff was parodying it by
comparing it to certain infamous net.posters whose opinions are
somewhat comparable to yours, but who use this odd stylistic 
method.  This is not legally actionable, in my completely unprofessional
opinion as a non-lawyer with lots of lawyer relatives.

  The Usenet has a long tradition (nearly as old as I am) of permitting
completely free and open discussion, without official restrictions or
the restrictions of politesse.  If you can't handle what in
net.parlance is called a "flame", don't come here.  That was in fact a
very mild flame.
-- 
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
  inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
  the state of facts and evidence"     --      John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.psychology.personality
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: The Theories are Full of Holes
Summary: No more.
Keywords: electrons, holes, anti-matter, positrons
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:52:42 GMT

In article <BzK695.CL5@csn.org> et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>
>                    THE THEORIES ARE FULL OF HOLES
>                                or
>            ARE HOLES VIRTUAL PARTICLES, OR ARE THEY REAL?
>
>In reviewing Dirac's theory, I have realized several fundamental questions.
>Basically, I always thought that there was matter and there was anti-matter.
>The question of what "electron holes" are is something that I am now asking.
>
>According to Dirac, there are four states of entity:
>
>1. Occupied   state of positive energy (eg, electron,      charge -)
>2. Unoccupied state of positive energy (eg, electron hole, charge +)
>3. Occupied   state of negative energy (eg, positron,      charge +)
>4. Unoccupied state of negative energy (eg, positron hole, charge -)

This approach to quantum field theory, while historically important, is
no longer taken seriously by experts.  (Note the last 2 words.  Lots of
people read the first chapter or two of a book on quantum field theory
and come away thinking that hole theory is still accepted.)  

You were right.  There is matter and antimatter.  No holes.  The
explanation for what Dirac did wrong is rather technical; mathematically
speaking, he chose the wrong complex structure for the Hilbert space of
solutions of the Dirac equation, so the Hamiltonian (energy) was
unbounded below, and then to wriggle out of the problem he postulated
that all these negative-energy states were filled in the vacuum state.
These days, people who are sharp realize that there is another complex
structure on the Hilbert space of solutions, such that the Hamiltonian
*is* bounded below.  People who are slightly less sharp (the vast
majority of field theorists) resort to a seemingly ad hoc trick of
switching around creation and annihilation operators.  It amounts to the
same thing.  No holes, just electrons and positrons.

Holes in solid state physics are different.  They really exist, or more
precisely, they are still accepted as a good way of thinking about
things.  




Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.alien
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Re: A note on Edie Sedgwick, UFOs & Sarfatti Papers
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:12:37 GMT

jjs40@cd.amdahl.com (John Sullivan) writes:

> In article <C00KBA.Dty>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
> >Another interesting coincidence.
> 
> Your postings read like a bad Philip K Dick novel.  
> 
> -- 
> John Sullivan, Engineer/Computer Development.      Email: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com
> Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA.                  Phone: (408)746-4688

 
Ha ha ha!!!  Ain't it the case!  
 

Jeff Harrington      
IdEAL ORDER               
idealord@dorsai.com
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2619 sci.physics:21790 sci.skeptic:21723
From: jkodish@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Kodish Jason)
Subject: Test
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:28:18 GMT

Young future physicist testing UNIX system for the first time. One hollar in the dark! 
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2652 sci.physics:21923 sci.skeptic:21847
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:  How to Handle Scientific "Unorthodoxy"
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:02:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: fs7.C03HC5.98n
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1hk78vINN34t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.003135.20240@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>[From a colloquium]

[...lots of stuff deleted...]

>
>[Lots more drivel, along the line's of McElwaine's ill-founded claims that
>"they said it couldn't be done, but it was" deleted.
>
>Is it too much to ask that the crackpots come up with a few new arguments from
>time to time?  Must they trot out the same hoary (and irrelevent) examples time
>after time after time?
>

Such arguments usually rely upon the following logic:

1)  Some of the great ideas of science were once ridiculed as crackpot ideas.
2)  My ideas are ridiculed as crackpot ideas.
3)  Therefore my ideas are some of the great ideas of science.

Sounds plausible at first, but the 3rd statement does not follow from the
first two.

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: The Pagels Phenomenon? Part 1
Date: 2 Jan 1993 21:52:45 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivem.ucsd.edu

In article <C0256r.C0B@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
> ... | discord | nroff -ms

     Lines Xref network.  Dominic to  I  can  say  that  you
Goofy  take some valium!  Telephone call with a wooden cross
post it was what it.  Space ship.   Blood  drippin  down  my
shoes.

     Written for the term used and don't throw stones For  I
got quantum action at a distance from the blood drippin down
now Here Goofy take some valium!  Money!  Nine is  the  hell
here  we can all pitch in the alleged AI intelligence from a
free ticket to moderate themselves.   Difference  between  a
serious physicist.

     Post it was in Bosnia run by the lips of  the  one  who
told  me  on  a  direct descendent of these people refuse to
help them you're a.  Valium!

Bomp-ba-dump-dump.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Living alone is living in perpetual irony and thinking, more and more
frequently, Why not."   - Joyce Carol Oates, "The Boyfriend"
Xref: sparky alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2659 sci.physics:21946 sci.skeptic:21862