HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roland@quadsys.com (Roland Besserer)
Subject: Re: Space Rangers
Organization: QUAD Systems
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:59:27 GMT

dodson@ac.dal.ca writes:
: In article <C0zGz9.2v3@quadsys.com>, roland@quadsys.com (Roland Besserer) writes:
: > sweet@ug.cs.dal.ca (garth r sweet) writes:
: > : 
: > : Anyone know anything about the new show Space Rangers, it's supposed to
: > : have a bigger budget then TNG and slightly less then DS9. I missed the
: > : premier episode the other night, anyone see it? Anything at all on it?
: > : 
: > 
: > By now you'll probably know that you can count yourself lucky to have
: > missed it. Trust me, you'll have more fun doing your taxes during the
: > Space Rangers timeslot than wathcing this junk.
: > -- 
: > 
: Actually, I think the show is really good.  A lot of Trekkies won't like it
: though, because they are used to:
: 
: Officer:   "Computer, could you please make me a cup of hot chocolate?"
: Computer:  "And would you like marshmallows with that?"
: 
: In Star Trek, and to a lesser extent, DS9, there are never really any face to
: face encounters; no physical danger.  It's all metaphysics and personal dilemmas
: and moral quandries.
: 

You certainly got a point. A couple of times a year we're fed a few episodes 
of decent violence and destruction - a welcome relieve. More Borg episodes 
would certainly help.

: Space Rangers, allthough the plot is not very rich yet, has a lot of potential.

Here I disagree. The layout of the show is nothing but a standard, off-the
shelf cops'n'robbers rehash. There is no reason to set this in space. The
FX are so substandard it isn't even funny. Let me also mention the dialog
and acting abilities - on 2nd thought - let's not mention it at all.

: It's a lot more like Star Wars; and it has some very interesting characters...
: (My favorite)

The fact that you like Star Wars explains everything   :-)

: No, the people at Space Rangers did not pay me to say this.  Yes, I enjoy TNG 
: and DS9 as well as SR.  No I don't think it's fair to compare them.  Yes, I
: did compare them anyway (few things in life are fair).  No, I don't think the
: prime directive applies here.  No I don't read this group often.  Yes if you
: mail me I will reply.  
: 

TNG often bores me to death and DS9 can take you from a caffeine high to
REM sleep in 10 minutes or less, but both shows are much better than 
Space Rangers.
-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Besserer          QUAD Systems, Santa Cruz             roland@quadsys.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Time travel - NOT! (my 0.2$)
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:24:20 GMT


I believe someone wil probably come a with a good argument rendering mine 
insignifacant, but still I will present a couple of thoughts on the 
subject, just because nobody else has yet had a subject line saying time 
travel is impossible. 

As far as I know, "jump's" can't occur (ie. you can't go directly from one 
place to another, from 40mph to -40mph, or even from 100mph to 100.00001mph).
All numbers are random, of course. I'm saying that it's not forward in 
time / backwards in time. There's something in between. I'm not going to 
elaborate this as it is 5am. However; in order to go from normal to reversed 
passage of time, you have to go through NO passage of time. Now if time 
stood still, nothing would happen, right? So if, in an attempt to go back in 
time, slowed it down till it stood still, you wouldn't get any further, thus 
be captured in one single moment and, in a way, sieze t exist. Cogito ergo 
sum. I think therefore I am. If time stood still, one wouldn't think and 
therefore not exist. A bit philosofical, I know but tell me it's not a crazy 
idea...

No, like I allready said. It's 5am, no wait it's 5:20am, and I'm very tired 
and want to sleep and this is very badly written so don't flame on grammar 
or unfinished ideas. But since I reckon you know what I mean, please enlight 
me on this. Am I right. Did the STIV science guys mess up, or have they 
thought of a way around it. Than again, this message could be crap, and I'm 
not even sure I'm going to post it.


Well, I guess I did, huh...

MAIL-mail: gunnarh@sofus.dhhalden.no    SNAIL-mail: Gunnar Horrigmo
           gunnarh@fenris.dhhalden.no               Oskleiva 17
                                                    N-1772 Norway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above posting may seem like insignificant rubbish at 
first glance, but if you read between the lines, you will be 
surprised to discover the annals of Burt Bacharach, world peace, 
Oxford Advanced Readers Dictionary, quantum physics made easy, and an 
easy-to-use step-by-step walkthrough on how to make a time travelling 
device that actually works.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne)
Subject: Re: 1701-D Flagship
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:05:05 GMT
Organization: Washington & Lee University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Jason Cherry (chejasw@yalevm) responded to me:

>    Quick reminder--no tech manuals other than the one recently put out by
> the technical directors was even authorized by G.R. or any other important
> types. I would be interested to see which episodes that you refer to  with
> this separation-ability of the original (or any subsequent, other than the
> Galaxy Class)  Enterprise...

Please don't take this is a flame, just a sincere satement of my opinions:

I couldn't care less what Gene or Paramount approved; if all I was
interested in was the canonical Star Trek stuff, I wouldn't read this
group.  Besides, the Paramount, G.R. authorised second season Writers/
Directors Guide explicitly stated that the Ent-D had UltraWarp engines,
and you know what regard there is for that though now.

Besides, official or not, some of the TOS publications are very good, and
much better than nothing, which is the 'official' word on many of the
topics therein.

Anyway, with all that said, I can recall one episode where separation was
mentioned.  I can't think of the name, but it was one where Kirk and Spock
were trapped on a planet, and in communicating with Scotty, Kirk said
something to the effect of, "Get out of here, even if you have to separate
the ship!".

CJW

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  =====  Colin J. Wynne                     Washington & Lee University  =====
  =====  cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu              Lexington, Virginia      =====
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: loren@bluemoon.use.com (Loren Sims)
Subject: Data-computer interface, etc.
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:15:06 EST

oncerning the question as to why Data insists on using the normal keypads
to access the ship's computer instead of establishing a direct link,
that was rather neatly answered by the good Doctor Asimov decades ago, 
when explaining why there's any sense in building an android robot in the
first place.
  Most tools are designed for human hands, as is the standard interface 
for the Enterprise's computer.  It's much simpler (and more economical and
much more flexible) for Data to simply use the tools at hand instead of
having to have a special tool or connection for every circumstance he's
likely to ever encounter.  Our world is designed on a human scale for use
by humans.  This is why a multi-use robot should try to conform as closely
to the human standard as possible.  It also makes it easier for humans to
relate to him than if he were a mechanical box with buttons on it.  People
are simply more used to dealing with other people--very little extra 
training is needed (note how much trouble people have dealing with the
few ways Data does differ from humans, such as his complexion, his speech
patterns (which are nearly perfect, but still stand out), his idiomatic
behaviors, in fact any time he reminds them he isn't human.
  Hmmm... this might even explain his Pinnochio complex... he just has to
keep trying harder to fit in better so he can cope with the world better.
  
  A weapons robot or a giant robot or even a non-speaking robot would have
much more difficulty getting around on the Enterprise or in dealing with 
the wide variety of circumstances Data routinely encounters...
  
  Of coourse, being a robot, Data has many advantages over his human 
co-horts (he can type and read *much* faster, and often use the same tools 
much faster and with much more strength), but also many disadvantages (he
has trouble understanding emotional issues and can never feel that he is 
really 'just one of the gang').
  
                                                                  -Loren

 This is from
     loren@bluemoon.use.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Nebula class Starship
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:39:52 GMT
 <1993Jan27.130527.1625@sol.cs.wmich.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b6@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan27.130527.1625@sol.cs.wmich.edu>
52kaiser@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Matthew Kaiser) writes:

> 
> i'd say your right, however (according to the TechManual)
> the new saucer shape dictated new math to figure out the warp
> geometry, etc...plus it's four times bigger (or so) than the 
> regular Miranda class starships (if the saucer is the same size as E-D's)
> 
> matthew
> 52kaiser


  The starship designs at the end of the tech manual are for the NOVA
class starships.

**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hmoran@nswc-wo.? (Howard Moran)
Subject: Re: DS9 Poor Engineering?
Organization: NSWC White Oak
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:23:55 GMT

In article <C1HD31.HoK@acsu.buffalo.edu> v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes:

	   Is it me or is the DS9 station poorly designed for a space 
   station on the fringe of a neutral zone.  I know the Cardassians
   built it for themselves, but they too must have thought to design
   a space station that wasn't made up a long/thin pieces which allow
   more surface area to be exposed during an attack. 
[text excised - comments regarding construction points]

	   Am I right, or am I missing something?

   -James

Some points in response
a) attack by whom - the Fed?  The good guys?
b) as the Cards had occupied the Bajoran system I would expect they
   had the necessary support ships to defend the station, etc.
c) natural Card arrogance (who can attack US?!)
d) deeply ingrained architectural philosophies (the novelization
   has someone referring to the station as typical Cardassian architecture)
e) among the equipment scavenged may have been sufficient items to have
   rendered even such a design eminently proof against known attackers.
etc etc

Actually, I suspect tv esthetics had much more to do with it :>

hmoran@nswc-wo.nswc.navy.mil
From: v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: DS9 Poor Engineering?
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:32:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Is it me or is the DS9 station poorly designed for a space 
station on the fringe of a neutral zone.  I know the Cardassians
built it for themselves, but they too must have thought to design
a space station that wasn't made up a long/thin pieces which allow
more surface area to be exposed during an attack.  It would seem more
sensible to me for such a vulnerable structure to have a much
more "stocky" main body with some sheltered docking bays and some
outside.
	The stocky body would reduce the area to be shielded and would 
provide some protection to the internal compartments should the shields
falter.
	The internal docking bays would be more secure for docked ships
and would also stand up better to a beating.

	Am I right, or am I missing something?

-James
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Re: several things
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:35:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.051122.18216@honte.uleth.ca> an395_molnar@hg.uleth.ca writes:
>well, here's a guess from another new net user.  I think the principle
>behind lasers is the exitation of electrons in synthetic ruby.  The 

Well, this is the principle behind ruby-crystal lasers, anyway. Most other
types of lasers work in a similar fashion, but not all of them use crystals.


>electron stream is the bounced between partially silvered mirrors and when 
>the energy level is high enough the beam passes through the mirror. I'm a 
>bio major so my explanation may be off a bit.

A bit. Only one of the mirrors in partially silvered, the other is completely
reflective. And it's photons that bounce between the mirrors, when they
collide with an excited electron additional photon energy is released.


-- 
"Dr. McCoy, would you do me the very great honor of eating my shorts?" -Spock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ray, when somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!" -- Winston Zeddmore
From: drew@bnr.co.uk (Scooby Doo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Cloaking Devices...just an idea??
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:30:57 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs211.bnr.co.uk

In article <C19uuJ.Knx@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>NOMAD........ (wtm@cck.coventry.ac.uk) wrote:
>7. "It is not esthetically pleasing for the viewer to be treated to a
>   TV screen full of stars whizzing by without the Enterprise planted
>   squarely in the middle.  Or worse, a TV screen full of stars just
>   standing in place while SFX for the Enterprise roaring by are
>   played in the background."
>   (to quote Tony Nardo)

	It seems to me that the best way to detect a cloaked ship is to
leave a few microphones hanging around in space. After all, that roaring
noise ships make as they fly around must be audible miles away! :-)

Drew.

-- 

Pretty damn silly place to leave a signature...
From: jcastle@missing.kludge.com (Jeff Castle)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero??
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:03:10 GMT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


 -=> Quoting Erik Max Francis to All <=-
 EMF> ____  Erik Max Francis -- ..!apple!uuwest!max --
 EMF> max@west.darkside.com   __ \  /  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1  San Jose, CA 
 EMF> 95117  37 20 N 121 53 W  ACGT  /  \ \/   Like strategic interstellar
 EMF> conquest games?  Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/ Omnia quia sunt,
 EMF> lumina sunt.   All things that are, are lights.

I'm interested in this "strategic interstellar conqest game"/Universe!

Could you send me some information? Thank you.

 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
From: bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Let's invade a planet!
Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:33:42 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


People were talking about carrying marines aboard Federation starships
earlier.  With Star Trek technology, who needs a strike contingent
aboard a capital ship?  The only reason I can think of carrying
troops (besides security) is for boarding enemy ships/bases.
For planetary invasions, a few thousand marines aren't going to be
of much use.  Besides, you could stun the population using the
ship's phasers from orbit.

  -- Gil
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jthorpe1@cc.swarthmore.edu (jere7my tho?rpe)
Subject: Re: Cloaking Devices...just an idea??
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: S.W.I.L.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:21:43 GMT

In article <9149@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu
(Jason W. Hinson) wrote:

> Second, it seems you have assumed that as long as E/M radiation cannot
> reach you, then sensors can't detect you.  I don't know if I would agree
> with this, but let's consider it to be the right idea for now.  If so, 
> then wouldn't it also make sense that you would have to be able to get
> E/M radiation and send E/M radiation outside of your ship's vicinity in
> order to use your sensors?  Obviously, if the cloaking device bends all
> impinging E/M radiation around the ship, then it is impossible for you
> to "see" anything on the outside of the cloaking device.
> 

> -Jay


Good point--in Wild Cards (an anthology edited by George R. R. Martin)
there is a character (Fadeout) who can make himself invisible, but the
first time he tried it, he went blind.  Why?  He made his retinas invisble,
so light passed through/around them.  Now when he fades out, you can see a
couple of eyes floating around...

> The only idea that I have thought of that would seem to work for a 
> _visual_ cloaking device is one that would first absorb all impinging 
> E/M radiation.  It would then release E/M radiation in the right 
> direction and at the right time so that it appears that the original
> radiation had simply passed through without being effected.

> -Jay

I think if the Romulan ships were just able to absorb all EM waves and then
emit stable virtual photons 180 degrees around from the incoming photons
(some sort of one-to-one mapping) it might work.  Of course, then there
would be a slight delay in the time it would take for a photon to get from
point A to point B through a cloaked ship, so such ships would be
detectable if they passed between two Federation ships beaming EM waves to
one another--some portion of the waves (in a ship-shaped outline) would be
slightly out of phase with the rest (a la the Michelson-Morley
interferometer).  The light could never be emitted at the "right" time
because the signal travelling from the "absorber" to the "emitter" would
have to travel slower than light, and thus would have to lose some time as
it passed through the ship.

                                           ----jere7my
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@vccsouth04.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Qs un-Qing Qs
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:11:27 GMT

denisf@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Denis Fafard) writes:

>  On a sort of seperate tangent, I don't think that the Q-Continuum would
> have killed her because she was flawed (born human).  If you remember
> back to the 2nd or 3rd Q episode, the Q wanted (or rather NEEDED) Riker
> to become one of them so that they could 'figure out' this impulsive
> human need for advancement, growth, questing for knowledge. 

  I personally don't think it'll do the Q any good---they don't have the NEED
to grow.  IMHO, humans need to grow and gain knowledge is because humans are
individually weak (comparatively) and need knowledge as an extension of the
survival instinct.  Q's have no such need; therefore, they won't be able to
grow.

>  IMHO, this girl would be the perfect solution to them! Being born
> human and raised as one (thru all the formative years till now) she
> would be just what the Q needed.  That is the only thing that frightens
> the Q about humans, their continual growth.

  If the Q are so frightened of humans, and yet take them to be so inferior,
why don't they just genocide humans?  Or at least freeze progress?

-- 
"Protect endangered species!  Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
"Pay no attention to that little man behind the keyboard."
"If you want to look for fish, best not to look in desert."
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
From: tchua@soda.berkeley.edu (Terence Chua)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Nebula class Starship
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:58:48
Organization: QMW Department of Laws
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hjanberg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 16:12:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.161245.11811@Princeton.EDU> hjanberg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Hans-nicolas Kenneth Janberg) writes:

   They talk about Nebula class ships in the ST:TNG Technical Manual. It is
   supposed to be a new class that is in development right now, so if we
   ever have an Enterprise-E it's going to be Nebula class...

   -Nicolas

Sorry - that's the Nova class they're talking about at the end of the Tech 
Manual. The Nebula has already been established in TNG, notably the USS
Melbourne, late of Wolf 359.



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence Chua, Dept of Laws, Queen Mary College, University of London
Snail Mail: 22 Courcy Road, London N8 0QH
Telephone: (044)081-888-1210
E-Mail: T.Chua@qmw.ac.uk 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am not a free man, I am a lawyer!"
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Nebula class Starship
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:09:54 GMT
 <1993Jan25.105947.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b6@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan25.105947.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
assaf@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

> In article <C15t9K.Knw@unccsun.uncc.edu>, ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes) writes:
> >      What is a Nebula class starship? has it appeared in TNG?
> > 
> > 
>   it has not appeared in TNG it is in the 1701-d book, at the end when they are
> discussing future looks.
> 
> S.F.

 Sorry, it's NOVA class

**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
From: ac999239@umbc.edu (ac999239)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Below absolute zero???
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:20:43 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc8.umbc.edu

I am not trying to justify their blunder of info, but at Absolute 0 there is
no movement on the atomic level. However, I have heard there is movement or
perhaps vibrations on the subatomic. Maybe there's some way to force the scale
down even further to stop all activity even that which is subatomic. Please
don't flame me on this...