HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Phasers
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:00:47 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <25SEP199214274324@elroy.uh.edu+ cosc1871@elroy.uh.edu (92F06787) writes:
+In article <68986@hydra.gatech.EDU+, cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes...
++In article <24SEP199216584686@elroy.uh.edu+ cosc1871@elroy.uh.edu (92F06787) writes:
++)Umm.  I sremember the primitive TOS F/X never having a *slow*
++)beam---ever.  There hasn't been a phaser dodged in TMS either.
++)As far as putting the characters in fatal situations, a skillful
++)writer will avoid that... I hope they still do :-)
++ 
++Then you apparently have missed "The Man Trap" (TOS) and "Conspiracy" (TNG).
++-- 
+Umm.  TOS The Man Trap had no slow beams.  The obsessed scientist

Yes it did.  The beam can clearly be seen coming out of the (hand) phaser
and moving across space.  If it were really traveling at light velocity,
you wouldn't be able to see the beam form its trajectory:  when the switch
was pressed, it would just be there, like a flashlight or laser beam.  This
same observation holds for the shipboard phasers in both TOS & TNG.  I'm
sure this is due to faulty special effects rather than other considerations.

Also, recall the extremely slow hand phasers in TOS's "Wink of An Eye".  If
phaser beams really traveled at light velocity, their speed of propogation
would have been unaffected due to the invariance of "c" across inertial frames
of reference.

Tim
-- 
"I have since learned that words are only as valid as the mind that chooses
them.  To choose too carefully is to become pedantic, closing the imagination to
wider visions, yet to err the other way is to invite anarchy into one's mind."
   -- Christopher Priest, _The Affirmation_
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:59:58 EDT
From: <ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Photon Torpedos
 <1992Oct1.223109.28124@midway.uchicago.edu> <1agsb4INNiv7@network.ucsd.edu>

In article <1agsb4INNiv7@network.ucsd.edu>, erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin)
says:
>
>So how fast are photon torpedos, anyway?  How fast is the transporter?
>In Time's Arrow II, the sequence of events was this:
>
>Photon Torpedos fired at target on planet.
>Pause
>Sensors detect Picard at target.
>Pause
>Transporter engages, beams Picard aboard.
>Target is destroyed by photon torpedos.
>
>Does the Transporter operate at the speed of light (the transfer, not the
>de/re
>materializations)?  At some 'warp' speed?  What about the torpedos?  If the
>torpedos do not travel at 'warp' speed, couldn't any ship with warp capability
>easily outrun them?  What about sensors?  How long does it take for them to
>'bounce' and provide info, assuming they operate in some radar-like fashion.

The dematerialization (And re) takes about 5 seconds. The transfer is
over subspace (FTL). A torpedo will travel at warp speed if the ship is
in warp. It carries a 'warp bubble' with it. The ship was in orbit, so
the torpedo moved much slower. The sensors also use FTL speeds.

>
>If it took a matter of seconds for the torpedos to reach the surface from
>orbit, they must be going slower than the speed of light.
>
>Confused,
>---Sean Erwin
|o|________________________________________________________________|o|
|o| Andy C. Saylor               ::                                |o|
|o| Penn State University        :: E-Mail:   ACS110@PSUVM.PSU.EDU |o|
|o|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|o|
|o| REAL Programmers don't use documentation.                      |o|
|o|   If it was hard to code it should be hard to read and damned  |o|
|o|   near impossible to modify!                                   |o|
|o|________________________________________________________________|o|
From: pmclaugh@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Unanswered STNG question
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:53:17 GMT

In article <717783956.F00022@therose.pdx.com>, Phil.Hodges@f601.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Phil Hodges) writes:
> "Yannb, talking to All, said about 'Unanswered STNG questions' ":
> ___--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I have some simple questions, which probably have hard answers:
> 
>>  1: Who cleans the ship?
>>  2: Why don't we ever see the bathrooms? Do they have
>>bathrooms? 

>     Good questions.  Obviously not something Gene cared about. It wasn't
> even made clear in the old episodes. On a similar note, where do they
> wash their clothes? Do they actually use washing machines, or some sort
> of matter/anti-matter device? I imagine they just incinerate them and
> have the replicator make new clothes. Hmm.

In one episode of TNG, Worf scolds Alexander because he hasn't cleaned
his room, or placed his dirty clothes in the clothing re-processor. I
guess some things never change -- even in the 24th century. :-)
That doesn't explain who cleans the "public" areas of the ship, but it
does explain the laundry thing.
  
(Sorry, I don't know episode names) It was the one with Lwaxana Troi and
the "Laughing Hour" program on the holodeck.

Tricia McLaughlin
pmclaugh@ecs.umass.edu
U. Mass - Environmental Engineering
From: uril@yang.earlham.edu (Uri J. Lessing)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Bathrooms in the Enterprise (Re: Unanswer
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:10:33 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Sep29.150544.21482@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
> cowboy@trans.csuohio.edu (Joe Rosenfeld) writes:
> 
> Now contrast this with fitting a present-day toilet.  You need a
> feedwater and a wastewater line, and no power.  Sounds pretty easy,
> and probably more reliable.
> 
> The technical manual talks about wastewater lines, so I assume that
> wastewater is still handled with old-fashioned pipes.  It does,
> however, mention transporter-based recycling, so that leaves us at a
> compromise.
> 
> My guess is that TNG toilets are not radically different from ours
> today, in that the waste material is collected from the, um,
> "emitting" organisim and conveyed physically to a centralized
> reprocessing center.

Psychologically, the idea that one's poop is propelling the Enterprise is 
not a pleasing one.
-- 

Uri J. Lessing |  Earlham College |  Richmond, Indiana
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: grady@world.std.com (Dick Grady)
Subject: Re: Unanswered STNG question
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 04:35:31 GMT

In article <717783956.F00022@therose.pdx.com> Phil.Hodges@f601.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Phil Hodges) writes:
>"Yannb, talking to All, said about 'Unanswered STNG questions' ":
>___--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I have some simple questions, which probably have hard answers:
>
>>  1: Who cleans the ship?

A couple of years ago, in the episode when some colonists camped out in
the Enterprise's cargo deck, with their cows and chickens,
Reiker said that the ship cleans itself.

>>  2: Why don't we ever see the bathrooms? Do they have
>>bathrooms?  

Maybe the ship cleans them out, too.   :-)

>    Other questions to ponder: Do they get paid for being in Star Fleet?

Of course.

-- 
            Dick Grady               grady@world.std.com

       Do-it-yourself Term Limits:  Re-elect NO-ONE !
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo)
Subject: Lights under viewscreen
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:05:35 GMT



This might be a FAQ, and I apologize if it is...but does anyone know what
those lights are that flash under the viewscreen on the Bridge?  The
Enterprise D has them, but from TOS, only the Enterprise A from 
STV:TFF and STVI:TUC had those lights.  Oh, and the old old Enterprise
 from the series, too.

Thanks!


--
|Jeffrey S. Jo                   |	         F-14D Tomcat                 |
|Computer Operations		 |             VF-142 Ghostriders             |
|University of Nebraska at Omaha |       United States Navy F-14 Tomcat       |
|tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu         |              Fighter Squadron              |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: photorps are useless!!!!!
Organization: Aston University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:55:32 GMT

jp_torun@uuisis.isis.org (jp torunski) writes:
: why not use the transporters to simply "beam away" any photon torpedoes? or 
: plasma rays/asteroids etc..
: 
: also, when attacking the Borg, why not just beam way large parts of the 
: ship, and re-materialize them inside a planet (overide safety factors), or  
: spread the matter all over the place?

Depends how much you can beam out in one go, if it dosn't disable the ship
first time then it won't work when you try for a second chunk.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:47:06 GMT

On the subject of the holodeck, since it is designed to simulate
reality as perfectly as possible, why, in the first episode, did the
rock Data threw hit the wall?  Shouldn't the computer have removed the
rock and replaced it with an image on the wall?  Or did it realize that
Data was trying to demonstrate the wall (the computer is smart enough to
simulate people, remember) and let the rock hit, with a suitably nifty 
ripple effect on the wall? :)

COULD the computer do the "replace-with-receding-image" move?  (What I
mean is, is it fast enough?)  How fast can the computer move an object
in the holodeck?  How fast can it pull the matter together to make an object?
Given how the holodeck works, I would think it would have to be many times
faster than the standard food replicators.

 ________    _______              _         ________     ____
|______  |  |_____  |            | |       |________|   |____|
      / /         | |  _  _   _  |  \       ________    ______   _______
     /  \         | | |_||_| / / |   \     |________|  |____  | |_______|
    / /\ \   _____| |   ____/ /  | |\ \     ________       / /
   /_/  \_\ |_______|  |_____/   |_| \/    |________|     /_/
 
        |  Nippon no anime wa ichi-ban desu!  Otaku rule!    |
        |      Hey, man, I _like_ Robotech.  So sue me.      |
        | Sukotto Miraa/Scott Miller (ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu) |
From: haywire@yaya.WPI.EDU (the Insane One)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Klingon Battle Cruisers
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:37:26 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu


I was watching STTMP just because I liked the beginning.
And then I noticed something very weird:

The Com station on the Klingon Battle Cruisers is at the front of all
the other stations. Everything  and Everyone was BEHIND the commander!!!
Now if I remember right, if I was a Klingon commander I would
NOT want all my officers BEHIND ME!!! because the chain of command
goes whoever is the strongest leads and I wouldnt want my back
turned to these guys. It would make sense for them to be in a position
where I could see what they were doing on any type of ship so the commander
can get a look at everything and not be running from station to station.

This really confused the hell out of me...

Haywire
  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@nuge105.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Romulan Plasma weapons
Reply-To: petitc@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:13:10 GMT

In article <5OCT199223082725@rosie.uh.edu>, cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787) writes:
|> In article <1094@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes...
|> > 
|> >	What ever happened to the Roumlan Plasma weapons of old. They
|> >	seemed like a rather effective weapon, why did they stop using
|> >	them?  
|> > 
|> > 
|> 
|> The romulan plasma bolt is still sort of in use by novelists
|> although I can't recall a very recent one off the top of my
|> head.
|> As to your question, I haven't the foggiest idea why it isn't
|> used in TNG.  I know I *wouldn't* hesitate to nuke every
|> steenkin Federaalie and Klingy ship in the galaxy with one of
|> those warp fireballs.


  True, but perhaps the Romulans want a weapon that doesn't eat TONS of power.
Also, what if you miss? The weapon probably has some use, but not a lot of
extended tactical value.

-- 
Trust:  A very precious social commodity, due both to high value and terrible
scarcity.
MATWDTM:  Mothers Against Teenagers Who Drink Too Much (failed name for MADD)
From: CXMP@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXMP000)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: RE: Romulan Plasma weapons
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:30:11 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1094@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
> What ever happened to the Roumlan Plasma weapons of old. They
> seemed like a rather effective weapon, why did they stop using
> them?

Suggestions: 1) they were inefficient (especially when your target is
                small).
             2) a fast ship can outrun them ("Balance of Terror").
             3) as it was a new weapon, Federation shields would have
                been improved in response.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ! Address as above or use
Martin Phipps                   ! LOULA@hep.physics.mcgill.ca or simply
                                ! MUHEP::LOULA if you're on a VAX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal freeze, duplicate posts, lost posts and email-come-posts,
these are a few of my least favorite things.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787)
Subject: Re: photorps are useless!!!!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:16:00 GMT

In article <cZ8VRB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org>, jp_torun@uuisis.isis.org (jp torunski) writes...
>why not use the transporters to simply "beam away" any photon torpedoes? or 
>plasma rays/asteroids etc..
> 
>also, when attacking the Borg, why not just beam way large parts of the 
>ship, and re-materialize them inside a planet (overide safety factors), or  
>spread the matter all over the place?
> 
>                        JP

Shields get in the way and there is that timing problem is why
those tactics wouldn't be too effective.  But, how about using
precisely aimed deflector beams to vector away or detonate 
incoming torpedoes.  They are suppose to work at warp speed or
the ship couldn't warp safely, so I think this would be just
as effective.  (And it wouldn't even tie up the phasers!)
From: william@cs.arizona.edu (William E. Hertling)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Collisions!
Date: 3 Oct 92 07:25:45 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Oct3.063834.7134@leland.Stanford.EDU> fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:

[discussion of Big E firing on borg ship with photon torpedos deleted]

>I thought about this, too, and came up with the following:  
>
>First, the Borg would not be running with *no* defense shield up;  it
>isn't logical to do so.  So they probably would have had some "general-
>purpose" defense shield, kind of like the Enterprise's, up when the
>torpedo impacted.

[stuff about how photorp works/being prepared for it deleted]

>Finally, in the end analysis, the results of a photorp detonation
>are LOTS of hard photons flying about, i.e. X- and gamma rays, and
>perhaps some heavy nuclei, not unlike a "super neutron bomb."  Now,
>if the Borg ever faced anyone who used X-ray weapons - which, incidentally,
>we have NOW - they would have defenses against hard or enhanced
>radiation weapons.  Again, it wouldn't be tailored exactly to photon
>torpedoes, but then it wouldn't need to be to provide some measure of
>protection.

Sorry to delete so much of the previous message, but no need to waste all
that bandwidth.

Perhaps the Borg did have some type of general purpose shields, and
perhaps they were knowledgable about matter/antimatter type weapons,
and did have defenses against that sort of weapon. However, the Enterprise
DID inflict damage which, in Worf's opinion, was equal to about 20% of the
whole. Now at that point, they stopped firing. It is logical to assume that
is several photon torpedos caused that much damage, more photorps would
have continued to damage the borg ship. I do not think the borg ship could
both regenerate and adapt to the photon torpedo technology quicker than
the Enterprise could have kept firing.

But of course, the Enterprise did not keep firing. They waited instead until
the Borg ship had completely regenerated, and, as they found out when they
fired upon it, also adapted their defenses to the photon torpedos.

So yes, while the Borg ship may have had some protection, it doesn't answer
the question...why didn't the Big E keep firing and destroy the Borg ship
while they had the chance?

From a tactical point of view, it is rarely beneficial to allow your
enemy to regroup and regenerate.

william@cs.arizona.edu

	-	D	R	A	G	O	N	-

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: goudswaa@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Goudswaard)
Subject: More evidence for UFP cloak!!!
Keywords: cloak
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:02:37 GMT

I hope this hasn't come up before, but did anyone see the episode "Arsenal
of Freedom"?  In it the Enterprise is sent to Minos V in the Lorenz Cluster
to investigate the disappearance of the USS Drake.  The Drake arrived at
the planet to discover why long range probes found that all intelligent
life there has disappeared.  According to databanks, the people of Minos
gained fame as arms merchants.

The away team soon discovered that there was a weapons system on the loose,
getting smarter with every attack.  Also, in orbit above, Geordie found
he had the same problem.  A *cloaked* ship attacked the Enterprise, and
continued to attack while cloaked.  Also, it was unmanned, and due to
the fact that it fired from positions that were not in any consistent
pattern, it suggests that it had either great manoeuverability or a
wonderful random course selector.

At the end of the show, Captain Picard tells the automated salesman that
he will buy the system, and it ends its demonstration.  We can conclude
from this then that since there was no life left on the planet, the
Federation probably had access to the Echo Papa 607 weapon system.

Of course, space law might be such that nothing could be touched until
any Minos natives who were off-planet at the time were contacted and
asked to be representatives in discussions determining the fate of the
planet.

Regardless of what happened later, the Enterprise was given a wonderful 
opportunity: a fantastic weapons system was in front of them, purchased
by them (as representatives of the Federation), with no one around to 
dispute any possible claims to the contrary.  And if you'll recall, Data
asked for and was shown freely the EP607 targetting algorithms, and
carrying this further, he could just as easily have asked for and
received all the system programming, and a sample of the cloaking specs.

Just a thought.

-- 
                                   _________                     _________
P*.*                              |         |      __/^\__      |         |
                                  |         |      \     /      |         |
         Peter Goudswaard         |         |   _/\_\   /_/\_   |         |
         goudswaa@sfu.ca          |         |   >           <   |         |
         pgoudswa@cue.bc.ca       |         |    >_________<    |         |
                                  |_________|         |         |_________|

         Or if you feel really lucky:  peterg@quesnel.education.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: The Bathrooms in the Enterprise (Re: Unanswered S
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:03:03 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

grady@world.std.com (Dick Grady) writes:
>You'd only need those pattern buffers, etc, at the transporter itself,
>not in each living unit.  After all,
>transportation to and from a planet's surface doesn't require pattern
>buffers on the surface.

Except that the pattern buffer in this case is dedicated to
transporting the subjects.  There are no other inputs and no other
outputs.  These constraints might apply with a waste disposal system.
While there isn't anything wrong with one person's waste products
getting mixed in a pattern buffer with another person's, there might
be theoretical or technical limits to providing a pattern buffer with
more than one input.

Even assuming this is not a problem, one still has high energy wave
guides and expensive, delicate transporter imagers in the bathroom
rather than cheap, low energy pipes and toilets.

There is ample support for a centralized reprocessing center in the
Technical Manual -- a common pattern buffer, if you will.  What hasn't
been established is the means of transporting the waste to that
pattern buffer.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | Error non est sed facilitas.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: aberigan@nde.unl.edu (A. Berigan)
Subject: Re: Distance in the Holodecks
Organization: Ord High School, Ord, NE
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:45:49 GMT

trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort) writes:
>william@cs.arizona.edu (William E. Hertling) writes:
>>cap36406@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Carlos A. Pero) writes:

Uh, there was no text from Carlos in the followup... so why was his
attribution kept?  (Here it is kept only due to this observation.)

>:[details about holodeck compartmentalization deleted]

>>Of course, the holodeck has limited room, and the more people, the smaller
>>each compartment will be. If the compartments are too small, the holodeck
>>will have difficulty making each compartment seem as realistic as the one
>>larger holodeck, because it will have to constantly be updating 
>>the images and articles within a specific compartment. In short,
>>as you add more people to the holodeck, and they begin to spread out,
>>there should be noticable degradation of holodeck realism.
>>
>>How does this approach to having multiple people within the holodeck
>>strike all of you?

>It's the only reasonable solution I can imagine.

And then there's the one about the pole-vaulter in the holodeck... can
you say "high jump, low ceiling"?

>-- Tim

Especially if the pole is from outside the holodeck!

--     o
      /\_         (10/3)  1/      (11/3)
  ---P\--~\_    WF      + /(10-WF)
__P")=/-'_(`)__
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aberigan@nde.unl.edu (Greg Berigan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech