HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: >>stardate conversion...
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Apr6.043600.6736@cs.dal.ca> roy@ug.cs.dal.ca (David Roy) writes:
<
<Stardate CANNOT be converted into our own calendar year, PERIOD.
<
<To put it bluntly, those of you who have spent hours, days, weeks or
<even months trying to find out how to do it.... you wasted your time.
<
<I hope I didn't shatter any dreams or whatever.......

I hate to shatter your dreams, but ST:TNG stardates are convertable, since
a frame of reference was given during the first season.
-- 
      harvard\     att!nicmad\          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: haywire@wpi.WPI.EDU (Haywire)
Subject: Re:  Borg Cube Versus Death Star. (was: Re: Ent-D Vs. Star Destr(was
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:27:07 GMT

>In article <V0y4HB5w164w@admiral.uucp> admiral.uucp!slammy@uunet.uu.net (Dave Litchman) writes:
>>True, the Death Star's gun could probably vaporise both a Borg cube and 
>>the Enterprise-D in one shot. But the thing that the Borg and the 
>>Enterprise would have going for it is maneuverability. With the size (and 
>>mass) of a small moon, the Death Star is not going to be targeting ships 
>>the size of the Enterprise while they're flitting about at impulse 
>>speed. I mean, the time necessary to bring that huge gun to bear must be 
>>incredible, which is why they don't usually shoot it at things more 
>>manuverable than a planet.

On the point of the borg...after the first cube is destroyed...the borg will
develope a defense for the next cube...which will also more than likely be
smart enough to attack away from the main gun of the death star...as far as
i know only a beam of anti-proton will totally collapse any borg shield
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr8.222038.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
>What's the story on this?  In the first attack by Kahn, the big E has
>energized defensive screens (accompanied by a graphic of the ship being
>"colored in" section by section), but hasn't raised shields (graphic of
>dots encircling the ship)...

>Energizing the screens sure didn't do them a damn bit of good!  Have
>we seen these before/since?

Not that I know of.  Since they're raised under yellow alert, perhaps their
main purpose is to ward off natural disasters such as asteroid storms, and
aren't much use against man-made weaponry?  That makes sense to me.  Perhaps
Savvik announced the energizing so loudly because she felt that Kirk should
raise the shields and she was delivering a subtle (!) hint.

This is all conjecture, of course.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Go?  Where are we going?"
"Where they went."
"What if they went nowhere?"
"Then, this will be your big chance to get away from it all."
			- McCoy and Kirk; Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
From: yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re:  Borg Cube Versus Death Star. (was: Re: Ent-D Vs. Star Destr(was
Distribution: world
Date: 4 Apr 92 15:49:08 GMT
Organization: Blue-Knight Productions

In article <V0y4HB5w164w@admiral.uucp> admiral.uucp!slammy@uunet.uu.net (Dave Litchman) writes:
>True, the Death Star's gun could probably vaporise both a Borg cube and 
>the Enterprise-D in one shot. But the thing that the Borg and the 
>Enterprise would have going for it is maneuverability. With the size (and 
>mass) of a small moon, the Death Star is not going to be targeting ships 
>the size of the Enterprise while they're flitting about at impulse 
>speed. I mean, the time necessary to bring that huge gun to bear must be 
>incredible, which is why they don't usually shoot it at things more 
>manuverable than a planet.
	Also you have another thing going for it.... Like the accuracy of
the ships phasors. I think with the scanners and magnification factor they
can place a nice good shot write into the tube from a good distace.
Remember in some of the shows the accuracy with which the enterprise fires
onto stationary objects????

--
    _____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                     |
   | Yury German                  yury@bknight or yury@bknight.jpr.com   |
   | Blue-Knight Productions      GENIE EMAIL: Blue-Knight               |
   | (212)218-1348                (Graphic Design and Video Productions) |
   | (718)321-0998		  P.O. Box 985, Queens, New York, 11354  |
   |_____________________________________________________________________|

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jmartine@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Martinez)
Subject: Re: Dilithium replication
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 08:01:54 GMT

(James Gordon Currie) writes:
>
>          Dilithium can't be replicated for a simple reason... It has a 
>"fourth" dimentional aspect to it (for lack of a better word). It extends into
>the same dimention used for sub-space communications.
>

Isn't Dilithium made of anti-matter? At least that's what my roommate told
me.

-Joe

-- 
Joe Martinez  (jmartine@ares.calpoly.edu)
"When you base your life on credit, and your loving days are done, checks
 you sign with love and kisses later come back signed INSUFFICIENT FUNDS."
                                                           -Funkadelic
From: THe Painkiller
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:59:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1999@transfer.stratus.com> btarbox@sw.stratus.com (Brian Tarbox) writes:
>v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Boggles the MIND) writes
>> 	Perhaps a phenom. much like NASA pukes use to accelerate Galileo
>Where does a university punk get off calling NASA pukes?
>Grow up punk.

	Yo, where does a guy get off, insulting university students on
Internet ( i hope this IS Internet, or my butt is roast !!! )
	Wise up, buzzard-brain.
	
	" I FEEL LIKE FLAMING TONIGHT _ HAHAHAHAH "
							The Painkiller

****************************************************************************
	Planets devastated,		  |	THE PAINKILLER
	Mankind on its knees,		  |  
	A saviour comes from outer skies  | " May the farce be with you "
	In answer to their pleas..        | " Engage"
	HE IS THE PAINKILLER.             | " About face, Wesley"
****************************************************************************
From: ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Warp Field Collisions
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:40:16 GMT
 <1992Apr13.115512.3295@newcastle.ac.uk>
Organization: Penn State University

There was a book writen about a tactic kingons use. They link their
shields togeather to increase their resiliance to impacts. Wouldn't
it be possible to do the same for the warp fields?
|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: Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: STII screens vs shields
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:06:59 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU

In article <1992Apr10.223607.8679@Princeton.EDU> dandrath@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel H. Drath) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.191456.15594@ecst.csuchico.edu> jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) writes:
>>In <1992Apr8.222038.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> ttullio@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>
>>>The Enterprise has both "defensive screens" and "shields"?!
>
>I can hear this part of the movie in my head-- Saavik says, "Energize
>defense FIELDS", and then they cut to a picture of a person turning a
>knob, and then they have that graphic of ship sections being filled in.
>
>I always imagined that defense fields were some kind of interlocking
>network of something-er-others within the hull;                 

 My 0.05-worth?

I'd say the defence FIELDS are similar to the SHIELDS but are channeled either
within or very close to the surface of the hull, giving some defence against
attack, but also strengthening the hull against internal stresses from violent
manoeveurs and fluctuations in the drives etc.

The DEFENCE SCREENS or SHIELDS are projected at some distance from the hull,
(that circle of little dots!). This would give some advantages:
1. The spherical field may require less energy to maintain its shape, so may
   be driven at a higher power.
2. The greatly increased surface area of the shield allows incident energy
   (ie enemy fire) to be dissipated and radiated away more efficiently...

What do you think?

Mark
From: yury@bknight.jpr.com (Yury German)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Deck consruction (Minor spoilers)
Distribution: world
Date: 4 Apr 92 15:47:05 GMT
Organization: Blue-Knight Productions

In article <P764HB3w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> dascoser.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>
>In the episode The mind's eye, when the Picard pulls the phaser from the 
>asssassin (name withheld for those overseas), the phaser shoots it's beam 
>upwards. When I first saw that I got the immage of the people on the deck 
>above getting an instant hotfoot. Does anyone know if the decks on the E-D 
>are supposed to be impervious to hand phasers?
>                                                           Dascoser
	I think they would be..... after all if you remember some of the
shows things affect it but no hand phasers...
	Think back to ST and you will remember a few indor phasor shots
that just leave burns on the metal.
--

    _____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                     |
   | Yury German                  yury@bknight or yury@bknight.jpr.com   |
   | Blue-Knight Productions      GENIE EMAIL: Blue-Knight               |
   | (212)218-1348                (Graphic Design and Video Productions) |
   | (718)321-0998		  P.O. Box 985, Queens, New York, 11354  |
   |_____________________________________________________________________|

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Sliding doors, howzit work?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:23:33 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

jcurrie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (James Gordon Currie) writes:
>
>          Rather simple... There is someone on the other side of the set
>wall, who pulls on a rope, and the doors open. Needless to say, since they
>are reading the script/ have been told when to open the door, not many noses
>are injured as you might think.

For the most part, the script doesn't tell them when to open the door.
It may be pencilled in during rehearsal just so the guy has SOME sort
of cue, but when you do several takes of a scene and the timing is
different in each, it's easy to be off by just enough to bruise
someone's nose.

I've done this sort of thing before, and script cues just aren't
enough.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
From: jcurrie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (James Gordon Currie)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Sliding doors, howzit work?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:53:53 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada


          Rather simple... There is someone on the other side of the set
wall, who pulls on a rope, and the doors open. Needless to say, since they
are reading the script/ have been told when to open the door, not many noses
are injured as you might think.

Ciao
J G Currie
From: dsturm@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: TOS Stardates taken in TNG mode (was Re: >>stardate conversion...
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:45:17 GMT

...and to shatter things even more...

A neat little retrofitting (aka back-continuity) works fairly well
if you establish a stardate cycle starting in 2264.

0000 = 2264
1000 = 2265
           Kirk's test run with Enterprise (E:t1Ad,StrSky,WNMHGB,early 1st 
           season)
2000 = 2266
           Kirk starts a full 5YM (mid 1st season)
3000 = 2267
           Kirk's first full year of 5YM (late 1st, early 2d season)
4000 = 2268
           Kirk's second full year of 5YM (end 2d season, few 3d)
5000 = 2269
           Kirk's third full year of 5YM (most of 3d season, some TAS)
6000 = 2270
           Kirk's fourth full year of 5YM (some TAS, novels)
7000 = 2271
           Kirk's fifth full year of 5YM (novels)
           Brings home Enterprise in good shape.
           Promoted to rank of Nogura's whore :-)
8000 = 2272
           Chief SFO
9000 = 2273
           Chief SFO
That stardate cycle included a scaling factor for distance from SFHQ...

Anyways, if you treat it like the TNG system 1 SD = 8 hours, it's not
horrendously bad.


Presumably the next stardate cycle was of the form
YYdd.d

7400 = 2274 TMP

7500 = 2275 etc.

New cycle established...

0000 = 2277

8000 = 2285 ST2-5

Return to the YYdd.d cycle...

8700 = 2287
:
:
9522.6 = 2295 August 15  ST6

Presumably only military intelligence ;-P can explain the switch between
the Ywww.h and YYdd.d systems.  (Maybe to keep the Roms guessing?)

Dave Sturm.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.tech:2629 rec.arts.startrek.misc:3135
From: vendwrt@iddsupp5.austin.ibm.com (Vendor Writer Guest Login)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Geordi's visor in "The First Duty"
Keywords: The visor:
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: vendwrt@iddsupp5.austin.ibm.com (Vendor Writer Guest Login)
Organization: IBM Austin, TX


I hope this is placed at the bottom of the file this is in. I am a
novice user so please bare with my temporary ignorance. 

I really have not noticed a significant change from episode to episode
in the visor that Jordi wears. However, if you can provide me with the
episodes in question, I will recheck my tapes.

I will respond with an answer as quickly as I can, unless I am beaten to it.

Dave C. Austin, TX IBM 808.Unread news in alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die 
     1 article  [20,21]
Unread news in alt.fan.monty-python              158 articles [1946,2269]
Unread news in alt.romance                       109 articles [16486,16772]
Unread news in rec.arts.startrek.current         173 articles [2765,3727]
Unread news in rec.arts.startrek.misc            412 articles [2187,2608]
Unread news in rec.arts.startrek.tech             88 articles [1885,2180]
In article <1992Apr6.045000.12937@wam.umd.edu>, mp@wam.umd.edu (Martha
Elizabeth Phillips) writes:
> Xref: awdprime.austin.ibm.com rec.arts.startrek.tech:2116
rec.arts.startrek.misc:2509
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.misc
> Path:
awdprime.austin.ibm.com!auschs!panews!uunet!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!mp
> From: mp@wam.umd.edu (Martha Elizabeth Phillips)
> Subject: Re: Geordi's visor in "The First Duty"
> Message-ID: <1992Apr6.045000.12937@wam.umd.edu>
> Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
> Nntp-Posting-Host: rac2.wam.umd.edu
> Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
> References: <92096.093242ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:50:00 GMT
> 
> There was an episdoe about a month ago where I swore the visor was different
> somehow..I didn't tape it and I couldn't pin down a specific factor.  But
> you're not alone...anyone know for sure??
> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: tlb2665@usl.edu (Burleigh Thomas L)
Subject: Re: Time travel
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 12:42:08 GMT


In article <10APR199210532462@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> r13504141@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Bob E. Schmoo) writes:

>	Two weeks ago I watched (TNG) episode in which the Enterprise 
>had become trapped in a time loop.  It seemed that this was caused
>by a massive explosion which resulted from an impact with another
>ship.  It was later explained that this was infact the case.  As it
>turned out, the Enterprise had been caught in this loop for 7 days.
>It was then learned that the ship the Enterprise had hit was another
>confederation ship which had been caught in a similar loop for over
>one-hundred years.  My question is that if the explosion was the
>cause of the time loop, then what caused the other ship to be in
>the loop for one-hundred years.  Obviously, the Enterprise could
>not have been the cause.  Was this a mistake on th writers part, or
>am I missing something.  

WARNING: The opinion that follows is not to be construed as canon.  It is
merely some (hopely) educated ramblings from the vast depths of my mind.
Could be some spoilers involved also.....

As I recall (my VCR messed up and didn't tape this episode :( ), the cause of
the loop was the explosion of the Enterprise near a distortion in the space-
time continuum (or some similar plot device :)  The Bermington had simply 
forward about 80 years in time by means of this distortion (or whatever the
heck it was :).

The only canonical reference I can provide is that episode where the 
Enteprise-D encountered the Enterprise-C as it came through such a distortion.
Assumedly, the same thing could have occured. With the E-C barreling into the
E-D and the E-D jumping back in time.  Combined with the resultant Klingon
War, hmmmm......... Could make for a good episode. Gotta think about this.
Thanx for the idea!

Don't forget to check out ST:USS Cavalier in alt.startrek.creative!

(Sorry about the plug! Fan mail's getting a little low these days! :) :)

-- 
Thomas L. Burleigh (take your pick:) | InterNet: tlb2665@usl.edu
 University of Southwestern Louisiana| Voice: (318) 232-8298
 Fleming Co.s, Inc.                  |* My opinions are mine alone!  *
 LA Army National Guard              |* You hear me?! They're MINE!! *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: iacovone@zeus.franklin.edu (Daniel R. Iacovone)
Subject: Re: Why the "starbow"/"rubber-band" effect? Speculation
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:36:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.153129.24015@acsu.buffalo.edu> v116r8ac@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Chris Nasipak) writes:
>A number of people once asked for an explanation of the "rubber-band"
>effect when the E-D went to warp speed.  This bothered me for a while, too,
>but I believe I have an explanation for it.
>
>Under Relativity laws, as an object approaches c, time slows down, mass 
>increases, and length increases.  Therefore, the obvious reason the ship
>looks stretched from the point of view of the camera, is that it is 
>accelerating to c preparatory to entering warp space (the flash of light.).
>
>Comments?  Questions?  
>[Math flames may be directed to /dev/null.  Intelligent Comments about
>any miscalculations and misrememberances will be accepted.]
>
>Thank You.


I was also thinking this.  Since the Warp field compresses space into
a smaller finite definition--we see space smaller but the size of the E
remains the same.
So in relativity The E seems bigger in the compressed space.  The
compressed space is sort of a lens (concave/convex).
We see the E growing bigger and bigger untilk and finally disappears--
in fact the space dimension is growing smaller and smaller.

sort of like this

                   ************************
                 *****                  *****
               *****      ===/EEE         *****
               *****      ===\EEE         *****   space surrounding
                 *****                  *****     E before warp.
                   ************************

                   *****
                 ***   ***
               ***===/EEE***
               ***===\EEE***   space surrounding
                 ***   ***     E during warp.
                   *****
Note:  it is the same amount of space but compressed.  When we look
at relativity the space could be the same distance outside of the warp
field and since the Enterprise has compressed this space to its own
size, the E naturally looks bigger.
It is quite relative-I imagine.
 
I hope I botched it up allright.  Any flames e-mail me at

iacovone@zeus.franklin.edu
From:  (Brad Books)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Why the "starbow"/"rubber-band" effect? Speculation
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:08:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Michigan

In article <1992Apr6.153129.24015@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v116r8ac@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Chris Nasipak) writes:
> 
> A number of people once asked for an explanation of the "rubber-band"
> effect when the E-D went to warp speed.  This bothered me for a while, too,
> but I believe I have an explanation for it.
> 
> Under Relativity laws, as an object approaches c, time slows down, mass 
> increases, and length increases.  Therefore, the obvious reason the ship
> looks stretched from the point of view of the camera, is that it is 
> accelerating to c preparatory to entering warp space (the flash of light.).
> 
> Comments?  Questions?  
> [Math flames may be directed to /dev/null.  Intelligent Comments about
> any miscalculations and misrememberances will be accepted.]
> 
> Thank You.

    Actually, apparant length DECREASES as you approach lightspeed.  As for
the "rubber-band" warp effect, here's what I think it might be:  Imagine your-
self in a little shuttle or something floating right behind the Enterprise.
Now, the Enterprise goes to warp speed.  The ship is now going faster then 
light, so the image takes some time to get to your eyes (longer than it
normally would).  Meanwhile, the jump to warp speed occurs in such little time
(less than Planck time, acccording to the TNG Tech Manual) that the image of
the ship where it was before hasn't faded from your brain yet.  Therefore, at
the same moment, you see the back of the ship right in front of you and the 
front of the ship speeding away, having the visual effect of stretching it
out, and this lingers until the original image fades away, making the ship
look normal again  (I don't know if length contraction occurs or not, since
this is warp space we're talking about.)  Anyway, this always made sense to
me.

-Brad
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: davros@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tyler J. Yip)
Subject: Time Loops
Organization: California State University, Chico
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:31:36 GMT

The temporal-distortion field had trapped the Boseman for 80 some odd years
just crossing the temporal-distortion field's domain over and over again.
When the Enterprise entered the field, they changed the pattern, but not
the duration.  Then, when the Enterprise went kablooey, the intense explosion
of the Enterprise caused additional waves in the Dechion field, thus allowing
the not-quite-perfect Time-Loop (also known as a chronic-hysterisis to those
that care) that allowed Dr. Crusher a sense of De Ja Vu and gave Geordi his
spinning engineering cat walk.

Just a thought.
-Tyler Yip
-davros@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu