HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hship@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: SciFi Channel not on Continental Cablevision!
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: hship@lectroid.sw.stratus.com
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU


At this time Continental Cablevision in Massachusetts (and possibly beyond)
does NOT plan on carrying the upcoming Sci-Fi Channel!
 
However, there is a name and address to write to; they have said that enough
subscriber response could reverse this decision.
 
        Steve Farquar
        General Manager, Continental Cablevision
        81 School St.
        Quincy, MA 02169
 
Or, you can call him up and bug him (every day!) at: 617 471 3200 x3025.
 
[Note - I've now done my duty by both the SFAN and Sci-Fi Channel factions.
	I do not want to entertain a debate over the merits or deficiencies
	of either approach, nor do I want to advocate citizen action of
	any kind.  I'll certainly accept any news or information offered,
	but please try to keep it neutral in tone - ed.]

-- 
"Is that real blood?" 
Howard_Ship@vos.stratus.com

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat for r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to trek-info@dweeb.fx.com, and questions to
                                                trek-info-request@dweeb.fx.com
From: mholtz@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark A. Holtz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Note about video Re: Seattle(?) Convention Report
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:32:47 GMT
Reply-To: mholtz@sactoh0.sac.ca.us
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU

In <14kcq7INNcsr@agate.berkeley.edu> bill@tv.tv.tek.com (William K. McFadden) w
rites:
 
>From: Marty Steinberg <martys@microsoft.com>
>Date: Sun, 28 Jun 92 15:30:18 PDT
>Subject: Star Trek convention summary
> 
>Shatner and Nimoy were really cool together, but Bill's getting really
>fat and losing his hair - no secret there. I picked up a video of one
>of their appearences last December when ST6 was released.  The sound is
>really bad, but it's still fun to watch them together and some of the
>old stories from the original series.
 
A bit of note on this video: This video is from Creation
Entertainment (yes, the same folks who put on CreationCon). This is
the tape of the first appearance of Shatner and Nimoy together at
the Sacramento Community Center on December 6, 1991. 
-- 
President: ___ George Bush            <:> UUCP: PacBell.COM! -> mholtz!sactoh0
           ___ Bill Clinton/Al Gore   <:>     ucbvax!csusac! /
                                      <:>
           _X_ None of the Above      <:> Internet: mholtz@sactoh0.sac.ca.us

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat for r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to trek-info@dweeb.fx.com, and questions to
                                                trek-info-request@dweeb.fx.com
From: IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Thomas Hyer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Limiting factor
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:19:16 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


  If with present technology the world economy were
dedicated to production of computer and memory chips
(for whatever reason), what factor would limit their
production?  My guess is available energy, but there
might be some other factor, such as availability of
certain metals.

Tom Hyer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: vargish@sura.net (Nick Vargish)
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Summary: Motie "evolution"
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:04:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.195933.13998@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

>From memory.  It was implied that the one arm-two arm structure was
>genetically engineered.  Nothing was said about any other traits.

From memory: It is implied/stated that the bilateral asymetry of the
Moties (what you refer to as "one arm-two arm structure") came about
as a mutation, probably helped along by the fallout from some
catastrophic weapons use. The mutation was then encouraged in some
way, perhaps the largest surviving population bred true with this
mutation or it was intentionally spread. This all happened _sooo_ many
"cycles" ago that most of the remaining species descended from these
Moties. Remember, the Moties "devolved" certain of their castes, most
notably the "food Motie" the humans see at the "zoo," so it is not
unreasonable to assume that "rat-line Moties" with bilateral asymetry
were devolved from more sapient branches.

Remember that the "zoo"s were not just there for display, but as a
convenient repository for food and/or breeding stock in case of a
"collapse." There was mention of Motie-prime species with bilateral
symmetry, and the suggestion was that these are evolutionary relics
from pre-asymetrical days.

>SEH

Nick Vargish

p.s. I don't find the idea of "super-tool-users" so improbable... I
know people who seem to have an intuitive grasp of electronics, for
instance (tho' not myself :^).  Actually, this whole 'graph deserves:
-- 
|  Nick Vargish       | "I'm just another wide area network packet-herder..." |
|  SURAnet Operations +-------------------------------------------------------+
|  vargish@sura.net   | "SURAnet  and I do  not have a  relationship based on |
|  h: 301 474-1863    | mutually-shared ideologies.  Don't assume otherwise." |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tmyoung@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Thomas M. Young)
Subject: Re: speed of light
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 20:01:34 EDT

In article <1992Jul23.183542.3003@iplmail.orl.mmc.com> richc@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Rich Cherry) writes:
>
>It has been a long time since I took modern physics but I have a question.
>
>E = mc^2 for resting matter. I have forgotton the extra terms for none resting
>         matter.
>
>Now as you approach the speed of light doesn't your mass become greater. So
>doesn't the amount of energy produced for a given piece of matter also increase
>
>Rich

The 'extra terms' give you E = (gamma)mc^2, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(beta)^2 ).
Beta is the speed of your object as a fraction of the speed of light; if you
travel at 0.6c, gamma is 1.25.  So you're getting 25% more than if you were
at rest with gamma=1.  The extra 25% is the kinetic energy of the object.

An interesting way to think about what kinetic & potential energy are is to
look at how mass changes when you add kinetic or potential energy.  The mass
of the object increases and decreases so that the energy equivalent is always
equal to the original rest energy + kinetic + potential.  In a sense, the 
mass is where the kinetic & potential energy are stored.  That's why it 
increases as you pick up speed or rise out of a gravity well. 

So if I take a 1kg object and add 1000J of kinetic energy (so it's moving
at about 100 mph) I'll have an object that masses 1kg + .033 picograms.  If
I also lift it a mile in the air, I'll add another 16,000 J or so of potential
energy, which manifests as another 0.18 picograms.  The total energy is still
just 17,000 J more than when it was at rest, and I can figure out that total
by *either* converting the new, larger mass using mc^2, or by converting the
old smaller rest mass and adding kinetic and potential energies.

Clear as mud?

--
Tom Young                                         tmyoung@rodan.acs.syr.edu
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:27:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace):
>(The real flaw in the book was that the Moties would actually have built
>space habitats; the resources for doing this are essentially unlimited.
>Furthermore, a fusion-powered space habitat automatically doubles as an
>STL spaceship with virtually unlimited range. So what if it took 1000
>years to cover the 35 light years to the nearest planetary system to
>Mote Prime?)

Don't take our most optimistic ideas about space as gospel.  Fusion
may translate to cheap energy, but the rest of the resources that such
a habitat would require would still be a significant economic burden.
(We're talking about a system where all the iron that can be mined
has been mined, for instance.  There are no 'unlimited' quantities
of asteroidal iron to be had.)

Here's where Motie psychology comes in:  You're talking about an
undertaking that is practical if enough of the planet gets behind
it and helps to shoulder the economic burden.  But since such a
project -- at best -- exports the cycles to another world without
providing any benefit for those who stay behind, those who aren't
going wouldn't be willing to divert the resources and speed up the
cycle.

There's also another problem:  No Motie habitat can last a thousand
years.  Even if almost everyone is in suspended animation, and the
skeleton crew freezes most of its offspring, they'd still outbreed
their habitat's holding capacity long before the millenium was up.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

  The surface of the strange, forbidden planet was roughly textured and green,
  much like cottage cheese gets way after the date on the lid says it is all 
  right to buy it.--Scott Jones
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: RFowler@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert A. Fowler)
Subject: Re: Ringworld Attitute Jets
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:44:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.033030.4823@midway.uchicago.edu> wak4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Valentine) writes:

>Maybe I just haven"t grasped the scale.....

>SW

These were a feature of the Niven Ringworld.  I seem to remeber them as 
ramjets fed by induced solar flares.  This was in Ringworld Enginners I 
think.

    _________________________________________________________________
                        
                        HONDA -- The only way to fly
    o          
  _/\_>   -A proud owner (just wish they were made in the USA)
 O,> / O   [with all respects to Ohio MINE were made in Japan]
           
                           CM400T/XL500R/VF500F
                             '79   '82    '84
                           
     Slower trafic keep right (SUCKzukies, HDs, etc.) ->->->->->->->
    _________________________________________________________________
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:59:33 GMT
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu

From article <1992Jul24.131023.14508@sctc.com>, by beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede):
> 
> I believe I _do_ remember the book correctly, and there was no mention
> of the Moties being engineered, unless it was a mention of such
> powerful subtlety that it escaped my notice (not impossible).

From memory.  It was implied that the one arm-two arm structure was
genetically engineered.  Nothing was said about any other traits.

SEH
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:43:19 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

Important point: the Moties are NOT r-strategists, they are
K-strategists. They don't turn lots of kids loose to fend for
themselves, they cherish them (as is observed a couple of times in the
book, Moties value their kids more than anything else).

Humans are capable of having 10 or 12 children. In societies where most
children will survive to reproduction age, we choose not to. Suppose we
couldn't choose not to, due to a quirk of evolution. Then we'd jam the
earth to standing room only in pretty short order, by geological time.

(The real flaw in the book was that the Moties would actually have built
space habitats; the resources for doing this are essentially unlimited.
Furthermore, a fusion-powered space habitat automatically doubles as an
STL spaceship with virtually unlimited range. So what if it took 1000
years to cover the 35 light years to the nearest planetary system to
Mote Prime?)

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu (David Kuijt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:23:10 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742



>In article <714@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
>writes: 
>>My point was actually fairly simple.  The Moties combination of large body
>>size, long life, and r-strategy reproduction is boucoup unlikely[.]
>
>>In the Mote system we get the rather absurd combination of an r-strategist
>>that has become the dominant species, wiping out all of the K-strategists.


If I remember the book correctly (someone please re-read and check this)
the Moties were **designed** not evolved.  Way, way back in their history
they were built by some previous (probably K-strategist, certainly dominant)
race.  So arguments about the likelihood of their evolving are irrelevant,
as Niven and Pournelle never claimed they evolved.

David Kuijt		kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:27:05 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul23.095510.1@skcla.monsanto.com> jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
|
|I'm afraid I don't remember what the motie 'litter size' was. R-strategy would
|usually require lots of children.  Of course the 'required' reproduction,
|meaning quick turnover, does offset this.

At their size and lifespan, any litter size > 1 is 'lots' of children.
hey, even at a litter size of one, we humans are doing pretty well at
populating the Earth, imagine what it would be like if twins were the
*norm* instead of the exception!

|2) The fact that all life on the planet appears to be subspecies of moties
|indicates that at some point, lots of the species were killed, most likely by
|calamity (whether planned or natural).

The implication in the book was that it was just the end result of the
sort of 'accidental' extinctions that we humans are already causing here
on Earth by our disturbance of the environment.

That is there were no wild species left because there was no wild
habitat left.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:12:18 GMT
	<Bs3t5E.4MJ@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.science: 28-Jul-92 Re: The Moat around
God's Eye James Davis Nicoll@watye (852)

> 	The Moties can't  run generation ships without allowing for
> cycles to occur along the way. No birth control and  a *tiny* ecosystem
> makes for faster cycles.

This is more iffy than the inevitability of crashes on the Mote
homeworld. A generation ship is smaller than a planet. It is conceivable
that one group would remain in power over the whole ship, enforcing
universal infanticide (except for crew replacements, of course.) 
If they run the ship, there are no neighboring tribes to outbreed and
then destroy the ZPG Moties.

The problems arise in choosing who will bear the next generation every N
years. A lottery among each caste, presumably. Anyone who argues gets
spaced. The Masters can presumably enforce this on the other castes. The
only question is thus whether a group of Masters can live in peace for a
few centuries, knowing that they can divide up an entire planet when
they arrive. (Either another habitable planet or the Mote world just
after a crash.)

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written
From: pgf@srl01.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:40:09 GMT

rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:

>original species was K-strategist, a radiation induced mutation made it r, and
>instead of being killed according to The Book, it took advantage of the
>disruption of Mote Prime's ecology at the time.)  Maybe something else yet
>that we don't know about.  It would certainly be good to see if N&P can
>explain the paradox, but given the state of our ignorance about the evolution
>on Mote Prime, I think cries of `impossible' are rather unfounded.

>>Also, I am unconvinced there is no way out.  With proper genetic engineering,
>>combined with proper planning, a K-strategy race or variant of the Moties
>>would eventually win out over the r-strategists.

>Sure.  I meant (and should have written) no _evolutionary_ way out.  Genetic
>engineering and good planning ought to do the job, but is clearly well beyond
>even Crazy Eddie (How secure would _you_ feel about drastically redesigning
>the human species?)  I don't see the Moties do it, they're fatalists.

I would tell you to go over to the extropians mailing list and
talk with them for a while. While you don't feel comfortable
enough to redesign humans, someone does...

>SR

>PS another poster mentioned that this discussion should be in .science; I have
>   cross-posted and redirected follow-ups there.
>---

Actually, it should be in .written too; we're trying to guess how
the problem is solved in the upcoming book.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418
"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message
"57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:06:53 GMT

In article <Brtow2.F6y@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	Let's say there a hypothetical race with STL starships
>who want to look at our planet without alerting us  to their 
>presence. Most STL propulsion systems (ramjets, RAIRs, laser-
>driven sails) are pretty obvious to observers, so how would the
>ETs sneak insystem without being seen?

What's a RAIR?

How about using a magnetic sail or an on-board laser (as long as you aim
away from the planets)?

SR
---


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Human flight.
Summary: Read it
Keywords: Spon
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:34:35 GMT



Hullo.
	I have been thinking about this for some time, and thought
maybe I should get other people's opinions. What changes would you
make to human physical makeup, to allow for flight. 

	And I mean _what_ not _how_. 

	Assuming this was Earth (not Windhaven), I would start by
reducing height considerably - possibly 5' tall range. :) for any-
one actually that height, but I'ma a foot taller, so its reducing 
for me. 
	For the wing structure, I think the best bet would be bat-
like wings, that possibly may not allow true flight, but would allow
gliding for some distance. In considering this, I was trying to 
figure out whether completely adding new limns would be the go, or to 
use the existing arms (much like bat evolution) and have the stretched
skin attach to a certain distance down the torso.

I know bugger all about aerodynamics - thats why I'm posting.
Flames, critisims ignored (esp of spelling), but comments welcome.

Eccles
"Great Cthulhu will save you (in case he gets hungry later)"
******************************************************************
*  All typographical errors in the above document are not errors *
*     They merely illustrate new ways of spelling those words    *
*								 *
* 			T.F. Eccles				 *
*		ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au			 *
******************************************************************
From: f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Gellis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:39:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center


How visible would a spacecraft be until it got VERY close to Earth, like
Jupiter orbit?  A lightsail with a 1000 km. sail would be very visible (it
is also one of the best ways to do it--antimatter may be cheaper for a one-
shot kind of interstellar exploration, but if you're going to do lots of
missions, it's worth building the nightmare-big infrastructure you need 
for interstellar laser lightsails), but would it be so at, say, 1000 AU?
As for antimatter-powered spacecraft, these could probably be relatively
small, perhaps the size of an aircraft carrier (visible at 10 AU if you're
looking right at it, maybe, but otherwise not).  How much heat signature
does a fusion drive or an antimatter drive REALLY put out?  Enough to be
noticed if you're looking right at it, sure, but what are the odds of 
someone finding it by accident?

Personally, if I was a) interested in keeping a low profile and b) did 
not care if the mission took a few centures (we may have cheap immortality
BEFORE we have practical STL travel, via genetic engineering, etc.) I
would do it something like this...    

Use a B11-H or D-He3 fusion-powered spacecraft, a two-stage vehicle.  It
would, according to what we know, be able to reach about .03 c.  This means
if we launch it from A. Centauri to Sol, it takes 120-150 years to get
there.  We aim it at a location about 100 AU from Sol, off the ecliptic,
and then let it slowly "fall" into the system.  The "second stage" is
disguised to look like a small asteroid.  It is equipped with a powerful
laser for sending data back to its home solar system; it only uses this
when it is more than a few AU from Earth, so no one will notice.  The
spacecraft also comes with a whole fleet of small, robotic probes that
it can send to various locations in the solar system.  Better, yet, if
we really do not mind waiting for information, send a self-replicating
robot factory that can build as many new probes as it wants, let it 
settle out at Vesta or Ceres, build a big laser communication system 
on the starside of the asteroid, and start sending probes and processing
data.  

(Technical note: the .03 c is assuming a specific impulse of 1,000,000,
and a full load-empty load mass ratio of 3-1 for each stage, and that stage
one is a terminal acceleration and stage two a terminal deceleration with
a little left over for mid-course corrections, moving around the solar
system, etc.  The specific impulse of 1,000,000 is high, but people like
Dyson and the BIS seem to think it can be done, and they know a lot more
about it than I do.)
From: lever@voyager.corp.sgi.com (Karen Lever)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Free Classes in Tantric Meditation
Keywords: consciousness, meditation, Enlightenment
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:46:24 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Originator: root@voyager.corp.sgi.com

Free intensive workshops will be offered in the Bay Area:

Stanford University                       U.C. Berkeley
    Thursday, July 30                         Monday, August 3
    Thursday, August 6                        


Topics include: Meditation, Buddhism, Power, Balance, Wisdom,
Enlightenment, Personal Happiness, Reincarnation, Career Success
and Miracles.  Classes consist of discussion and meditation, 
and are designed for individuals age 29 and under. 

Stanford classes will be held in the Escondido Village Center 
(next to the E.V. office), from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

U.C. Berkeley classes will be held in Wheeler Hall, Room 223,
from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Additional classes will be offered in the Bay Area this summer
and fall.  For information, please call 415-995-4721.