HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fkilpatr@afit.af.mil (Freeman A. Kilpatrick)
Subject: Re: Borg Scout Ship
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:28:27 GMT

sberger@sedona.intel.com (Scott Berger) writes:


>In article <92252.214723KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, KELSEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep8.232554.14129@unislc.uucp>, zzekka@unislc.uucp (Zeke Zecca)
>> says:
>> >
>> Now, it strikes me that a ship 100 m on a side is a bit roomy for only
>> five Borg, but maybe there were many more inside, though we have no
>> evidence of that.

>	Yes we do. Remember that Hugh's Borg identification was
>"third of five", before Geordi renamed him.

Well, ignoring the obvious difficulties with such a general identification, he
could have been third of five of the engineering team, or third of five pilots, or
... Actually, it would make more sense for him to have an identification like:
B45FCE4.  But it wouldn't have been as entertaining.


ak
-- 
Alex Kilpatrick  fkilpatr@afit.af.mil  
"Where the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." 
---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
From: artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: SPOILER!!! holding someone in transport
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:51:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: bert.1992Sep4.215110.26065
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

00bwanderson@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

>Scotty coming aboard the Enterprise D.  The current explaination of HOW he gets
>there is that he's been trapped in transport for ~75 years.  What is the
>likelyhood of this happening?  I guess I should say, wouldn't there be some
>problems, such as signal degredation, or computer memory failure or a power
>failure (I mean, how long can a ship's batteries maintain minimal life-support
>*AND* hold a person in transit?), so *SOME*thing.
	Perhaps transport occurs at light speed, and he was transported to, say,
Earth from, say 300 light years away.  The Enterprise is going to intercept his
signal.  What about "transport locking on" stuff - normally transport occurs 
with major error checking, sort of like Xmodem - perhaps it was an emergency
situation, and it was "beam in a predetermined direction, preceded by a
subspace message, or die."  It's taken 75 years to figure out how to reliably
reconstruct the original signal.
					sm
-- 
--
Stephan Meyers | artn@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu
(Art)^n Laboratories, inventors of the Stealth Negative PHSCologram
(312) 567-3762
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Question about communicators
Date: 5 Sep 1992 04:57:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <92248.140000ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
}This computer first reads the infra-red print on the finger when the officer
}taps his communicator then listens to here who the person wants to contact.
}In a milli-second the computer routes the communication to the intended
}party and plays back the begining of the message. Simple ay?

Yeah, except for the countless times they don't bother to tap their
communicator.  More likely each crew member has their name already
coded in, so the computer just reads that to find out who's making
the request.  Or if you want to get fancy, the computer is able to
make a voice identification of who's making the request.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: rpascazi@engws9.ic.sunysb.edu (Robert R Pascazio)
Subject: Re: Question about communicators
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:02:27 GMT

In article <189enuINNcg0@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
>In article <92248.140000ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <ACS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>}This computer first reads the infra-red print on the finger when the officer
>}taps his communicator then listens to here who the person wants to contact.
>}In a milli-second the computer routes the communication to the intended
>}party and plays back the begining of the message. Simple ay?
>
>Yeah, except for the countless times they don't bother to tap their
>communicator.  More likely each crew member has their name already
>coded in, so the computer just reads that to find out who's making
>the request.  Or if you want to get fancy, the computer is able to
>make a voice identification of who's making the request.

The communicator/computer might keep track of eveyone who is in the room.
If a name is called out (ex. RIKER to ????) If ???? is not in the same
room the computer probably figures a subspace link should be setup. If
this is the technology, I'm sure it is a popular party joke in 10 forward
to try to stand outside the lounge and get a neat echo effect. ;-)

                                                          -Rob-
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
_|____|____|____|____|     RPASCAZI@SBCCVM.BITNET  __|____|____|____|____|___
____|____|____|__     RPASCAZI@LIBFS1.IC.SUNYSB.EDU   ___|____|____|____|____
_|____|____|____|_        N.Y. State University at     ___|____|____|____|___
____|____|____|____|           Stony Brook            _|____|____|____|____|_
_|____|____|____|____|_ (516)632-3710  (914)754-7222 |____|____|____|____|___
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chem8w@rosie.uh.edu (Norby)
Subject: Re: Binars and the Borg 
Summary:  There's a difference...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.023716.18498@admiral.uucp>, dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman) writes...
>Well, since everyone seems to want to talk about the Binars just recently,
>here's a thought which has been plaguing my mind for a while.
> 
>Has anyone noticed the similarities between the Binars and the Borg? Both live
>in a symbiotic relationship with a computer network, and both are dependent upon
>said network (but then again, that's what symbiotic means).
> 
>Why did the Borg 'go bad,' as it were, while the Binars were able to control
>their system? Maybe the Federation should send a shipload of Binars after the
>Borg, after all, they can relate to them! Who knows better how to annoy a
>computer-dependent lifeform than another computer-dependent lifeform?
> 
> 
>-- 

It seems to me there is a major difference between the Borg and the Binars.
The Binars are humanoids that are for the most part, individuals. (Except it
would seem they are always in pairs...)  They have a symbiotic relationship
with their central computer, which they can not live without.

On the other hand, the Borg are humanoid/computer -- Cyborgs (I think someone
picked a painfully obvious name for the race.)  They are basically one mind
and do not depend on their computer, rather they ARE the computer.

Daniel Ratzlaff  (Norby)
Chem8W@Jetson.UH.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:03:41 GMT

cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144) writes:

>> I was wondering what the significance was of the binary number 11001001 on
>> the episode "11001001".  Any CS major will tell you that this number equals
>> 201 in ordinary decimal.  
>>
>> In the story, Picard and William are frantically trying to guess the
>> filename to restore the binar's main computer and Picard points at the 
>> unconscious Binars and says "Would they have kept it *that* simple?"
>> Well I was expecting him to guess "four" as in the number of binars 
>> laying on the floor (00000100 in an eight digit binary or byte) but then
>> they come up with 201? what the hell?
>> Any ideas, is it really simple?

>One of the binars was named 11 his partner 00. Another binar was named
>10 and his partner 01. Makes sense to me!

>11001001

Right, but then it could have also been--  10011100, did they just guess the
one by chance (50/50)?  I still think it would have been better if they were
going to use their names to have them lay down in a line against the wall 
instead of in a bunch--->   11    00    10    01

or use my idea of using the byte representing the number of binars--> 4 or 
00000100

Mark
--
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Subject: That nagging warp scale problem
Organization: University of B.C. Computing Services
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:33:42 GMT

 Every now and then someone (it was on one occasion me) brings up
 the embarassing problem that neither the original nor the NG
 version of the warp-vs-velocity scale results in actually getting
 very far in the elapsed times portrayed by the episodes.
 
 I have a modest proposal, based on working back from the desired
 result, which I set arbitrarily at travelling 100 light years in
 a day; set the speed at the fifth power of the warp factor.
 Warp 8 and a bit is then enough.  And warp 15, which has just been
 mentioned as the speed of a subspace beam, will get you 2080 ly/day,
 or a hundred light years in about an hour.  Travelling across the
 galaxy is still a long adventure of a few years, however.  Well,
 maybe we could try speed = c * 10**(wf-1); that gets you light
 speed at warp 1, Alpha Centauri in a day and a half at warp 4,
 the galactic center in about a day at warp 8, and three million
 ly/sec for subspace communications.
From: petitc@nuge114.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: 'The Next Phase' Question
Reply-To: petitc@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:42:40 GMT

In article <e3PqqB1w164w@waffle.sns.com>, hank@waffle.sns.com (hankdtank) writes:
|> I am new to this news group, so this question probably has been answered 
|> thousands of times... heck, I don't even care for an answer, but...
|>  
|> In TNG episode 'The Next Phase,' how come Geordi and Ro are able to pass 
|> through everything, yet they can't go through floors?  You would think that 
|> when Ro was running, the stomping of her feet would cause something to 
|> happen.

  Well, the reason could be that the graviton polarity generators which
produce the artificial gravity for the ship also produce intense E-M fields,
if you are extremely close to them.  Since they are right under the floors,
the fields keep Geordi and Ro from falling through.  But, since they aren't in
the walls, they can pass through them.

-- 
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)




Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: relative speed
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 20:21:35 GMT

Your question was, essentially, what happens if two starships race back-to-
back.

First, Warp 10 in the OLD series was not an absolute speed limit, just
bloody fast and beyond the then-current Fed's technologies.

I forget the exact conversion factors, but Special Relativity
does NOT repeat NOT apply in subspace.

Second, Warp 10 in the New series IS an absolute speed limit, analagous
to c in our ordinary, humdrum real space.  You can get as close
as you want, but never actually there.  Sure, you could have
a single starship moving (with respect to a "fixed" object like
a sun, or a pulsar configuration) as fast as the relative speed
between the two other vessels;  it's just a matter of power
and technology available.

- JWL IV
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Satalite uplink dates
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:24:59 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep14.004609.14853@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> crow@coos.dartmouth.edu (Preston F. Crow) writes:
<
<I've noticed that many stations are now showing re-runs of previous seasons.
<I suspect that these are not sent to the stations via satellite due to the
<cost, though I'm not certain.

A few stations have been airing the repeats for about three years now.  During
the summer, after a season is finished, Paramount does a whole run of the
shows without commercials.

Our local station uses the original first run tapes, since it is cheaper.
-- 
      harvard\                          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
From: ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:19:06 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

In article <1992Sep4.205359.16179@leland.Stanford.EDU>, fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:
> 
> We've seen that a cloaked vessel is sensitive to a photon torpedo
> blast, and probably a phaser hit (I think I've seen that, but I
> don't remember where);  what would happen if someone fires
> a megawatt laser (nothing fancy, and in fact something we can build
> today) at it for a couple of minutes?
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> - JWL IV

The photon torpedo blast you're referring to is from Redemption II, and in
their usual way with TNG, clouded what was happening with huge amounts of
treknobabble.  I'm just repeating what the show did and its not like I
completely understand (from an accurate scientific picture) what was being
said.

Data was able to detect the Romulans because the entire region of space was
flooded with tachyon particles.  By firing photon torpedos set to wide
dispersal patterns in the general direction of the Romulans caused the tachyon
particles to be (somehow) additionally excited where they would indicate the
presence of foreign bodies, namely the Romulan ships.  Pretty much, I believe
this to be a variation of Kirk's idea from TOS's Balance of Terror episode:
"even an invisible object, when it passes through a particle stream will
momentarily be visible."  In this case, the tachyons were induced to become
visible or at least, detectable.

Considering what happened in both ST:tSfS & ST:TUC, a cloaked vessel, if you
can score a direct hit, will immediately be visible/locatable.  It does not
matter what kind of weapon one uses to turn off the cloak (for that matter, a
4-D cell flashlight may be sufficient :-).  However, its that direct hit
that's the tricky part.  If you knew where to shoot, there isn't any problem.
So a megawatt laser may be sufficient, but you'll have to sweep lots of space
very quickly, trying to find a moving target that is relatively far away
and occupies a very tiny arc of your point of view.

Those are my thoughts.
-- 
when everyone is out to get you, being paranoid is just good thinking.
         - Dr. Johnny Fever <in other words, standard disclaimer>
A.J. Madison                                           ajm@sequoia.com
Sequoia Systems Inc.
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin Paradox
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:22:49 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:

> Does this have anything to do with the fact that it is inherently
> impossible for a 1g acceleration to continue indefinitely because
> velocity can never increase beyond c? Or am I forgetting something
> having to do with how the acceleration is perceived by the person
> accelerating?

No, it's possible to maintain one gee acceleration _in your frame of 
reference_ indefinitely.  You'll find that while he feels like he's still 
accelerating at one gee, his actual acceleration has dropped.  This is 
because as he gets faster and faster, when he tries to speed up 
(accelerates), more and more of this acceleration is going into 
increasing the mass of his ship instead of actually increasing the speed 
of the vessel.  However, the faster and faster that you go, the more and 
more time dilation takes effect.  This is what would allow you to get to 
the Core of our Galaxy in 21 years shiptime at one gee constant 
acceleration; but the people you left behind would measure it more like 
30 000 years.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ueh@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Eric Hausgaard)
Subject: Satalite uplink dates
Organization: State University of New York -- Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:16:04 GMT

 Does anyone know when Fox broadcasting uplinks ST:TNG (Sundays, I think)
And do you know what satalite and channel.
I want to see if I can catch it for a class....
L8R
Eric H

-- 
  You don't really believe in humans, DO you?? 
   "The closer to the solution, The more problems occur"   
   It is Eleven O'Clock....Do you know what Time it is??    
    All Flames/E-mail to ueh@sunyit.edu until I graduate....
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:49:22 GMT
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Cloaked ships can not be shielded, so a direct hit would cause serious damage
and probably render the cloaking system inactive (as in TUC).
In Redemption II Data was not attempting to destroy the Romulan ships,
just prove that they were there, so they would leave.
His torpedo blast produced an area affect that revealed all three ships.
It did not hit any of them directly.

As to the utility of a megawatt laser, its clear that a cloaked ship can
divert/bend a certain amount of EM radiation.  A large laser would need a
long dwell time to overcome the cloak and short it out (or whatever)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: Subspace Theory 101
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 20:47:29 GMT

In article <92Sep08.161509.30158@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:

>Question: Why is causality violation a bad thing? Its screws
>bigtime with our observations of the universe (relativity tends
>to do that for most people anyway ;-) but does it cause any
>spacetime shattering problems?
>
>In SF I prefer just to ignore it and hope it goes away. But that
>doesn't mean we can't try to explain it.
>
>Joshua

Answer:  Causality violation is such a bad thing because it upsets our
ordinary expectations about what the universe is like,  Fr'instance,
we expect that someone HAS to pull a trigger of a gun before someone
else doubles over, shot, for instance.  We don't LIKE the idea that
someone doubling over, shot, causes someone to pull a trigger - 
but there's nothing in physics I've yet encountered that says
time flow must have a definite direction.  As to the
irreversible process theories of statistical mechanics and 
thermodynamics . . . well, stat mech theories ARE approximations
made to simplify some pretty messy math, and thermo grew out
of a body of empirical observations, which happened not to include
any non-causal processes.

In short, the only thing which says causality is correct is
our own body of observational evidence, which though large
is by no means definitive or conclusive.  Causality violation
is only "bad" because it would make the universe a harder place
to live in / figure out / more interesting place to live in.

- JWL IV

From: mhampsch@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Mark Hampsch)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:53:21 GMT
Subject: Re: The Next Phase: Question
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech

If Geordie(sp!) an Ro can walk through walls and equipment,  What keeps them
from falling through the floor?  



Mark
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Cloaking Top Ten
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:34:53 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>Top Ten reasons why the Federation doesn't use cloaking devices:

I like Patrick Stewart's reason: He's looked all over the bridge and
he can't find a button that says "cloak."
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | I was a rutabaga in a former life.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek:14996 alt.feminism:1088
From: charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:54:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: zip.1992Sep13.145436.26791
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <1992Sep11.160930.14815@newstand.syr.edu> jfbrule@npac.syr.edu (J F Brule) writes:
>Even more to the issue, there was an episode where Beverly falls in love 
>with a (presumed) man. It turns out the male body is just a host, and when
>it dies, it's "replaced" with a female body. The '"person" inside is still
>very much in love with Beverly, who can't get past her homophobia to
>have a relationship with hir.                          ^^^^^^^^^^

It didn't seem to me that Beverly was homophobic.  She was more xenophobic.
She actually said the couldn't take the body switching all the time, not
the fact that the latest body was human. I mean, what if the next body
was a six year old boy?

- chuck


-- 
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect, had intended for us to forgo their use." - Galileo
"I'm an engineer, not a dictionary!" - Me
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek,alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:21:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.160930.14815@newstand.syr.edu> jfbrule@npac.syr.edu (J F Brule) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.161807.27749@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>>ljf writes:
>>
>>> Nothing to do with feminism, but this is alt.feminism.  :)  The one
>>> thing Roddenberry didn't seem open to is including lesbigay people in
>>> the series.  I can understand that for the original, but not ST:TNG.
>>
>>They did do an episode on homosexuality.  It had some problems (IMO).
>>A brief plot outline - there is a planet where having a gender identity
>>is looked on as an illness...  
>
>Even more to the issue, there was an episode where Beverly falls in love 
>with a (presumed) man. It turns out the male body is just a host, and when
>it dies, it's "replaced" with a female body. The '"person" inside is still
>very much in love with Beverly, who can't get past her homophobia to
>have a relationship with hir.
>
>I thought =that= episode, in which Beverly was seen not as right in her
>refusal, but limited, was quite well done...
>
> ~~~Jim

Jim-

     I could be wrong about this but I believe the suffix "phobia" means to
have a "fear or loathing of:".  I also believe "loathing" means to have
a strong distaste/hate.  I watched the same episode of STTNG where DR Crusher
falls in love with the "sentient parasite".  At the end I didnt get the
impression that she "hated or feared" her lover in the new female body.
  My impression was she still loved the thing but found herself to be 
heterosexual, which would make having a physical aspect to her relationship
with the "parasite" imcompatiable with who she was.  I felt she looked at
the possibilities with an open mind and parted as close friends.

    I hate to nit pick, which I just did, but I felt the term homophobia
was improper for the situation you described.

Steve R

Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA