HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:45:30 GMT
	<1992Oct3.202559.4583@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<BCR.92Oct4122950@hpl3sn02.cern.ch>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In article <1992Oct3.202559.4583@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
phillber@nyx.cs.du.edu (Pelle Hillberg) writes:
>  Well, K Eric Drexler's proposal in "Engines of Creation" of hires screens
>  that project different images to each eye seems the most viable to me.

Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.science: 4-Oct-92 Re: 3D-TV. How would
you do.. Bill Riemers@cernapo.cer (1033)

> Seriously, I have a hard time believing this method could ever go beyond
> the same stage as 3D glasses.  Why?  Because, this method must seem like
> 3D, but your mind must know it isn't.  I only have one eye and have no
> problem telling if something is 2D or 3D.  Holograms are 3D, pictures
> and movies are 2D...  So, I'm sure that people with two eyes don't
completely loss this ability and rely completely on paralax.  

Human depth perception relies on three factors: depth of focus (not
terribly important), parallax caused by moving the head, and parallax
between the two eyes. 3D glasses, and the separate-eye-screen trick,
utilize the third factor only; holograms use all three. You presumably
are relying on the first two.

However, the third really does predominate in two-eyed people. Even if
you are allowed to move your head a little -- the objects seem to slide
back and forth, but the 3D illusion is maintained. It's not a perfect
illusion; you can tell it's a stereo effect. But it's quite good enough
for a 3D TV or computer display. I mean, we're willing to accept a
blurry, vibrating, color-distorted 640-by-480 television display as Real
Life, right?

--Z


"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3035 rec.arts.startrek.tech:5124
From: randall-joshua@CS.YALE.EDU (Joshua Randall)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:29:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

In article <66740@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
[stuff deleted]

>Second, consider taking a ride, late at night.  There aren't many passengers.
>The operators are bored, and perhaps inclined to experiment.  They might do
>fun things like turn off the atomizer and, er, "play" with the passengers
>after the scan is done.  As long as they kill and atomize them eventually,
>whose to know?
>
>--Tim Smith

Yikes.  Raises various interesting and nasty possibilities, such as the
operators raping female scanees, or torturing them, or whatever.  Then what
if one of the operators can't live with the guilt and spills his guts?  Can
the scanee have him arrested for rape?  Or does it not count becuase that
particular body no longer exists?


-- 
Joshua E. Randall			randall-joshua@minerva.cis.yale.edu
From: young@wattle.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Constant mutations
Keywords: Hello
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:06:05 GMT
Organization: Data General Australia

In article <ins450m.718302191@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au>, ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles) writes:
|> 
|> Or to put it another way, what's to stop a species of ape making the
|> same changes as exist in our past, and head towards a homo-sapiens
|> species.....
|> 

Two things:

1) Our common precursor no longer exists (as far as I know), so any mutations 
   will come from existing stock, leading to different species, not another 
   flavour of human.
2) Self-interest.  Any competition for land-based resources will be nuked on 
   sight.  

-- 
Philip R. Young                   | Definitely my own opinions, but they are 
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.  | public domain, so feel free to adopt them.
From: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 15:59:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



>It is written in <yh8qb90r@cck.coventry.ac.uk> that mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru) said:
>>guru sez:
>>	Those are just my thoughts. Anybody else got any ideas/information
>>	on current research in the field?

I recall reading in Popular Science over a year ago about a 3-D CAD display that
used a spinning mirror. 

The mirror was set at a 45 degree angle, and spun VERY fast in an evacuated
dome. A laser was used to "draw" on the mirror, resulting in a 'true' 3D image.


I think it would be more likely, though, that the 3D system would use glasses 
that alternately 'black out' lenses through use of LCDs. All it would require
is a receiver in the glasses to sync to the "3-V" set. This is possible with
today's technology.

-- 
 Joe Ellis  o/~ The Synthetic Filker o/~    |     TesserAct Studios
     Internet:   usr6184a@tso.uc.edu        |       P.O. Box 18577
        GEnie:   J.ELLIS22                  |     Fairfield, OH 45018
    All filked up and no place to sing!     |   New Dimensions In Filk!
From: burns@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jonathan Burns)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:56:28 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

In article <1992Sep24.212743.422@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
 omjb1@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Matthew Bauder) writes:

> Most of the stuff I've read in _Analog_ or _IASFM_ are based somewhat with
> the VR (virtual reality) or nanotech science.  These scientific "themes", for
> lack of a better word, seem to keep popping up.

> What other futuristic science themes do you see coming this way?

Brain stuff.

I always liked the bit in Vernor Vinge's _True Names_, when Debbie/
Erythrina is discovered to be an acute woman of 80 years age. She
suffers from frequent memory lapses, _but her computer keeps a cache
of her short-term memory_, and kick-starts her attention.

What may be coming in:

(1) Detailed knowledge of the hormonal dynamics of the brain. Memory
print chemistry, regulating the natural print agents (endorphins?)
and counterfeiting their functions. Discovery of the proximate causes
of sleep, and whether our wayward sleep cycles are harmful. Lucid
dream agents? Control of addictions? New addictions?

(2) A wealth of metaphors coming into neurological theory from neural
network research. Is attention subject to entropy? Is recall subject
to traffic jams? Given that eidetic memory is possible, what usually
prevents it? Accurate diagnosis of dislexia, digraphia?

(3) Specific controllers for brain regions. Is it true that the
reticular activating formation is The switch in hypnosis? Can we
hallucinate on command, and can the hallucinations be directed?
What is free will in neural terms, and can it be invoked?

(4) Mapping of the attractors in behaviour. Are we addicted to being
who we are? Would it do us any good to disrupt the attractors?
Can we change gender?

(5) Can we regress, to past episodes? Can we do what the psychotherapists
hoped, revive traumas and reevaluate them from a mature viewpoint? Can
we invoke the mature viewpoint?

(6) Biofeedback and psychosomatics are low-key at present. But the brain
remains a potent regulator of bodily functions, including healing,
weight, muscle formation.

(7) If us, then why not other high mammals? Can gorillas speak?
Can dogs drive cars? Whales dig astronomy?

Lotta damn weird stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Burns        | He'd buy turtles, and afix jewels to their backs.
burns@latcs1.lat.oz.au| Then he'd sit up smoking hashish, and watch the
Computer Science Dept | turtles crawl around on his Persian rugs.  We should
La Trobe University   | all go home and do this.     - Terence McKenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:01:27 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <81022@ut-emx.uucp> vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu (Vadim S. Kaplunovsky) writes:
|
|Among the unusual approaches to equilibrium StatMech is to start in some
|simple but out-of-equilibrium state, and then let the system's own dynamics
|drive it to equilibrium.  Mathematically, this introduces the auxiliary
|time-like variable that describes the system's evolution; it's usually
|called the auxiliary time or the Langevin time ...
|
|From the QFT poin of view, the Langevin time has nothing to do with the
|usual Minkowski time or its Euclidean counterpart.  Instead, it acts
|precisely like the hyper-time that Ray and Mark talk about ...
|
| I can only speculate.
|
|Speculation #1:  Wormholes do not preclude equilibrium.
|In this case, the history hyper-eveolves to a configuration in which
|time travel is possible, but everything you do in the past is already
|part of your own history.  That is, if you own history includes a grandfather
|who was shot, you can go back in time and become the person who shot him.
|If he wasn't shot before you plunge down the wormhole, you are doomed to
|miss.

I once read an article where a researcher modeled a simle worm-hole +
particle system using the above described approach.

He started with two ends of a wormhole, introduced a time lag between them
(in theory by accelerating one teminus to relativistic speeds).

Now, for th emeat of the "thought experiment" he introduced a particle (say
an electron) into the 'forward' terminus of the wormhole on a trajectory
such that when it came out of the 'back' end it would be aimed to knock
itself away from the forward end (thus, in essence, setting up the minimal
version grandfather paradox with a single electron).

When he 'aged' the system in Langevin time, it reached a *stable* equilibrium.
In this state the particle knocked itself *just* enough to alter its outbound
trajectory so that it knocked itself that far off course.  (Eccch - hard to
say that in English).  Thus, it caused its own deflection to the exact
degree necessary to cause the proper deflection.

If this result is typical, rather than a special case, then the 'consistant
past' version of time travel is possible, and the normal result.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Constant mutations
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 14:27:16 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: Hello

In article <ins450m.718302191@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles) writes:
>I was wondering - its often assumed that (well, to my eyes anyway :-)
>once a mutation is made, then that same muation will not crop up again,
>especially in relation to humans.
>What is the 'chance' (as a generality, not a compuation) that a 
>set of genes will change slightly to produce a blue-eyed baby from
>two double-brown eyed parents (and how many paternity suits....hmmm :))
>
>Or to put it another way, what's to stop a species of ape making the
>same changes as exist in our past, and head towards a homo-sapiens
>species.....
>
>
>Eccles

 Well, there would have to be a benefit to the mutation, or it wouldn't be
selected for. I think the intelligent-primate niche is pretty well full
right now. I suppose there's room for intelligent water-dwelling beasties,
but the dolphins etc. might well already be doing that.

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu
 
 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....) 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 03:44:13 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep26.072339.4734@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>In article <Vxy-Vv+@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
>writes: 
>> Yup. You're right. Time exists before and after. The same as space
>>exists both inside and outside a well. Naetheless, there are things
>>like boundaries. One can look at things in such a way that knowing
>>something about the future establishes a constraint on the path history
>>will take.
>
>Naetheanyhow, you have causal coupling between the outside of the loop and the
>inside, whereas your idealized quatum well exists in splendid isolation.  With
>nontrivial boundary conditions, the question about the existence of a
>solution becomes slightly complicated...

 You can set some pretty nontrivial boundary conditions up in, say, an
e-mag experiment, but Mom Nature always seems to come up with a solution
to the field equations... it's only in thought-experiments that insoluble
situations occur.
 Mind you, maybe you *can* make paradoxes and the universe will collapse
(will have collapsed, will have been collapsing) like a popped soap
bubble the first time someone jumps in a time machine. But we can see
in other areas that consistent solutions are always reached by nature...
why not here? :->

>>In article <1992Sep25.063711.1666@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
>>rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: 
>>>That's my whole point: where's the proof that inconsistencies are indeed
>>>forbidden?  
>>
>> Uh, well, actually, it was an *assumption* and labeled as such at the
>>start of this thread... I have been attempting to show that this is
>>logically consistent and then exploring the consequences...
>
>Oops, lost track of the past there.  :-)  That explains the confusion: you are
>assuming the existence of solutions, and I'm trying to prove that without that
>assumption they need not exist.  
>
>Anyhow, proving that it's logically consistent seems a bit moot: you've pretty
>much covered that in your assumption...

 Boy, I'm setting records for expressing myself badly these days...:->
 What I meant was that there is no _a_priori_ reason to think this unlikely,
save our own habitual notions of time (which weren't evolved to handle
time travel anyway). Nor any reason to consider it likely, of course, but then
we won't know until the first time machine is built...
 (oh, okay, maybe before, this is a time machine...:-> )

>SR


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3065 alt.cyberpunk.tech:713
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Re: Time Travel & Teleportation in Cyberspace
Summary: Cyberspace=consensual
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:52:02 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ


The problem with time travel in cyberspace (aside from 
the obvious hardware capability limitations) is that,
at least in the stories I have read, the matrix is
a consensual hallucination, that is, it is literally
created by thousands of users and computer systems.
You could certainly, as a self-aware program, record
the state of cyberspace at any moment, given enough
computing power, and you could even put yourself into
that representation, and you could even say that it was
just as real as "ordinary" cyberspace, but the other users
would not be affected.  You would be in a solipsist (sp?)
cyberuniverse, where you could run rampant if you wished,
but it would have no effect on the "real" world.  An interesting
story hook could involve a fellow who could not only record
cyberspace at any moment, but people's actions over, say
fifteen minutes of net-time.  Then he could experience those
fifteen minutes over and over again, changing his own
part as many times as he liked.

	Yours,
	Jason
	The Chrome Burned For You Society
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:25:56 GMT

mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru) writes:

>guru sez:
>  I thought the HGP had run into hot water because the main guys behind
>  it had fallen out out some petty matter, as scientists tend to do.

Don't worry, there are plenty other researchers working on the HGP (Human
Genome Project).

>  Whatever does come out of it, I'd hate to be caught up trying to 
>  decide for real what should be done with the knowledge.

Just to keep everything in perspective, I'd like to point out that we
do have plenty of time to think about it.  You see, the HGP researchers
are not trying to figure out what all the genes do, they're just trying
to list all the base-pair sequences.  In other words, when they're done,
all they'll have is a sequence of letters.  They won't have any idea
what any of them do.

In order to discover the functions of each gene, they will have to
individually sequence the genomes of millions of humans, cross-referencing
the data with every personal characteristic you could think of.  That will
take decades.  Plus, since the genomes of all humans are identical in
something like 98% of the base pairs, the researchers will also have to
sequence the genomes of all kinds of other organisms for comparison.

So, you see, there is plenty of time to figure out what to do with
the knowledge.  (Of course, there is no guarantee that we will spend
that time actually thinking about it.  My guess is we won't, and won't
we all be surprised when the time comes for making decisions and we
have no idea what to do?  :^( )

>  [....]
>  As soon as you start getting involved in "selecting" for specific
>  properties, you hit very shaky ground, and the argument between those
>  who do and don't want to will big the biggest and bloodiest ever seen,
>  IMHO.

I totally agree.
-- 
___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________

"S.E.T.E.C. : Special Extra-Terrestrial Earthling Counter"
"A turnip cures Elvis = Universal Studios"                -- from "Sneakers"
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....)
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:50:39 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada

In article <1992Sep26.072339.4734@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>That explains the confusion: you are
>assuming the existence of solutions, and I'm trying to prove that without that
>assumption they need not exist.  
>
>SR
>---

Solutions certainly do exist under QM; the vast majority of them
may involve your time telephone not working.  From the
macro point of view, QM disallows very little from happening
(however, QM may assign only infinitesmal probabilities to
bizarre macro-events).

Allowing probabilistic interpretations of QM, you would want to
arrange conditions such that you have a much higher probability
of getting something useful from your time telephone than you
do of the time telephone failing.

That's why I like a guess-and-confirm system for answering
questions.  For example, hook your computer up to a
random number generator based upon atomic decay (for guessing)
and a time telephone (for confirming).  To win your favourite
pick-your-own-numbers lottery, your computer also needs 
automatic access to the results from some reliable source.

Program the computer to receive a YES/NO signal at 1pm from
the time telephone, and read a random number at 2pm.
from the random number generator.  Buy a lottery ticket
with that number and go away until 8pm (avoid hearing the
results).

The lottery is at 6pm.
At 7pm your computer reads the lottery result.  If
the random number was not a winner and it received a
YES signal, then it sends a NO signal.  If the random
number was not a winner and it received a NO signal,
then it sends a YES signal.  If the random number
was a winner, it arbitrarily sends a YES signal.

The most likely consistent solutions involve either a hardware failure
or the atomic decay having provided the winning number.

The odds of a hardware failure are much lower than the odds
of a correct guess.  In all likelihood, you hold a winning
ticket.
-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3079 alt.cyberpunk.tech:717
From: moon!cyberden!hughmann@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Re: Time Travel & Teleportation in Cyberspace
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 17:35:56 PDT
Organization: Indescribable Creations

I don't think time could be thought of as running backward, just as you 
can't really travel "backward" in the first three dimensions.  Any 
direction you go is positive motion.

Hugh Mann

__________________________________________________________________________
   |       /         |\
   | H E   \ Y B E R |/ E N       [ moon!cyberden!hughmann@well.sf.ca.us ]
From: agae@larch.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:58:56 GMT
Reply-To: agae@larch.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


  Hans Bethe in his book _The Road to Los Alamos_ (which is a collection
of popular articles on a wide range of topics) has written an article
with a detailed calculation easy enough to follow for the non-expert about
a hypothetical atmospheric chain reaction. I believe that this article
was written around the same time that the Trinity test was done. Of course
Bethe concluded that a runaway atmospheric reaction was factually impossible.

Andres C. Gaeris
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: myboy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lewis Murtaugh)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality and Nanotechnology
Keywords: VR, Nanotech
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.212743.422@pool.info.sunyit.edu> omjb1@pool.info.sunyit.edu (Matthew Bauder) writes:
>Okay.  Possibly, these topics have been driven deep into the ground by past
>discussions, but I missed them...so....
>
>Most of the stuff I've read in _Analog_ or _IASFM_ are based somewhat with
>the VR (virtual reality) or nanotech science.  These scientific "themes", for
>lack of a better word, seem to keep popping up.
>
>Rather than discuss these topics all over again, my question to the net is:
>
>What other futuristic science themes do you see coming this way?
>
>I'm talking "very probable/possible" science.  Not ringworlds, gravity
>generators, or even FTL travel.  I'm talking optical computing, upcoming
>changes in scientific paradigms, etc.
>
>What would be the impact of these changes on our society?
>
>I imagine the editors of the SF mags are beginning to tire of VR and nanotech
>stories.  I'm wondering what's next.  Any ideas?
>
>
In a word -- biotechnology.

The Human Genome Project is chugging along, gaining speed as advances come
down the pike.  There will be payoffs.  At first just new drugs and new
diagnostic tools, then (mark my word) the eugenics debate will reappear as it
becomes easier to plot unborn children's genetic history.  Eventually
something bad will result from this.

Beyond that, it may become possible to *alter* your child's gene's in utero,
fixing bad alleles, etc.  Then people might start adding entirely new genes,
and developing better vectors (e.g. viruses that "turn off" after a certain
number of rounds of reproduction) that allow them to alter their own genes, at
any stage in their lives.

New crops, new livestock, new medicines, new bacteria (some productive and
useful, some pathogenic).

Biotech will be much bigger than either VR or nanotech (which is basically a
joke and will continue to be for long after we're dead).

--
Charles Murtaugh
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3043 rec.arts.startrek.tech:5131