HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevev@miser.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Handicapped in Star Trek TNG
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:57:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: miser.STEVEV.92Nov12235732
	<1992Nov11.234537.16156@cs.mun.ca>
Organization: University of Oregon Chemistry Stores

Although much of the ship, including the bridge, appears to be
fully wheelchair-accessible, the transporter pads don't appear to
be.  However, there is point-to-point intraship transport, so if
they don't have a folding ramp stashed in the closet you could
always get beamed on or off the pad.

Unfortunately we never get to see anyone demonstrating how much
of the ship is accessible.  I guess 24th century medicine is too
good.
--
Steve VanDevender 	stevev@greylady.uoregon.edu
"Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population.
Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the
classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gbsowrey@lambert.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: Klingon Home World???
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:59:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.175525.2671@bvc.edu>, meierdalepau@bvc.edu writes:
> 	We can only assume that the Klingons did indeed evacuate to another 
> star system several decades after STVI:TUC.  As for the different names, 
> "Klingon" comes from the Bantam Star Trek novels (I suspect).  IMO 
> the Bantams don't follow the characters and such as the Pocket Book ST novels 
> do.  As for Klinzhai and Kling, Klinzhai is what the Klingons call their 
> homeworld (I think the name is first mentioned in John M. Ford's Star Trek 
> novel "The Final Reflection") and Kling could be one of several things, 
> such as a slang term used by non-Klingons, the Klingon to English 
> translation of Klinzhai, or even just a cataloging error on the part of the 
> Federation's early survey teams.
> 
> Dale Meier

Okay, my turn! As far as I understand it (and I've tried to do my best -- I'm
a Klingon at heart), Klinzhai (as Dale previously mentioned) is the name for
the Klingon home world in the Klingon language. In Standard (the "official" 
language for the Federation), the name is Kling. The planet that blew up in
TUC was *not* Kling, but another colony of the Klingon Empire that was being
mined for *whatever*. It was the same practices that were leading to the 
slow destruction of Kling from the atmosphere down (or something like that,
I've only seen the movie once, so I have to go on what I've remembered -- I
need to wait for the price of the movie to drop a bit :^)

Geoff Sowrey, Son of Worf

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
From: rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.023154.15997@cs.mun.ca> joseph@odie.cs.mun.ca (Joseph Dawson) writes:
>Why is data so limited.  He shouldn't need a communicator.  He should
>have one built.  Data should be able to talk with the ship without
>talking out loud.  He could also have a phaser built in, and that is
>only a start.
> 
>What do you think?

Quite simply -- it would make him less human.
From: petitc@nuge114.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Holodeck Hijinx
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:01:50 GMT
Reply-To: petitc@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <1992Nov5.154252.26367@cci632.cci.com>, pjb@cci632.cci.com (Phil Busardo) writes:
|> In article <starman.03oy@crash.amigans.gen.nz> starman@crash.amigans.gen.nz (Robin Halligan) writes:
|> 
|> >:  *  If one were to have that many people residing in the holodeck at one
|> >:     time, someone would invariably need to go to the bathroom, which may
|> >:     or may not exist. (perhaps the holodeck could create one?)
|> 
|> If this were true, and you used the bathroom, what would be left after
|> an "End Program" was issued?!?!

  I believe that the Holodeck would immediately beam out the waste to the normal
waste-processing areas of the ship.  So, when an End Program was issued, if it
wasn't soon enough, you'd see nothing.  And if it was, you'd see the transporter
beam sucking the waste away.

-- 
Trust:  A very precious social commodity, due both to high value and terrible
scarcity.
MATWDTM:  Mothers Against Teenagers Who Drink Too Much (failed name for MADD)
From: cse0611@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Virtual Generation!!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:14:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

I don't seem to be getting much response from people about this
but here goes...
Has anyone heard much about the Virtual Reality (VR) centers that paramount
contracted Spectrum Holobyte to design for a Next Generation simulation 
that will be a 50 player simulation of the bridge, engineering and the
holodeck...supposedly these centers will debut in the next 1 or 2 years in your
neighborhood shopping mall, but after a call to Spectrum Holobyte they seem to
still be in the very early developmental stages...so if anyone has any thoughts
about this maybe we could organize and shape the future of entertainment!!!

Ken Runner
From: yossie@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Q
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:23:05 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Nov8.225148.12844@wuecl.wustl.edu> jhk1@cec1.wustl.edu (Jonathan Howard Krivitzky) writes:
>	Also, we have seen the shadow that seemed to be a superior to Q (as
>played by De Lancie(sp?)) - any guesses as to who that may be ---- or what?
>
>	--Jon K.

In TOS Catspaw, Silvia appeared, for a while, as the shadow of a LARGE Cat,
just a shadow - no source.

- Yossie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: 880840m@ace.acadiau.ca (MICHAEL ALEXANDER MCKAY)
Subject: Re: RE:  Orientation
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:32:11 GMT


Maybe the same scientific progress that reveals warp principles also reveals 
Cosmic Up. Spacecraft not oriented to Cosmic Up are considered to be 
committing a primitive faux pas.
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:10:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Nov5.013548.20625@cs.cornell.edu> glazer@cs.cornell.edu (Scott Glazer) writes:
>In article <18891@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> putzolu@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (David Putzolu) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct29.164021.26445@cs.cornell.edu> glazer@cs.cornell.edu (Scott Glazer) writes:
>>>In article <16896@mindlink.bc.ca> Jeff_Holinski@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeff Holinski) writes:
>>>As someone else a bit more sharp-witted than me pointed out, even artificial
>>>gravity probably falls short.  If:
>>>(a) the gravity generators generate your usual 1/r^2 field, and
>>>(b) they are more-or-less regularly spaced around the sphere, then:
>>
>>I think that assumption (a) really would have to be correct, otherwise
>>there would be lots of complications involving the ships of the
>>federation. If each and every one has a gravity field that (1) obeys
>>the 1/r^2 rule, and (2) can provide 1g of force (as what appears to
>>occur in the enterprise) then chaos would result whenever a Federation
>>ship approached another one. Ships passing anywhere near each other
>>would be pulled into each other, spacedocks would be thrown completely
>>out of orbit whenever a ship approached, shuttlecraft would have a
>>devil of a time approaching, etc. Basically, the gravity on the
>>enterprise probably follows a 1/r^3 or some such rule, and the same
>>probably holds true for a dyson sphere.
>>
>You mean assumption (a) is incorrect, I think, and you make a very good
>point.  Those grav fields around the enterprise clearly drop off *very*
>quickly.  I just hadn't thought of that.
>
>--Scott G

Sorry, but I disagree with r^-2 AND r^-3.  If either of these were the
case with deck-mounted generators, everyone would be walking around
like they were wearing magnetic boots, i.e. they'd have to yank their
feet from the deck, and their upper bodies would drift in low-G.  Any
sort of gymnastics would be next to impossible.  Tripping and falling
would likely be fatal.

I postulate instead a uniform graviton field, most likely between two
generator poles, much like the uniform electric field between the
plates of a parallel plate capacitor.  This wouldn't help much on a
Dyson sphere, because you'd need a double-walled shell to support the
upper poles of the graviton generator array.  However, if field
generators could be unipolar, with a remotely-induced counter field,
you could have a uniform grav field ending a specified distance above
the surface.  We know that graviton fields can be induced at a distance
(shields and deflectors do this, according to the Tech Manual), so
perhaps a variation of this scheme is at work on the Dyson sphere.

-- 
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jhk1@cec1.wustl.edu (Jonathan Howard Krivitzky)
Subject: Re: Scotty in Transport
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:06:24 GMT

In article <1dc2cmINNkr8@gambier.rick.cs.ubc.ca> w5y092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Todd Leroux) writes:
>In one TNG episode -- the one where Picard and a ?Tammarian? (you know,
>the dudes who talk in metaphors) are sent down
>to a planet to kill a monster -- Picard is beamed up just as he's about to
>strike the vicious beasty.  And he freezes in mid-swing.  That seems to be
>pretty strong evidence that people freeze during transport.  Unless of 
>course, episodes are non-canon.

He did not freeze in mid-swing, he simply stopped his attack volentarily.
The transporter has a confinment beam to prevent the transportee (is that a
word?) from accidently leaving the beam in mid-transport (lord knows what would
result from that!) but movement within the beam is possible - that is why
Picard screamed "NO!!" when O'Brian unsuccessfully tried to beam him up
when the Tammarian captain was being attacked.

	--Jon K.
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Holodeck Hijinx
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:50:01 GMT
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division

In article <1992Nov5.154252.26367@cci632.cci.com>, pjb@cci632.cci.com (Phil Busardo) writes:
> In article <starman.03oy@crash.amigans.gen.nz> starman@crash.amigans.gen.nz (Robin Halligan) writes:
> 
>>:  *  If one were to have that many people residing in the holodeck at one
>>:     time, someone would invariably need to go to the bathroom, which may
>>:     or may not exist. (perhaps the holodeck could create one?)
> 
> If this were true, and you used the bathroom, what would be left after
> an "End Program" was issued?!?!
-- 

You don't have to worry about that, the ship is *self-cleaning*.  :-)

 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *     Of course I speak for Fermilab, Congress and the President... NOT !!!
From: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Tom Thatcher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Rascals, Trek Reality Check...
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:20:17 GMT
Reply-To: smt1179@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <8NOV199200091413@rosie.uh.edu>, cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787) writes:
>Spoilers for those who haven't seen it :)
>
>Just in case...
>
>
>I am confused.  After watching Rascals I don't understand how the 
>*Enterprise-D* gets taken by two lowly Klingon Bird Of Preys.  
>
>Granted writers take lots of wild liberties, but this was too close
>to a turkey shoot for BOPs crewed by *gasp* Ferengi.  If the Ferengi
>are that good, or Starfleet training or tech is that bad, I think 
>someone better write an episode where the transporter system gets
>transformed into a all-powerful weapon.  Seems like their only chance :)
>
>Until the next Romulan Warbird Type-5 de-cloaks off of your portside :)
>
>
>

I think that, because the Klingons are supposed to be our friends,
Picard didn't power up the shields until some damage had been done, 
and didn't order a full retaliatory strike until too late.

Once the shields were down, the F's boarded.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Q:  "What must I do to convince you people?"  ^  Tom Thatcher
^ WORF:   "Die."                                ^  University of Rochester
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: crl0195@hertz.njit.edu (Curt R Lindmark)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time and warp speed
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:33:15 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Nov11.124404.4824@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> helene@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Helene Blankespoor) writes:
>I have been wondering about the time and relativity theory, warp factors are
>factors of the speed of light (if I have been correctly informed). But when
>traveling at the speed of light, the time on board the ship relative to that
>say on Earth will be a lot faster. So that a few minutes at the speed of light
>will be equivalent to hours or days on Earth.

Well, it's rather simple.  When Zephram Cochrane developed the Warp Drive,
(at least, I think that is who did it), Einstein's Relativity theory was
just thrown out the window.  Considering that it is *JUST* a theory, 
scientists are free to do with it as they please.

O========|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|========0
 Curt R Lindmark      crl0195@hertz.njit.edu         Defender from ages past

Picard: "Mr. Worf, fire at will."
Worf: "With pleasure, sir." (draws hand phaser, takes aim)
Riker: "Oh no, not again" (ducks for cover)

Disclaimer: NJIT is responsible for nothing I don't say which isn't mine.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%cheap.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: kiloquad????
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:08:21 MST
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

w5y092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Todd Leroux) writes:
>
>Federation computers use quaternary arithmetic.  I could be way off, but
>I don't own a tech manual so I don't know what it says in there.

The Tech Manual doesn't say much, but in the episode with the binary
name it was implied quite strongly that ENTERPRISE computers were
binary.  The terms "byte" and "bit" have been heard on various
episodes.

Whatever a quad is, it doesn't seem to imply quaternary arithmetic.
From: helene@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Helene Blankespoor)
Subject: time and warp speed
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:44:04 GMT

I hope this hasn't been asked recently as I am very new to this newsgroup and 
to Startrek.

I have been wondering about the time and relativity theory, warp factors are
factors of the speed of light (if I have been correctly informed). But when
traveling at the speed of light, the time on board the ship relative to that
say on Earth will be a lot faster. So that a few minutes at the speed of light
will be equivalent to hours or days on Earth.

Can someobdy enlighten me about this,

Thank you,

email can be sent to helene@dcs.warwick.ac.uk


Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
From: GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu ("Bruce E. Gletty")
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Organization: C.C.S.O.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:22:55 GMT

In article <BxKLA9.FJF@acsu.buffalo.edu>
v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes:
 
>In article <1992Nov10.023154.15997@cs.mun.ca>, joseph@odie.cs.mun.ca (Joseph Dawson) writes...
>>Why is data so limited.  He shouldn't need a communicator.  He should
>>have one built.  Data should be able to talk with the ship without
>>talking out loud.  He could also have a phaser built in, and that is
>>only a start.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Joe
>
>	He may not want to be made so much more unhuman.  Yes it would
>increase his usefulness, but one can argue that since he has been given
>the distinction of being a sentient being, he is entitled to the same
>code of ethical treatment.
>	My point: I haven't noticed anywhere in ST where beings within
>the realm of the Federadtion have been altered to optimize their usefulness.
>It is the same battle going on right now with bio-eng. and genetics and such.
>"If we can artificially produce smarter, bigger,  better human babies,
>should we??"
>	Since no organic being in Trek is subjected to such treatment,
>other than for handicaps(ie. Jordi's visor), why should Data?
>
>					Jim
>p.s. Maybe it would just ruin some good plot devices!!!
 
Actually in TOS the refer to Eugenics Wars (sp?) in earth's history
and they run accros Khan's ship. The people on the ship were supposed
to b 'superhuman'. I think that the people that were for making super
people lost out and the Federation doesn't do it because of historical
(and moral) reasons.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jhk1@cec1.wustl.edu (Jonathan Howard Krivitzky)
Subject: Re: Q
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.190101.11847@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144) writes:
>> I want to know all there is to know about the Q, and the Q continuum.
>> please post any replies here, or E-mail to me.   
>
>So do we all! Unfortunately we have never seen the comtinuum so about nothing
>is known about that and since we have only seen 3 Q's (Main Q, The Q who gave
>him back his powers, and Amanda) we know very little about them.

	*******SPOILER********


















	Also, we have seen the shadow that seemed to be a superior to Q (as
played by De Lancie(sp?)) - any guesses as to who that may be ---- or what?

	--Jon K.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.tech:6150 rec.arts.startrek.current:18175
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:27:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu


  Data was designed to be as human as possible. Also, he was not built
for the use of starfleet as a specialized tool. Now, if Cmdr Maddox had
won, There would be lots of Data's with all the extras you descrbe.

**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: "The Royale" Question
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:19:09 GMT

The original post goes:

|> >refers to an unsolvable equation/theorom.  What was the name of this
|> >equation? What was the equation itself?
	...
|> It was Fermat's Last Theorem.
	...
|> There are no whole number solutions to this equation for x > 2
	...
|>            x     x     x
|>           A  +  B  =  C
|> Easy to state, no proof though.

>>No longer true.  There is a proof, it is in many parts and very
>>complex (dozens of pages per part).

No there is still no proof of this conjecture. About two years ago it was
announced that a mathematician had proved it. The proof turned out, as have all
previous "proofs", to be invalid. 

BTW in the above x must be an integer, and A ,B and C must be nontrivial.
since clearly A=1=C, B=0 is a solution.

>>The rest of the story is that Fermat scribbled a note to the effect of
>>(not verbatim) "I have discovered a simple, elegant proof of..."  We
>>have a proof, we are still missing the "simple, elegant" part.

>>Given the proof that we have, there is a general feeling that Fermat's
>>"proof" was flawed.  You see, many simple, elegant, and flawed
>>"proofs" were encountered on the way to the current one.

We have no proof, but it is still believed that Fermat did not prove it.

>>Craig

Mark Craddock,(PhD)
School of Mathematics,
UNSW


Xref: sparky rec.arts.startrek.tech:6159 rec.arts.startrek.current:18194
From: v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov10.023154.15997@cs.mun.ca>, joseph@odie.cs.mun.ca (Joseph Dawson) writes...
>Why is data so limited.  He shouldn't need a communicator.  He should
>have one built.  Data should be able to talk with the ship without
>talking out loud.  He could also have a phaser built in, and that is
>only a start.
> 
>What do you think?
> 
>Joe

	He may not want to be made so much more unhuman.  Yes it would
increase his usefulness, but one can argue that since he has been given
the distinction of being a sentient being, he is entitled to the same
code of ethical treatment.
	My point: I haven't noticed anywhere in ST where beings within
the realm of the Federadtion have been altered to optimize their usefulness.
It is the same battle going on right now with bio-eng. and genetics and such.
"If we can artificially produce smarter, bigger,  better human babies,
should we??"
	Since no organic being in Trek is subjected to such treatment,
other than for handicaps(ie. Jordi's visor), why should Data?

					Jim
p.s. Maybe it would just ruin some good plot devices!!!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jhk1@cec1.wustl.edu (Jonathan Howard Krivitzky)
Subject: Re: Why turn the lights off on the Enterprise ?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:50:42 GMT

The lights may automatically go off when people leave the rooms - no
need to leave them on in that case, and that can account for many of them,
also, some people may prefer to have their windows shut.

	--Jon K.
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Federation boundaries (WAS:How fast really?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:03:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Nov12.220307.24829
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Nov10.123151.5440@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@finabo.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:
>
>2) In "Heart of Glory," Riker says that they have to wait two days for
>Starfleet Headquarters (San Francisco?) to respond. They were close to the
>neutral zone in that episode. 
>If "Where no One Has Gone Before" is to be believed, subspace
>signals need about fifty years to travel 2.7 million ly.. Again, the neutral
>zone is some 150ly. from Earth.

2,700,000 lys / 50 yrs / 365 days * 2 days = 295.89 lys

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech