HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Re: ST: TNG Communicators
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:51:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.234047.11371@wdl.loral.com>, trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort) writes:
> In article <rrheaume.65@emr1.emr.ca>, rrheaume@emr1.emr.ca (Roberta Rheaume (CPB)) writes:
> |> I am new to this news group, so pardon me if this question has already been 
> |> answered.  I wonder how the communicator knows when a person has stopped 
> |> talking to the communicator and has resumed talking to the person in front 
> |> of them.  
> 
>    Either the writers just ignore this or the computer is very
> adept at interpreting converation. I opt for the latter. If you
> can talk to the computer and it can easily understand you as is
> the case on ST:TNG, then the voice recognition is probably
> sophisticated enough to detect who the person is talking to.

Certainly.  Remember, the computer simulates entire _personalities_ in
the holodeck; it can judge who's talking to whom as well as if not better
than a human being.

 ________    _______              _         ________     ____
|______  |  |_____  |            | |       |________|   |____|
      / /         | |  _  _   _  |  \       ________    ______   _______
     /  \         | | |_||_| / / |   \     |________|  |____  | |_______|
    / /\ \   _____| |   ____/ /  | |\ \     ________       / /
   /_/  \_\ |_______|  |_____/   |_| \/    |________|     /_/
 
        |  Nippon no anime wa ichi-ban desu!  Otaku rule!    |
        |      Hey, man, I _like_ Robotech.  So sue me.      |
        | Sukotto Miraa/Scott Miller (ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu) |
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Computer / Saucer Separation
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:17:03 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>Is there only _one_ main computer on the Enterprise-D?

Depends on how you define "computer."  The GALAXY class starship
computer is composed of three distinct computer cores, two in the
saucer section and one in the engineering section.  Each of them is a
separate computer, but the task of running the ship is shared among
the three nodes (and some 300 smaller computers) in some sort of
unknown multiprocessing arrangement.

>What is the status of the computer system when the saucer is separated?

The CPUs reconfigure themselves to work on local nets within each
section.


--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | Error non est sed facilitas.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Infantry Vehicals in ST?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:37:16 GMT

In article <chan.0clt@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca> chan@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca (Mike Chan) writes:
>       I am making a Star Trek role plating game and I was wondering if there
>is such things as ground infantry vehicals? 

Nothing has been shown (in canonical sources) to answer this one way or
the other.  I would think they do... after all, it's a big Federation,
there's a place for *everything*.  Go ahead and make up something...

>How about aircraft and naval vessels do
>they have does also?

Officially, unknown... but many books do mention sea and air vessels.
Again, they probably do exist, Paramount just hasn't had reason to show
them yet.

> Does Star Fleet have some kind of intellegence division
>like the CIA or the FBi or even Interpol. 

Same answer as above... 

>      Also why doesn't the crew members even recognise any earth Holidays? Like
>Christmas or even easter? I mean they go and party on Worf's Right of Passage
>and other stuff but what about the holidays?

Data mentioned a Hindu festival once, and Kirk was at a Christmas party.
They probably avoid having crew observe religious holidays to avoid
offending anyone.

> and what Exactly is the use of
>Credits? wouldn't that cause greed again?

you buy things with them.  While there is no longer poverty or hunger in
the Federation, there are still lots of non-essentials that people would
like to own, so money is still useful.
-- 
What did Dan Quayle get on his IQ test? 
                                             Drool.
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Eating within the Holodeck
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 00:15:23 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: holodeck

In article <swindley.717918553@s1.elec.uq.oz.au> swindley@elec.uq.oz.au (Robert Swindley) writes:
> I don't know if this is a FAQ, but is it possible
> to eat something that appears on the holodeck?
> and if it is, do you feel the sensation of taste,
> and being full after a meal?

The Holodeck uses (as far as I can tell from the various canon
and semi-canon sources) 5 levels of reality:

1) Things in the distance are holograms projected on the walls.
(Like the wall in 'Encounter at Farpoint')

2) Nearby things are holograms projected into space. An example
would be, well, a tree or lamppost.

3) A fixed object that requires interaction is a combination of a
projected hologram and shaped forcebeams. An example of this
would be most holohumans (eg, the gangsters who dissolved), or
Picard's horse.

4) A _static_ object which may be picked up, eaten, etc, is
physically replicated onto the holodeck. An example would be
food, paper (eg, 'Elementary, Dear Data'), the snowball that Wesley
his Picard with, etc. These objects are independent once created,
and may leave the holodeck. 

5) An _animated_ object which may be eaten, picked up, etc (for
example, Minuet in '11001001'... I think Riker would have noticed
while kissing her if her, er, lips only, er, felt moist) is a
combination of 3 and 4, and the hardest to generate. The actions
of a hologram and forcebeams must be coordinated seamlessly with
replication of matter. Depending on how much physically needs to
be there, a holohuman on this level could vary from a hologram
with a few grams of saliva to a full 'meat puppet' dragged around
by the forcebeams.

Note that levels 1-4 are relatively trivial for the ship, while
level 5 requires more computation time... which could explain
Riker's surprise at Minuet (tho he hadn't, er, experienced her,
uh, charms at that point). This may also be why HoloSex hasn't
caught on - this level of simulation may require a security
clearance of some sort.

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)
Subject: Re: Unanswered STNG question
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:13:50 GMT

In article <18625.2acca8ad@ecs.umass.edu>, pmclaugh@ecs.umass.edu writes:
|> In article <717783956.F00022@therose.pdx.com>, Phil.Hodges@f601.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Phil Hodges) writes:
|> > "Yannb, talking to All, said about 'Unanswered STNG questions' ":
|> > ___--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >> I have some simple questions, which probably have hard answers:
|> > 
|> >>  1: Who cleans the ship?
|> >>  2: Why don't we ever see the bathrooms? Do they have
|> >>bathrooms? 
|> 
|> >     Good questions.  Obviously not something Gene cared about. It wasn't
|> > even made clear in the old episodes. On a similar note, where do they
|> > wash their clothes? Do they actually use washing machines, or some sort
|> > of matter/anti-matter device? I imagine they just incinerate them and
|> > have the replicator make new clothes. Hmm.
|> 
|> In one episode of TNG, Worf scolds Alexander because he hasn't cleaned
|> his room, or placed his dirty clothes in the clothing re-processor. I
|> guess some things never change -- even in the 24th century. :-)
|> That doesn't explain who cleans the "public" areas of the ship, but it
|> does explain the laundry thing.
|>   
|> (Sorry, I don't know episode names) It was the one with Lwaxana Troi and
|> the "Laughing Hour" program on the holodeck.
|> 
|> Tricia McLaughlin
|> pmclaugh@ecs.umass.edu
|> U. Mass - Environmental Engineering


In "Up the Long Ladder" Riker mentions that the ship "... will clean itself."
He is talking with the daughter of the leader of the first group of colonists
in this scene.

I think the episode Tricia is thinking of is "The Cost of Living."

-- 
Gordon Edwards                        e-mail: gordon@meaddata.com
Mead Data Central                             ...!uunet!meaddata!gordon
P.O. Box 933                           phone: (513) 865-7724
Dayton, Ohio 45401, USA                  fax: (513) 865-1655
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time travel back in ST:TVH.
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:44:52 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:

> In ST:TVH, the bridge crew of the Enterprise traveled back in time with an
> old Klingon ship by making a turn around the sun. This was very difficult,
> but nescessary. But I wonder why they did the same to travel back to the
> 23rd century: wasn't it much easier to travel some time with, e.g. warp 0.99
> through space and use the relativistic time shift?

Relativistic time dilation (which is never really addressed in Star Trek) 
causes faster-moving objects to age more slowly than stationary ones.  
This doesn't change your arrow of time, though.  You'll still perceive 
time as flowing in the same _direction_ as other relatively-moving 
objects; you'll just perceive it as flowing at a different rate.

----------
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   |
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time travel back in ST:TVH.
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:09:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <5745@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>In ST:TVH, the bridge crew of the Enterprise traveled back in time with an
>old Klingon ship by making a turn around the sun. This was very difficult,
>but nescessary. But I wonder why they did the same to travel back to the
>23rd century: wasn't it much easier to travel some time with, e.g. warp 0.99
>through space and use the relativistic time shift?


Well, by my calculations, if they wanted to cause a time dialation such
that they could age for only one day while the earth aged 200 years,
then they would have to be able to quickly accelerate to a velocity
of at least v = .999999999906 c  WITHOUT using warp technology which
seems to negate relativistic effects.

If you want them to travel at a more reasonable clip of 0.999 c, then not
counting the acceleration time, they should age about 9 years before
they get to the point in the future that they which to be.  (I hope they 
have enough food for those whales :')

-Jay
From: dwyer@ioctl.cs.fsu.edu (Frank Dwyer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: STTNG sounds for soundblaster
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:37:09 GMT
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department

At the request of many RAST readers, I have placed the SOUNDBLASTER 
(.voc) versions of the STTNG Sound effects for SPARCStations on 
our anonymous FTP site here at FSU.  

The files are on omicron.cs.fsu.edu in the directory /usr/sounds
The file is called trek_sounds.tar.Z

You will need to uncompress the file and untar it (or use gnutar) before
the files can be used.  There are 181 files in this archive.

*************************************************************************
NOTE:  Due to the size of this file (5Mb), I am unable to permanently
       store it in it's current location.  I intend to remove it 
       by Friday October 9, 1992.

*************************************************************************

They are tarred and compressed (Z).  These files can be converted to 
almost anything, Win 3.0 WAV format, Macintosh, they even sound good 
through the PC speaker with the program remacs (included).

They were recorded in monaural at 22kHz from audio tapes of the program(s).

Enjoy (I use them with xbiff++)!
-- 
Frank Dwyer (dwyer@cs.fsu.edu)
System Support Group
FSU Computer Science Department
From: uril@yang.earlham.edu (Uri J. Lessing)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Bathrooms in the Enterprise (Re: Unanswer
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:14:34 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Sep27.163302.23207@usl.edu>, tlb2665@usl.edu (Thomas L. Burleigh) writes:
> 
>  Well, I never gave this matter much thought before (ok, I gave it *no*
> thought, but anyway..), but giving it some thought I think that the
> replicators produce food in such a way that the body does not process any
> waste from it.  Any fellow servicemen out there know of a modern-day
> example of such food - the Meal Ready to Eat (MRE).  When those are a part
> of my diet, I don't need to go to the bathroom for days at a time! :)
> 

If that is true, then why do both Captain Kirk and Riker wear girdles?
-- 

Uri J. Lessing |  Earlham College |  Richmond, Indiana
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Distance in the Holodecks
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:22:16 GMT
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory

In article <23260@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, william@cs.arizona.edu (William E. Hertling) writes:
|> In article <BvGKFx.EEK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cap36406@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Carlos A. Pero) writes:

[details about holodeck compartmentalization deleted]

|> Of course, the holodeck has limited room, and the more people, the smaller
|> each compartment will be. If the compartments are too small, the holodeck
|> will have difficulty making each compartment seem as realistic as the one
|> larger holodeck, because it will have to constantly be updating 
|> the images and articles within a specific compartment. In short,
|> as you add more people to the holodeck, and they begin to spread out,
|> there should be noticable degradation of holodeck realism.
|> 
|> How does this approach to having multiple people within the holodeck
|> strike all of you?

   It's the only reasonable solution I can imagine.

-- Tim
From: hinson@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: warp speeds
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:39:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <cemDIgK00awV03ZUc9@andrew.cmu.edu> mh6g+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Joseph Harris) writes:
>have we forgotten that in an episode ( The Traveler,  I think ) in which
>the Enterprise went faster then Warp factor 10 and ended up in another
>galaxy?
>							mike

Well, I don't know how many people have responded to this, but I might as
well quote my Tech Manual like I think others will.

In the ST:TNG Tech Manual it says that theoretically, Warp 10 is truly 
infinite speed. If you travel at warp 10, you get to your destination
as soon as you leave your place of departure.

Now that quote -- from the authors' note on page 55:
"By the way, we estimate that in 'Where No One Has Gone Before' the
Traveler was probably propelling the Enterprise at about 
Warp 9.9999999996."

It's not absolutly canon, but it will do.

-Jay
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Starships
Date: 2 Oct 1992 15:36:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct1.220103.9320@hellgate.utah.edu>
jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>I suppose we're to believe that "United Star Ship" identifies it as
>belonging to the "United" Federation of Planets, but you'd think (with
>hindsight) that they could have thought of this before committing
>themselves.

And, of course, the United Federation of Planets wasn't thought up until
well into TOS.  I think they started out with something like the United
Earth Federation.
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: The Bathrooms in the Enterprise (Re: Unanswered S
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:05:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Sep29.150544.21482
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

cowboy@trans.csuohio.edu (Joe Rosenfeld) writes:
>: 
>Well, I don't know how to tell you this, and it might actually upset you,
>though my intent is not to upset anyone, forbid that, but they no longer
>use bathrooms on starships in the twenty-fourth century, unless the
>transporter is out, for yes, the transporter is used to evacuate all
>wastes.

I disagree.

The transporter is a very energy-intensive machine.  It takes a lot of
energy to run it, and it takes a lot of space to accommodate the
equipment.  You don't see it on the show, but the Tech Manual shows a
huge pattern buffer under the transporter pads, and a large bay of
machinery above them.

Think about what you would do if you were designing a starship.  To
put in transporter-based commodes, you would need to allocate space
above and below each living unit for the pattern buffers and the other
necessary machinery.  Then you would have to arrange for high-capacity
power conduits into each living quarters, probably increasing the
load of the entire power distribution system.  Since people still have
to attend to biological functions under emergency conditions -- when
power to, say, the shields is much more important -- you should have
some sort of backup system which uses little or no power, probably
requiring additional hardware.

Now contrast this with fitting a present-day toilet.  You need a
feedwater and a wastewater line, and no power.  Sounds pretty easy,
and probably more reliable.

The technical manual talks about wastewater lines, so I assume that
wastewater is still handled with old-fashioned pipes.  It does,
however, mention transporter-based recycling, so that leaves us at a
compromise.

My guess is that TNG toilets are not radically different from ours
today, in that the waste material is collected from the, um,
"emitting" organisim and conveyed physically to a centralized
reprocessing center.

>There was initially consternation from companies which made laxatives, and
>some commercials were cut short, though tv no longer exists the commercials
>remain floating freely in some areas of space.  But eventually everyone
>liked it so much that it caught on.

Since the laxative companies had lots of experience in loosening
things up, they were the original manufacturers of the transporter,
which in a weird sort of way, loosens you up.



--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | Error non est sed facilitas.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: Phasers
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:54:07 GMT

In article <69198@hydra.gatech.EDU> cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
|
|The beam can clearly be seen coming out of the (hand) phaser
|and moving across space.  
|I'm
|sure this is due to faulty special effects rather than other considerations.

Although I don't have it with me, the original "The Making of Star Trek" 
discusses this, as I recall.  They explained it simply that when the 
animators "painted" in the beam from the phasers, they found that making 
the beam "extend" from the phaser to the target rather than just appear 
between the two gave a much better feeling of the phaser *shooting* 
something, so they decided to do it that way.  I seriously doubt whether 
the person who made that decision (the special effects director) gave 
much thought to the physics of the matter.

Another point:   On TOS, the phasers are always held still while firing 
(in fact, once in a while you can catch the hand moving slightly, and 
the beam sticking in place :) (and I just loved on the "Kirk's Evil Twin"
episode when Spock gave a Vulcan neck massage to the evil Kirk, EK twitched
and accidentally shot his phaser--the beam stayed perfectly still as did
EK; *then* EK passed out :).  With the greater budget and F/X tech of 
ILM, are there any examples in TNG of a hand phaser "sweeping" across 
a target?

Dave Svoboda (rubis@gagme.chi.il.us)        | "I just can't take
90 Concours 1000 (Looking up!)              |  this weird shit
84 RZ 350 (Ring Ding) (Almost there)        |  before breakfast!"
AMA 583905      DoD #0330    COG 939        |   -- Evo Woman
From: mapmh@gdr.bath.ac.uk (M Hagger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: test
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:59:59 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, JACYK@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Paul Jacyk) writes:
>this is a test
This isn't.
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Time travel back in ST:TVH.
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:44:20 GMT

max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:

>This doesn't change your arrow of time, though.  You'll still perceive 
>time as flowing in the same _direction_ as other relatively-moving 
>objects; you'll just perceive it as flowing at a different rate.

Of course. But they could use it on the way back. But, as I'm told already,
this would take too long (measured in ship time) or take too much energy,
because the warp engines seem to cancel relativistic effects.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************
From: william@cs.arizona.edu (William E. Hertling)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: time's arrow
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:48:10 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

>I would add one more question:
>
>	How old is Sam Clemens watch?  It was picked up after lying around
>	for 500 years and returned to the past with Sam, only to be left
>	to wait for 500 years to be discovered, etc...  Timex takes a 
>	licking and keeps on ticking.
>
>Brian Oostenbrink
>Univ. of Alberta

This has been brought up several times, but I don't neccesarily see
a conflict.

Clemens drops his watch in the cave sometime before he jumps into
the future. Jumping into the future, he spies his watch on the
Enterprise. I don't remember if he takes it back with him, or
leaves it on the Enterprise.

Clemens goes back to the past, and to the cave where Picard is.
He now sees his watch that he dropped before jumping into the
future, and reflecting on finding his watch on the Big E, he
leaves that watch where it was laying on the rock.

He DOES NOT take the watch from the Enterprise and put it on the
rock! The watch in the rock is the watch that he dropped just a few
hours before. Nowhere do we see him remove a watch from his pocket
(after being in the future) and then leaving that on the rock....
We only see him pick up the watch that was already laying on the
rock.

There is NO endless loop here...

william@cs.arizona.edu

	-	D	R	A	G	O	N	-

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech