HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 03:14:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <schlegel.715396160@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) 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?

Unless I'm mistaken, 11001001 is 'I' in ASCII. Surely the most
important word in the universe. :)

Joshua
+      "Each woman is a promise that she can't keep that appeals to           +
|  a hope you can't control." - joe theseus, Deadface: Earth Water Air Fire   |
|                                                                             |
+ jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca   Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary +
From: kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Holodeck Tech
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:25:01 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <92Aug25.154127.19248@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
> In my so-called memory, they're relaxing in the environment deck
> when something goes wrong and the nice summer day is replaced by
> driving snow and (of course) they can't get out.
> 
> I suspect I was (1) too young during the first repeats I saw to
> notice much, (2) mistook the episode where Chekov and crew are
> stuck on the ice-planet while Kirk's split in two for the e.
> deck, or perhaps (3) they had something like that on TAS (which I
> only saw a few episodes of a decade ago) and my mind warped
> things, or even (4) it was an environment deck on some OTHER
> series altogether.
> 
> Anyone else have thoughts on this? Or does it go down with the
> Biggs scene from Star Wars? 
> 

You might be thinking about the episode where some of the crew gets
shanghaied by an alien evacuating the planets population into the past
before the star goes nova (I forget the episode name, but it had
similar scenes... remember the alien pushing everyone through the
doorway after putting the metal disc on the viewing device...)

Just my thoughts...
-- 
Mark Kinney [KINNEMA@WKUVX1.(BITNET)(WKU.EDU)] | Don't just eat a hamburger,
PhoneNet: (502)745-4246	  (Bowling Green, KY)  | eat the HELL out of it!
It's a custom community of personalized guns.  | No other possibility.
Quote of the week: "I'm a drummer. I know nothing about music."
			-- Overheard at the Fine Arts Center, WKU
From: trw@spl1.spl.loral.com (Tim R Witort)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:18:24 GMT
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory

How long would it take to try all of the combinations on a 
24th century computer for an 8 bit number? A picosecond?
Maybe that's just what they did. Maybe it was a random 
1 byte number. Someone, however said that it was the names
of the Binars... as good an explanation as any.

-- Tim
From: james@library.nrl.navy.mil (James King)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: RE: Moving during transport
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:47:37 GMT
Organization: NRL

I thought that in the ST:TNG Tech Manual, it stated that the confinement 
field restricted movement to collect the pattern.  But, I noticed the same 
thing that you did, THEY MOVE!  Is this a oversight on the part of Paramount?

James King
Naval Research Lab
Washington, DC
From: silvers3@husc10.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:20:39 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <cebFszy00WBK84e19z@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael B. Miller" <mmcg+@andrew
.cmu.edu> writes:
>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????
 
Actually, they did in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The armrests double as
restraints. The most clear scene of this is when Kirk lowers them into position
when the Enterprise enters the wormhole at the start of the movie...

-- 
Jolyon A. Silversmith __________________________________________________________
silvers3@husc.harvard.edu            President             "Eternal Vigilance is
Mather House 100              ACLU of Harvard College      the Price of Liberty"
Cambridge, MA 02138 ____________________________________________________________
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Date: 27 Aug 1992 20:39:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <cebFszy00WBK84e19z@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael B. Miller"
<mmcg+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????

I think the short answer is the inertial dampening system is supposed
to absorb all the jolts and keep the ride smoother than a buick's.
From: gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: A theory on whizzing stars...
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:28:51 -0700
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1992Aug29.014947.17747@u.washington.edu>, mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.141853.1@bronco.fnal.gov> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov writes:
>
>   [lots of neat explanations deleted to save bandwidth...]
> 
> 	Hey, that just gave me an idea.  Perhaps, since the Enterprise
> 	is colliding with photons from the same source, only from
> 	different space time cones, then THIS could cause the streaking
> 	effect.  This could be because you are passing through so many 
> 	time cones and they impinge all along the ship!  This could be
> 	an alternate theory.  How about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   	Han:  "I knew you were going to say
> 	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/          that, old fool."
> 	_/     _/  _/       _/              
> 	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/            
> 	_/   _/    _/       _/          Ben:  "Who's more foolish, the fool
> 	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/          or the fool who follows him?"
> 	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/      
> 	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu)

Seems to me that Leon Meyerson had an interesting idea on what the starscape
looks like from within the Big E, in his long thesis on warp technology.
He says that the E's computer projects the view as it would appear in normal
space holographically on the windows as well as correcting any views displayed
on viewscreens.  His explanation of the uncorrected view inside the warp field
is similar to what has been posted here.

BTW, Meyerson's thesis, although probably non-canon, is a fascinating and very
coherent history of the development of warp technology (with only an occasional
_tongue-in-cheek_ B_{)!) and it's many uses.

I pulled my copy off the net a while ago, but I'm not sure where you can get
it now.

LL&P,
Gabor.
 
-- 
    g  b    gbrach@galaxy.gov.bc.ca   "Ye canna change th' laws of physic,
gggg   b    Victoria, B. C.	       Laws of physics"
g  g t b    (God's waiting room)       Ye canna change th' laws of physic, Jim"
ggggtttbbbb  							The Firm
   g t b  b 		"Am I the witness, or am I the crime
g  g t bbbb		 A victim of history, or just a sign of the times"
gggg  tt        				J. Clegg
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Warp Detection 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:03:24 +0000


In article <1992Aug27.195310.27368@u.washington.edu> mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu writes:

>        1.  Yes, you can detect a vessel approaching at warp speed with
>        subspace sensors, since these sensors travel at the TNG speed of
>        almost Warp 10 and can give sufficiently speedy bounce-back.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This illustrates the silly idea of having Warp 10 be infinite!  In TOS
you could say that the maximum speed for any known spaceship was (say)
Warp 15, and subspace sensors used Warp 30, but theoretically some more
advanced race could use more so you couldn't detect them in time.

In the TNG system it come out as:

The maximum speed for any known spaceship is (say) Warp 9.99, and
subspace sensors use Warp 9.9999, but theoretically some more advanced
race could use more so you couldn't detect them in time.

The figures for TNG get silly - what's the difference between 9.9999 and
9.99999 (and did I just add a digit by accident?).

Wesley: "Captain, did you say you wanted Warp 9.9999999 or Warp
        9.99999999?"

Geordi: "Captain, the engines will only last for 1 second at Warp
        9.99999999, but if we reduce it to Warp 9.99999998..."

See what I mean?

>        2.  If you can detect the vessel, there is no reason why you cannot
>        determine the velocity of the vessel with continuous sensor scans.

As long as it's not too fast - you have to have a period <delta>t to do
the sample, but that if your scans are too infrequent you may find that
it's arrived before your next scan.

>        3.  You would have a difficult time viewing the vessel on the
>        viewscreen until it got reasonably close, however, I believe that
>        the computers can make a silhouette comparison and identify what
>        type of ship it is.

I've never understood how they get such good resolution on very long
distances anyway...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Subject: Re: Beyond Infinity
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:57:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.080930.7185@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> phew@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Patrick Chisan Hew) writes:
> If this first barrier of infinity can be surpassed, surely a little
>more isn't too hard :-) !!!!!!!! (Infinite Probability Drives maybe??)
Sure!  Just like in the X-15s.  Don't stop when things start to fall
apart, just go faster!
=)
Richard.

-- 
Richard Martin               	richard@csi.on.ca
If I had anything witty to say, I wouldn't put it here.
From: hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Twin paradox
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:53:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <fink2.714970773@alcor> fink2@alcor.concordia.ca (Gemini) writes:
<
<>If twin A is on a ship accelerating at 1g and twin B is on the Earth so also
<>feels an acceleration of 1g: why do they age at different rates?
<They age at different rates ecause B's velocity is changing with
<respect to A.  A is feeling gravity, but is not accelerating in any direction
<(except perhaps for the small accelerations of revolving around the axis of
<the Earth, revolving around the sun, etc.)
<
<>Suppose twin A is floating in space away (say 100k miles)
<>from the Earth (so he feels almost no gravity at all) and 
<>twin B is standing on the Earth subjected to 1g acceleration.
<Acceleration is not the term to use if B is 'standing' on the earth.
<Rather, he is subjected to the static force of gravity that would cause him
<to accelerate at 1g if he were not standing on something.
<>Do A and B age at a different rate?  If so how much different?
<>and does the aging rate change with time?
<I assume A is not being subjected to any large accelerations in space 
<(like a nearby planet, star or black hole).  Then they would age at
<approximately the same rate (give or take any differences due to minute
<gravitational forces of distant bodies).

The stronger the gravitational field you are in, the slower you age relative
to someone in a weeker gravitational field.

-Jay
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Warp Detection
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:13:34 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: usa

edreas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Dreas) writes:
>If you are stationary.  v = 0 in all directions.
>And a ship is approaching you at Warp speed.
>Can you:
>
>    1.  Detect the approaching vessel with sensors.
>    2.  Determine the velocity of the vessel.
>    3.  View the approaching vessel.  (Say on the Viewscreen)

Why not?

Specifically, IMHO it would be easier to detect an approaching vessel
while stationary than while moving.  Since determing its velocity and
viewing it are all frequently done while the sensing craft is in
motion, I see no reason why that can't also be done while stationary.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | <insert snappy quote here>
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Holodeck Tech
Date: 27 Aug 1992 20:35:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug27.142501.2049@wkuvx1.bitnet> kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet
(Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos) writes:
>In article <92Aug25.154127.19248@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca
(Joshua Bell) writes:
>> In my so-called memory, they're relaxing in the environment deck
>> when something goes wrong and the nice summer day is replaced by
>> driving snow and (of course) they can't get out.
>> 
>> I suspect I was (1) too young during the first repeats I saw to
>> notice much, (2) mistook the episode where Chekov and crew are
>> stuck on the ice-planet while Kirk's split in two for the e.
>> deck
>
>You might be thinking about the episode where some of the crew gets
>shanghaied by an alien evacuating the planets population into the past
>before the star goes nova (I forget the episode name, but it had
>similar scenes... remember the alien pushing everyone through the
>doorway after putting the metal disc on the viewing device...)

Nope.  He's thinking of the first season episode "The Enemy Within"
with the Freudian Id/Super-Ego Kirks (we actually watched this one
in a high school psychology class).  The crew on the ice-planet didn't
include Chekov since he didn't appear 'til the second season.

You're thinking of the third season episode "All Our Yesterdays" where
Spock and McCoy jump through the atavachron (sp?) looking for Kirk who
was pushed through by the librarian, Mr. Atoz, whom he was fighting with.
Kirk winds up in some Elizabethan period while Spock and McCoy go back
to the ice age and meet Mariette Hartley in a skimpy loin outfit.

Ian Wolfe, the character actor who played Mr. Atoz, died a couple of
months ago and his obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle mentioned
his Star Trek role.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:09:20 GMT

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?

Mark
From: mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Seatbelts
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:14:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <15261@suns7.crosfield.co.uk> pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) writes:
>In article <17jehiINNp3v@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
>#In article <cebFszy00WBK84e19z@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael B. Miller"
>#<mmcg+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>#>I have just a tiny question, one which a friend of mine keeps
>#>complaining about...why is it that nobody in the bridge, even when they
>#>know they are going to get blasted, ever wears a seatbelt?????????
>
>#I think the short answer is the inertial dampening system is supposed
>#to absorb all the jolts and keep the ride smoother than a buick's.
>
>Of course, in ST:TMP, they DID.
>
>Well actually, the chairs had those built in restrainers.
>
>Paul
>
>

	I have always felt that the main reason crew members do 
	no use restraining belts is becuase the lack of them gives
	them greater freedom of movement on the bridge, allowing
	for faster, more effective response and allowing crews to move 
	from station to station more easily.  I am not certain,
	but most modern naval vessels don't use seat restraints
	do they?



	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   	Han:  "I knew you were going to say
	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/          that, old fool."
	_/     _/  _/       _/              
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/            
	_/   _/    _/       _/          Ben:  "Who's more foolish, the fool
	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/          or the fool who follows him?"
	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/      
	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@milton.u.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: loren@bluemoon.rn.com (Loren Sims)
Subject: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 03:10:36 EDT

jwindley writes:
er,  jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>
> singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick D. Singley) writes:
> >Likewise, one might say- why do Rom. ships still have cloaking.  After
> >80 years (and an ST orig gen. episode where they part of a cloaking 
> >device) wouldn't they be able to break through by now?
> >Sure, but technologies change and leap-frog one another.
>
> This subject is always popular.  There is evidence that the Federation
> has cloaking technology, or at least understands it, but that they
> don't use it for political reasons.
>
> There is also evidence that they don't have cloaking technology.
 
(...)
 
> The conclusion:  The federation has cloaking technology,
> but does not use it for political reasons.  (er, "knowledge of cloaking
technology," he said)
> It cannot penetrate the Romulan cloaks because the Romulans are more
> advanced in this area.
  
  
I think the political argument is a very strong one, but I also thought
there might be, as well as a tremendous energy cost, a health cost in 
using cloaking technology (see Aldea).  The Romulans and Klingons value
the tactical advantage a cloak would provide, perhaps more than any minor
detrimental effects on a ship's occupants.  I *have* noticed some unusual
facial growths on members of both of these races since the widespread use
of this technology in the original series. :-)
  Also, as suggested, the Federation can't penetrate (or even, for the 
most part, detect) a cloaking field simply because the technology *works*.
Alternate methods must be applied (such as neutrino nets, watching for 
visual distortion, etc.).
                                                                    -Loren

 This is from
     loren@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,comp.sys.prime
From: jasonp@cunix4.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci)
Subject: Re: what is the significance of 11001001 in "11001001"
Organization: Prime Computer, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:50:33 GMT

Regarding the Startrek TNG show, named "11001001". 

In article <181jprINNe2@agate.berkeley.edu>, ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
> In article <92Sep02.031401.26433@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca
> (Joshua Bell) writes:
> }Unless I'm mistaken, 11001001 is 'I' in ASCII. Surely the most
> }important word in the universe. :)
> 
> You're mistaken.  01001001 is 'I' in ASCII.

But, 11001001 is 'I' in Prime ASCII. (See Hacker's Dictionary,
entry: Dreaded High-Bit Disease).

Does this mean that the 50_Series will still be around into the 24th 
century? Is Data simply a remodeled 850? Does the Enterprise's
ship's computer have VOC file? Or running R0AM? 

Actually, if memory serves, they did use a Prime workstation
of some flavor to do graphics on some of the early episodes 
of TNG. It looked pretty impressive, as I recall...
-- 
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: The Federation and cloaking tech...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 20:53:59 GMT

>	Yes, your comment about the inability of Federation sensors to
>detect cloaked vessels is apt (i.e. they cannot do it because it
>works).  But I think that you might be skipping part of the answer. 
>It appears to me, and I am by no means a guru, that ALL technology has
>expanded and/or improved for all races.  With that in mind, it would
>be logical to assume that, yes, a Galaxy could detect an old Bird of
>Prey (as found in _Balance_of_Terror_) due to the increased
>sensitivity of its sensors, BUT, not only did the federation sensor
>technology improve, but the Romulan Cloaking technology improved and
>kept pace with the federation advances.  To my way of thinking, you
>were correct, but you missed something, which I tried to put forward.
>No insult intended.
>
>--Hawk
 
As a corrolary (sp?), ask yourself this question:  Would the old
Enterprise sensory have any trouble detecting, say, an F-117?

Here's another question relating to cloaking devices.  If they
will allow photons to "wrap around" the ship, as they appear to
do, what's the highest-intensity light they can do this for?  For
instance, how close to a sun could they fly without getting fried,
with the cloak on (and thus deflecting all of the photons and thus
heat), as opposed to without it?

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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: Enterprises's Shields (TNG) are Worthless
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:23:58 GMT

In article <215860002@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> dug@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dug Smith) writes:
>OK, never mind how the shields work (or even if the shields work).  Why don't
>they always go everywhere with the shields on... I thought energy wasn't a big
>problem.  Why don't they always go everywhere at Warp 9... Shitty gas mileage?


Energy not a problem?  Get real!  This is science fiction!
They leave the shields off a) to conserve energy, b) to not look hostile
to any life forms in the area, c) to simplify sensor operations,
d) to conserve the physical shield generators themselves which may not
hold up so well if on all the time

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech