HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stalzer@macaw.hrl.hac.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:44:26 GMT

ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes:
>... But if you came
>across something like, oh, the replicators on Star Trek TNG, you couldn't
>tell whether it was "magic" or "science"; in fact, it might not be
>meaningful to differentiate between those two words.

I disagree. If the Enterprise suddenly showed up abandoned in orbit one
day (in good condition), I think that modern scientists, engineers, and
technicians have the tools to eventually figure out how every piece of
equipment works. It might take decades, but I don't think anything
would be considered magical.

This would not have been the case 100 years ago even though the
scientific method was well established in the 1800's. I think we've
learned three key things this century about science:
  1. How to suspend disbelief. It's to the point now were once wild
     notions, such as time travel, are being seriously discussed.
  2. How to do large-scale science. The Apollo Program, Manhattan
     Project, and the large accelerators show the we have the
     administrative skills to successfully handle huge projects
     with many unknowns.
  3. A critical mass of scientific knowledge. We certainly don't
     know all of the "words" in nature, but we seem to pretty much
     have the alphabet figured out.

I think the bottom line is that magic is dead.

Mark
     
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:3529 rec.arts.sf.science:3850 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7072
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:52:50 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Adhocracy of Enlightened Self-Interest, Research

In article <1964@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.141750.2877@cs.rochester.edu> 
>dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>>All this talk about galactic empires shows a typical blind spot that
>>occurs in a lot of science fiction.  Specifically: it ignores the role
>>of time.
>>
[stuff about expansion beginning at different times]
>
>Also it ignores the technological time process too! The chances of their
>actually being a fight between two similar civilisations is roughly nil.

Look at the original post

	1) We are considering only those civilizations that have
	   reached the 'pinnacle of what natural law allows.'

	2) We are trying to get at a general principle and an aesthetic
	   point, NOT trying to represent how it might actually happen.

As for point 1, assuming there ARE absolute limits, the more advanced
civilizations, as you pointed out, can run over the less advanced ones
as if they weren't there.  (I don't quite believe this, but we'll let it 
stand for now.)  Hence, we can discount all other civs, except those who
have reached the limit.  

As for point 2, if you want to make the point that "this will never be
a factor," you are probably right.  My point is that, ultimately, any
species' power -- whatever that might mean -- is limited by cubic expansion.

Really the driving force behind this is aesthetic.  (And to cause lots
of folks to say something.)  I am aware of the effects of tech development
on warfare -- just about anyone reading this group would be.  

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: mabw0164@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:45:49 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Dec9.045111.24889@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>, rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.143718.21329@newstand.syr.edu> pksuk@rodan.acs.syr.edu
> (Peter K. Suk) writes: 
>>Granted, there are absolute limits to how fast we can go, and how old we
>>can live to and how strong we can build a spaceship hull.  But we don't
>>_always_ have to include that in our fiction, do we? The key concern here,
>>I think is the distortion of people's notion of science.  This _should_ be
>>combatted, but let's also have a little fun!
> 
> I'll second the motion, and add to it.
> 
> There's hard sf where the author tries not to goof scientifically.  Then
> there's the hard sf where the author sticks strictly to what is known to be
> possible today.  While this stuff can be very entertaining (at least I like it
> :), defending it as the only good sf is absurd.
> 
> Go back 100 years, and try to explain that you can wipe cities off the map by
> slapping a couple of pieces of metal together.  Explain machines that can
> compute at thousands of times the speed of human computers, yet fit into your
> pocket.  Explain that there are places from which nothing can escape.  Explain
> that it is impossible to measure both the location and the momentum of an
> electron with arbitrary precision.
> 
> In each of these cases, they will be able to prove to you, scientifically,
> with equations and all that good stuff, that you are wrong.  That it can't be.
> Then they'll call for the guys in the white suits.
> 
> So if you write sf, and if it is set more than say 50 years into the future,
> and if it does not contain at least some things that are so outrageous to
> present science that proposing them as fact would get you committed, then
> you can be absolutely sure that your sf is totally, fatally, laughably wrong.
> 
> Not that that is necessarily bad, it just means that all those hard-sf-only
> types ought to stop preening and consider just how full of hubris is the
> attitude that we know all that there is to be known.
> 
> SR
> ---


I think the keyword here is fiction, not science. If it were science, we'd all
be sitting down enjoying a rousing good textbook.

And don't be took concerned about what is "fact". A little over a hundred years
ago you couldn't travel faster than 30 mph because your blood would boil. Not
long before that it was impossible for a heavier-than-air craft to fly. 
Einstein proved it was impossible to travel faster than light, and now they
talk about conditions where it might be impossible to do anything but.


The world changes all the time, and todays realities may become tomorrows myth,
so ease up, guys. :-)

Joe
01fortec@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:49:55 EST

In article <1992Dec15.172447.27522@julian.uwo.ca> 
jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>	Given speed-of-light limitations, I can't  see  the  edges
>of the colonised areas having much to  do with  the core systems.  I'm
>not sure (Actually, I strongly doubt)  that much trade will occur,
>except perhaps in information.  

The only trade would be in information.  The levels of tech I am talking 
about would make trade in materials obsolete.  

>Perhaps interstellar cultures will  be
>like forests, with large  regions  occupied  by old  cultures,  and
>'colonization' and the spread of younger off-shoots only possible
>where circumstance (whatever the cultural  equivalent  of a forest
>fire  or  climactic  shift  is) allows.
>
>	I'd expect in those circumstances that old cultures would run
>into  the limitations of their environments and  their abilities,  which
>would make territoriality as  useful as here on  Earth. 

Right now, the concept of territory on Sol 3 is waning in importance.  
Economic competition is paramount; territorial concerns regressive.  

>Interstellar nomads might not be loved by their sedentary kin, if
>human history is a guide.  

I don't like those arguments, unless the reason for making the 
generalization is clear.  It isn't here.  Perhaps 'gypsy' was the wrong
word to use.  They are more like wealthy tourists in the scheme of 
things (remember -- pinnacle of technology)

Also remember, Bards were generally very welcome.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk




Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Do you know this character????
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:15:54 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <4305@novavax.UUCP> vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest) writes:
>Folks:
>
>    I have a question worthy of rec.arts.sf.misc.  I'm trying to find
>the identity of a character.  This was a "superhero" type character
>that gained his special powers from something that happened to his mother
>while she was pregnant with him.  There also seems to be an incident with
>his getting struck by lightning on a mountain top at one time.  Now comes
>the kicker.  The patron I'm researching this for is relatively sure it
>is NOT a comic book character (hence my posting here rather than the
>comics groups) and the book/pulp/publication is from at least 30-40
>years ago.  The patron also at one time thought this character was the
>inspiration for Superman (yes I know about Doc Savage) but we cleared
>that up in one of the comics forums.  If anyone out there has any slight
>idea as to who this character might be I would be eternally grateful.  I may
>also post this query on the pulps group so if you read both you may get it
>twice.
>
The book in question is _Gladiator_.  Don't recall the author.  This book WAS
an INSPIRATION for superman.  It was adapted in a Marvel b/w mag as "Man-God".
Also this character was the father of the character "Iron" Munro from DC's
_Young All-Stars_ series.

The origin was that his father concocted some serum he gave his pregnant wife.
Thus his son was a superhuman.  ie strong and invulnerable.  He used this
power fighting the Germans in WWI.  At the end God apparently destroyed him with
lightning.


-- 
<< Michael Rogero Brown                      | Disclaimer: I speak     >>
<< CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ |  only for myself.       >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu        | All my opinions are     >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                    |  that: mine & opinions. >>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: kathrynw%radian@natinst.com (Kathryn Whitworth)
Subject: Re: Silly Time Travel
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:50:08 GMT
Organization: Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas

In article <9212171631.A01589@mailer.nymc.edu> goldberg@NYMC.EDU (RANDY_GOLDBERG) writes:
>From: duru@cc.ec-lyon.fr (Duru Emmanuel)
>Subject: 'silly' timetravel: it's again me...
>
>* the title of del Rey's story title may be "I am Legion"

I flashed on Zelazny's *My Name is Legion*.  Not to say you're wrong, but
I don't remember a del Ray story by this title.
>
>Isn't "My Name Is Legion" the title of Richard Matheson's book about the
> last human man on an Earth full of vampires?

Nope, that's *I Am Legend*.  Can't remember if this was the original title,
or the new one, same as the movie that was based on the book.
>
> **************************************************************************
> * Randy Goldberg         *  "The Road goes ever On and On..."            *
> *                        *                        - J.R.R. Tolkien       *
> * GOLDBERG@NYMC.EDU      *  "All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to     *
> *                        *      steer her by..."  - James T. Kirk        *
> * Compuserve: 76550,1541 *  "In the rolling hills of Binghamton..."      *
> **************************************************************************
>

Kathryn Roth Whitworth


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:55:21 EST

In article <1088@dgaust.dg.oz> young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young) writes:

>mabw0164@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>|> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>|> < stuff deleted >
>|> 
>|> > I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
>|> > 'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
>|> > would abandon the concept entirely.  
>
>For the heavens' sake, Why???  Hand over decision-making powers on land use,
>resource allocation, etc. to a committee which would include non-members
>of that civilization (in the non-trivial case)?  
>[silly stuff deleted about comittees of aliens]

You're missing the point.  You have simply replaced soverign territory
with inter-species communal territory.  A very BAD idea.  I am advocating 
anarchy.  (If what I said seems like a bad idea, then please, give me
enough credit to consider that a misunderstanding may have occured.)

For a civilization at the pinnacle of technology -- what natural law
will allow -- the gypsy lifestyle is ideal.  All matters of defense
and diplomacy will take care of themselves through the local
interactions of the individual world-ships -- much in the same way
that a free market regulates the price of goods.  

Hostile and unreasonably xenophobic groups will chase away world-ships, and
perhaps even destroy a few.  But no-one would be able to destroy all of
the gypsies, once they got going.  The vastness of space and their
extreme mobility will ensure the immortality of their civilization.  Also,
groups which are that unreasonably hostile will get themselves stomped
in a densely populated universe.  

>[more stuff about centralized systems deleted]

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: engp2254@nusunix1.nus.sg (SOH KAM YUNG)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: 'silly' time travel stories: the list
Date: 11 Dec 92 01:21:54 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Paul Ciszek (pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: 
: I don't remember the name of the other.  A naive, idealistic physicist
: manages to blow up himself and a large section of laboratory in an
: attempt to send a greek translation of a high-school chemistry textbook
: back in time.  His belief is that it will lead to a rational, civilized,
: peaceful society and avoid most of history's wars.  The historian whom
: the gov't consults in the matter claims that we already live in the
: "altered history" that the book produced, and points to several
: anachronistic concepts that suddenly turned up in a certain place and
: time-- the atomic theory of matter, a crude steam engine-- and were
: soon forgotten.
:

That story is "The Red Queen's Race." It was published in the book, "The
Early Asimov."
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.announce
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:00:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.171048.27281@newstand.syr.edu> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>Too snide, too fast.  For some Bussard Ramjets imply travel at
>0.9999...c  In the limit, there is NO difference in speed.  
>
>However, Bussard Ramjets are just not practical, at least not at this
>speed.  The amount of hydrogen fuel -- assuming total conversion --
>needed to get a 10000 kg spacecraft to 0.99c is something like the
>number of atoms in the known universe.

	Um,how did you arrive at that? There  are  thermodynamic
problems with  ramjets using proton-proton  reactions, but your
example specifies  total conversion. A tc rocket with a delta-vee
of .99  C would require a  mass-ratio of 14 (199 if'n you plan
to  slow back  down again). Presumably  a vehicle drawing reaction
mass and energy from  its surroundings would consume less, since
no  rm would be  needed  to accelerate rm used  later during
boost-phase.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 08:56:55 EST

In article <wf_rnQm00gpIQQoVNa@andrew.cmu.edu> 
"Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Why? The TNG Enterprise is (fictional) 24th century technology. What
>about 26th century technology? 28th? The point of Clarke's Law is that
>there is no visible ceiling on technology.  

Ah, but there IS.  There is a limit on how strong we can make normal
matter.  There is a limit on how fast we can travel.  There is a
limit on how much energy we can get from 1g of mass.  

You are assuming that technology can go on forever.  It CAN'T.

>If you found a starship and
>the only apparent "machine" on board was a solid cube of metal that
>would materialize any food you named, in any language, would *that* be
>magic? What if you hacked it apart and found no interior components of
>any kind? 
>
>Why is that example less plausible than a 18th-century scientist looking
>at a silicon chip?

It isn't.  We could conceivably do this someday.  (Especially if you
leave out the "materialize" part.  How about: "emerges from the tabletop"
as in it actually gets transmuted from that material.)

>>   1. How to suspend disbelief. It's to the point now were once wild
>>      notions, such as time travel, are being seriously discussed.

Exactly what do you mean by 'seriously.'  Either people discuss this out
of a sense of intellectual fun, or out of an utter ignorance of absolute
limits.  (IMHO, that is)

>1: I'm not optimistic enough to think we've removed any blinders; we've
>just expanded them. "Sufficiently advanced technology" means
>"sufficiently advanced relative to where we are now." 

But the scale does NOT go on forever.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: jeff.kling@brent.uucp (Jeff Kling) 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: FLINX AND FLUX IN FLUX...
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Brentwood BBS Harrison, NY  914-835-7898
Reply-To: jeff.kling@brent.uucp (Jeff Kling) 

To each his/her own.  Though, I didn't mean, as you implied only <25
years.  When I said kiddie stuff, I very specifically meant for the teen
crowd.  I should have been more illucid.  Sorry.  But I still disagree.
Flix and Flux - yuck!

J
From: goldberg@NYMC.EDU (RANDY_GOLDBERG)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Silly Time Travel
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:31:33 GMT

From: duru@cc.ec-lyon.fr (Duru Emmanuel)
Subject: 'silly' timetravel: it's again me...

* the title of del Rey's story title may be "I am Legion"

Isn't "My Name Is Legion" the title of Richard Matheson's book about the
 last human man on an Earth full of vampires?

 **************************************************************************
 * Randy Goldberg         *  "The Road goes ever On and On..."            *
 *                        *                        - J.R.R. Tolkien       *
 * GOLDBERG@NYMC.EDU      *  "All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to     *
 *                        *      steer her by..."  - James T. Kirk        *
 * Compuserve: 76550,1541 *  "In the rolling hills of Binghamton..."      *
 **************************************************************************
From: MARTHA@brlncc.BITNET ("Martha C. Motta da Silva ")
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A Million Open Doors
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:15:56 GMT

markg@pdx820 (Mark Gonzales) writes :
>I've never seen anyone use the idea of designed cultures before .
>
>I would be very interested to hear of any other examples of the idea of
>explictly DESIGNED cultures in SF.

And dougr@jerod.cna.tek.com (Doug Basmussen) replied (forgive me for not
quoting) to him referring to a TV series called "the Starlost" . It was ,
he said , based on a work by Harlan Ellison . The plot was about an ark
from Earth that had undergone some sort of accident (and consequently had
also lost much of their origins). Because of that it happened a
"splitting" of different cultures and they were explored by a young man.
This is , of course , a very brief (and badly done) account of his
description of the series ; I haven't watched it myself .

Well , as soon as I read this message I remembered reading a short story
by Robert A. Heinlein that had a similar plot . I don't remember its name
(I have a terrible memory for stories' names) but I do know it was an
early work of RAH because it was in an anthology edited in the 50's . All I
remember is that a starship had suffered an accident and the crew's
descendants had lost all the scientific knowledge and the memories about the
original mission.What little they had of science had become superstition and
so forth (Physics,for example,was regarded as a metaphor for religion,etc).
There were mutants (yes,I guess this story was REAL old) which lived in
other parts of the ship , forbidden for normal humans (they were called
"Muties",if I'm not mistaken).It was not a case of different cultures,but
the idea of a young man exploring all the different parts of the starship
was much the same.I don't know if anyone has read this story , but I'd
like to know where it was originally published , for I was not able to
locate the book I read (it vanished from the library I used to go).

By the way , does anyone know the names of the books in the Narnia series by
C.S.Lewis ? I read the first one ("The Lion , the witch and the wardrobe")
a long time ago and was never able to find the others . Someone told me
there are five or six other books in this series and I'd like to know .
Thanks in advance for any information .

Martha Christina
CBPF
Rio de Janeiro---Brazil
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:3473 rec.arts.sf.science:3766
From: young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:01:35 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.misc
Organization: Data General Australia

pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec10.172244.29523@infodev.cam.ac.uk> 
|> SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Dec9.114933.14903@newstand.syr.edu> 
|> >pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
|> >>
|> [stuff about territories getting 'boxed in']
|> >>
|> >I don't think you need the enlightenment being asked for to solve this
|> >problem.  There is a limit on how large an empire can get, particularly
|> >if you start imposing near-real physics on communication, and if one
|> >group has the space to expand into, it will do so until the whole thing
|> >falls apart.  
|> 
|> In which case you get MORE empires which need to expand, and the problem
|> is compounded.
|> 
|> [deleted]
|> >contact) and will probably accede.  The concept of territories is not
|> >as static as made out, even if there is no actual fighting.
|> 
|> Part of my point.  Borders will become fluid to the point, that their
|> maintenance is no longer worth the effort.  

Can't agree, guys.  I see no intrinsic reason why a 3D territory should
be particularly amorphous or fluid.  With no FTL drive, a system's
heliopause would be one logical candidate for the border. With FTL,
you could claim (and try to defend) your local spiral arm, galaxy,
cluster, or whatever.

Whatever the technology, you can depend on the fact that nobody, but
nobody, is going to allow an armed, powerful neighbour to sit on their
doorstep if they can help it.  Would you welcome aliens to set up shop
on Mars, knowing they could destroy life on Earth within light minutes?
Alien minds would take a lot of fathoming.  Security comes through
predictability, which will be a loooong time coming, if at all possible.

Political boundaries are more likely to be determined by early-warning
times.  We could perhaps tolerate aliens camped at Barnards Star because
we'd be able to see their sub-FTL missiles coming for years and take
some defensive action (shield, retaliate or move out).  If they have
warp drive, we want them no closer than Andromeda, so we can respond
to the tachyon wakes, etc ...  That builds confidence for all parties.

-- 
Philip R. Young
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies