HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Internet Machine Names
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:20:27 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Distribution: world
Reply-To: huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU


(Probably of marginal appropriateness, but anyhow ...)

[Guess I'm just a marginal kind of guy - ed.]

(Information obtained from _Michnet_News_, a publication of the
Merit Computer Network, a consortium of Michigan colleges and
university providing dial-up access to computer hosts from the
member institutions.)

SRI, Inc. regularly conducts surveys of the Internet to gather a list
of the most popular host names.  In the spring of 1992, #66 on the list
(with 174 known machines) was "spock".

Also popular in the top 100 names were names of planets ("venus", "pluto",
and "mars" were the top 3) and other astronomical bodies ("orion",
"rigel", "europa"), cartoon characters ("calvin", "hobbes", "snoopy",
"bart"), and boring names ("mac1", "mac2", "mac3", ...).


-- 
Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan                          huggins@eecs.umich.edu
"You cannot pray to a personal computer no matter how user-friendly it is."
                                                          -- W. Bingham Hunter

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat of r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to trek-info@fx.com,
				and questions to trek-info-request@fx.com
From: brown%vidiot.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu (Michael L. Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Latest ST:TNG schedule
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:17:25 GMT
Organization: Vulcan Science Academy, Tau Ceti Sector
Distribution: world
Reply-To: brown%vidiot.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU


Latest schedule, as of 9/24/92


127   9/19/92  227  46001.3	Time's Arrow Part II
128   9/26/92  228  46041.1	Realm of Fear
129  10/03/92  229  46071.6	Man of the People
130  10/10/92  230		Relics
131  10/17/92  231		Schisms
132  10/24/92  232		Q-Me
133  10/31/92  233		Rascals
134  11/07/92  234		A Fistful of Datas
135  11/14/92  235		The Quality of Life
     11/21/92  227R 46001.3	Time's Arrow Part II
     11/28/92  228R 46041.1	Realm of Fear
     12/05/92  229R 46071.6	Man of the People

The date is the first date of satellite uplink.  Paramount's official
'week of' is two days later.  Stardates will be added when known.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat of r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to trek-info@fx.com,
				and questions to trek-info-request@fx.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Difference between Holograph and Hologram
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:29:53 GMT

sdr57@cas.org () writes:
>A hologram is a recording medium (usually a photographic plate)
>containing the record of an interference pattern produced using
>a split (laser) beam (the interference arises from the differences
>between a reference portion of the beam and the portion of the beam
>reflected from an object).
>
>A holograph is a document written entirely in the handwriting of
>the person under whose name it appears.
>

And just to confuse matters "holography" is the process of creating a
hologram.
-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and
 car keys to teenage boys" - P.J.O'Rourke
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel)
Subject: Re: Constant mutations
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:38:00 GMT
Organization: preferably none
Keywords: Hello

In article <BvoFzC.DEn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas) writes:
|> >What is the 'chance' (as a generality, not a compuation) that a 
|> >set of genes will change slightly to produce a blue-eyed baby from
|> >two double-brown eyed parents (and how many paternity suits....hmmm :))
|> 
|> Absolutely infinitesimal.  The error rate in DNA copying is phenomenally
|> low.  Something like only one base-pair error in copying the entire strand.

My DNA-cutting friends tell me that it's actually about 1 in a million base
pairs (initially 1 in 1,000, but square the error rate because either (i)
there are two strands, or (ii) there's some other error-correcting
mechanism -- I can't remember exactly what they said).  Most of the errors
will be in the "garbage" DNA that never gets turned on in a human cell, or
will lead to insignificant changes to the organism.

My friends added that another stage of error-correction is biochemically
possible, but most complex organisms do *not* have it; any that did have it
would evolve so slowly as to be losers in the long term.

		- Richard
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tim@mik.uky.edu (timothy c huesman)
Subject: Re: asteroid impact
    <1992Oct8.165301.28091@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:48:15 GMT

    Yeah, it's science fiction, and although possible, I wouldn't bet
 on the success of 'aiming' a missile from earth.  When Halley'd comet
 made its last pass, there was plenty of warning and they MISSED with
 flybys.  Hmm as one gets old the memory fades.  The comet was other
 than Halley's...not that it matters much, they still missed.  I'd
 put a better chance of success from a space-launched missile or 
 'placed' nukes set in place by people in a vehicle matching velocities
 with said asteroid.

--

  Doc  Pan       tim@mik.uky.edu          Tim  Huesman
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Illumination inside reflective spheres
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:44:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Oct12.154422.10376
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1bc2sjINN4df@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.) writes:

> Ummm.... hey, guys? Are you SURE you want to build that reflective Dyson
> sphere? You see, all that reflected energy goes back to the focal point,
> right? And at the focal point is the sun, right? And what happens when you 
> start pouring all this energy BACK into the sun?
>
> Can you say "Supernova"? I knew you could!  <<grin>>


Cute, but wrong.

Quickly, on the back of your envelope, compute the ratio of the
gravitational binding energy of the sun divided by the power output of
the sun.  This ratio, which has units of time, is the timescale on
which the sun could be disassembled, using itself as a power source.
It's in the millions of years.

Kind of a slow supernova, no?  It takes a tremendous amount of energy
to heat up the sun -- its current thermal energy equals 1/2 its
gravitational binding energy (thanks to the virial theorem).  If
fusion were to stop this moment in the sun, it would takes millions
of years to "go out".

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Humanoids (was Re: Teleportation == suicide)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:42:57 GMT

In article <lsloan.718673763@nova> lsloan@nova.gmi.edu (Lance Sloan) writes:
>randall-joshua@CS.YALE.EDU (Joshua Randall) writes:
>
>I find it very hard to believe that most of the planets and ships on ST
>are suited for humans.  I don't think there are that many class M planets
>around.  I think that crew members are adapted for the place they're going
>to.

We don't know that this is the case-- it may only be true for the ones
we've seen.  It makes sense to group humanoid O2 breathers together.
There are probably many other ships in the Fleet crewed by
methane-breathing creatures.   They would be assigned to a different
class of planets, just like the E is assigned to investigate class M
worlds.  This will probably never be shown on TV, though, as it would
cost too much for special FX, it probably wouldn't be important to the
plot, and the average tv viewer probably wouldn't understand
non-humanoid life.

>That brings up another question of why most other life forms on ST have
>two arms, two legs, and a head, but I digress...

TOS mentioned "The Preservers", a race that was the ancestor of all
humanoid life.
-- 
   And thither came Conan, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, to tread the jeweled 
   thrones of the Earth beneath his sandaled feet.  --THE NEMEDIAN CHRONICLES 
hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682, WWIV4.21, 14.4k
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: asteroid impact
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:15:36 GMT

Onno.Meyer@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Onno Meyer):
>The paper said that a rock that would hit the earth could be deflected
>with nuclear arms.
>I always thought this is science fiction. Any comments?

It *is* science fiction, but that doesn't mean that it's not feasible.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleportation (continued)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct9.232023.24854@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
|In article <golovch.718599322@prim.rose.utoronto.ca>, golovch@prim.rose.utoronto.ca (Gene Golovchinsky) writes:
|>Speaking of heads, how did Data's head co-exist with itself on the Enterprise
|>before data went back in time to lose it?
|It didn't co-exist with itself. It co-existed with another head 500 years
|older. (Truth to tell, I don't believe that one myself. Surely some
|of the systems degraded in that amount of time. Data should be suffering
|some memory loss &/or senility)

Aahh!  That explans why he was unable to identify the green beverage in
last night's episode!
(I mean really, wouldn't you expect his data banks to include every consumable
aboard the Enterprise?)
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Illumination inside reflective spheres
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:43:14 GMT

In <Bvz3vo.5x2@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:


>	A while back, I proposed a form of Dyson Sphere where
>the individual components were suspended on light pressure
>from the primary. If, for example, some bright person processed
>a small moon into a 1.5 AU reflective dyson sphere, what would happen
>to illumination levels inside the sphere? What would the folks on
>Earth see when they looked up?

The whole sky would be bright (just how bright depends on how reflective
the sphere material was). Hence I think the Earth would overheat and all
life would die out. Things might be better for people living on the
inside of the sphere because at least the backside of the sphere would
have space to radiate away heat (but I think for a star as bright as the
Sun, the sphere would have to be significantly more than 1 AU in radius
to get the temperature right). Also you'd save a lot of money on street
lighting :-).

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])
Subject: Re: asteroid impact
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:29:25 GMT

For more information on this subject - check out sci.space, there's
currently a discussion of this right now there.

The Wigs of Oz,
Aaron Wigley
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: Re: Geometry in Heinlein (was: Teleportation == suicide)
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:47:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.174708.18991@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> sacke@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeff Hanna) writes:
>
>If you are interested in x,y,z and t equations, read Robert Heinlein's
>"The Number of the Beast"  It deals with space time movement based on
>6 dimensions (3 spacial dimensions and 3 time dimensions).

  Someone else has already pointed out that this is little more than a
plot gimmick in this book, but another thing I noticed on reading it
is that Heinlein got the 6-space geometry wrong.  He has them rotating
in 6-space about a linear (1-space) axis, whereas a rotation in
6-space ought to be about a 4-space.

  (Rotations are always about a space of dimension two lower than the
space they're operating in; thus, you rotate about a point in a plane,
or a line in 3-space.)

  This can be explained off by claiming that they're really rotating
about the 4-space made up of the three spacial dimensions and one of
the time dimensions (they only claim to rotate about one of the three
time dimensions), but still, Heinlein got it wrong.

Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: asteroid impact
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.144049.29219@sco.COM> charless@sco.COM (Charlie Stross) writes:
>
>One interesting question occurs to me. The Earth actually sweeps
>up a helluvalot of garbage every day without major problems;
>indeed, the effect of a gigatonne or ten of rock would probably be
>minimal *if* it was evenly distributed over the entire frontal
>area of the planet.

	You  want to spread it over time aswell  as area.  A 2km
rockmight mass 10**12 kg; at 30km/s that's 4.5x10**20 J. Spread
over 2.6x10**14 m**2, that's 1.7x10**6 J/m**2, or about the equivalent
of 20 minutes of sunlight. I don't know what percentage of the kinetic
energy of the rock would reach the surface, but I could see flashburns
easily, and perhaps  widespread incindiary effects if the impacts are
not spread over time.

>Surely the logical strategy for dealing with anything short of a
>humongous planetoid would be to gravitationally disrupt it with
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a sub-surface blast, then zero in on the biggest fragments
>and gravitationally disrupt _them_? 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	How?

							James Nicoll
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: One View on Extraterrestrial Life from 1919 (SETI)
Keywords: SETI
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:08:57 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        The following passage is quoted from AN INTRODUCTION TO ASTRONOMY,
    by Forest Ray Moulton, PhD, The MacMillan Company, New York, published
    in 1919.

        Chapter 9, "The Planets", Section 174, "Explanations of the 
    Canals of Mars", page 288:

        "It is a curious fact that those who know but little about
    astronomy are nearly always very much interested in the question
    whether other worlds are inhabited, while as a rule astronomers
    who devote their whole lives to the subject scarcely give the 
    question of the habitability of other planets a thought.  Astro-
    nomers are doubtless influenced by the knowledge that such spec-
    ulations can scarcely lead to certainty, and they are deeply 
    impressed by the fundamental laws which they find operating in
    the Universe.  

        "Nevertheless, there seems to be no good reason why we should
    not now and then consider the question of the existence of life,
    not only on the other planets of the solar system, but also on the
    millions of planets that possibly circulate around other suns.  Such 
    speculations help to enlarge our mental horizon and to give us a 
    better perspective in contemplating the origin and destiny of the 
    human race, but we should never forget that they are speculations."

        Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
                     or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
From: spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Spitzak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Illumination inside reflective spheres
Date: 13 Oct 1992 04:54:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: spitzak@gree.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: gree

I think you will receive exactly twice as much radiation at the surface
of the sphere as you would if the sphere was not there.  As you approached
the sun the contribution from the sphere would decrease and become tiny
compared to that from the sun itself.

This is not the result I expected (I thought the contribution from the sphere
would be constant for all internal points) so here is my (probably flawed)
reasoning:

Assumme the sphere is a *perfectly* reflecting mirrored surface and it is
a perfect sphere and the sun is also a perfect sphere centered exactly in
the middle.

From any point inside the sphere, you would see two images of the sun.  One
would be the actual sun.  The other would be exactly 180 degrees away from
that sun, and would be the reflection of the sun in the mirror at the point
nearest you.  Every other point would be black: try drawing it and you will
see that any ray that does not intersect the sun or it's image will never
hit the sun, thus going back in time until the time that the sphere was
constructed and then escaping to intersteller space.  (hey, this is an
*idealized* scenario!)

If you assumme the diameter of the sun is negligible compared to that of the
sphere (thus the reflection is very close to that in a flat mirror), then if
you are distance r (measured in sphere radii) from the sun, the image will
appear to be 1+(1-r) = 2-r from you.  The radiation you receive from each
image will be 1/R^2 (relative to what you get on earth now) and the total
is then 1/r^2+1/(2-r)^2 = (r^2+1)/(2-r)^2.  At the surface of the sphere that
is 2.  At very small r it approaches 1/r^2+1/4.

It would be a lot more complicated to integrate over the surface and figure
out the result from a diffuse reflector.  Where this argument is probably
flawed is that I assumme the result will be the same as from the perfect
reflector.  Right?  Wrong?

In any case the above assummes the sun is a perfect absorber of the energy
radiated into it.  In fact it will get hotter and thus radiate more.  I think
this means the temperature inside the sphere will eventually reach the average
temperature of the sun's mass.  Or it will go to infinity because the sun is
a producer of energy.  Or something like that.

You probably want to limit the reflectivity of the sphere to the visible
wavelengths.  If this is insufficient, reflect

 and some extra to get the temperature just right.  Add some
cooling fins to the outside?

Bill Spitzak


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: charless@sco.COM (Charlie Stross)
Subject: Re: asteroid impact
Organization: SCO Technical Waffle and Blurb Department
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:40:49 GMT


In article <1992Oct11.000556.2350@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>Toutatis will approach earth this December, in 2000, and 2004.  The positions 
>of the 2000 and 2004 flybies will not be well known until after December 
>due to earth's perturbations which enhance the uncertainty.  According to 
>a very crude calculation based on current uncertainties, you have five times 
>the chance of being killed by Toutatis in 2000 as you have of being killed 
>in an airline crash that year.
>
>>The paper said that a rock that would hit the earth could be deflected
>>with nuclear arms.
>
>A couple problems.  First, our warning time is less than 8 years. 
>Second, asteroids may be rubble piles rather than one big rock.  
>A nuclear bomb would disperse the pieces, but not deflect them
>to any signficant degree.  I doubt we could launch the nuclear
>energy needed to actually vaporize the asteroid, or at least 
>pulverize it into harmless-sized chunks. In general, though, we just 
>don't have enough information about the various types of asteroids 
>to know how to deflect them.

One interesting question occurs to me. The Earth actually sweeps
up a helluvalot of garbage every day without major problems;
indeed, the effect of a gigatonne or ten of rock would probably be
minimal *if* it was evenly distributed over the entire frontal
area of the planet.

Surely the logical strategy for dealing with anything short of a
humongous planetoid would be to gravitationally disrupt it with
a sub-surface blast, then zero in on the biggest fragments
and gravitationally disrupt _them_? If it was a choice between
a single multi-gigatonne equivalent dinosaur zapper and a 
shotgun blast of kilotonne range detonations along with some
assorted crud, I'd go for the `several small impacts' option.
(Although it's worth bearing the square-cube law in mind ...
big blasts are not proportionately more devestating than
small blasts, which is why nobody bothers much with nukes that
deliver more than 250 Kt (city-buster) or 400 Kt (silo-buster)
any more.)

>A couple projects if funded could remedy our ignorance.
>These projects would cost only $70 million apiece, or in total
>1/10 of 1% -- one-one-thousandth -- the cost of NASA's space
>station.  The first is Spacewatch, to find and track all dangerous 
>earth-approaching asteroids.  The second would be a survey to use big 
>telescopes and spectroscopy to determine the composition of these bodies.  
>These projects are also critical to getting raw materials from these 
>asteroids in the future, so we kill two birds with one stone (so to speak :-)

Two excellent ideas ...
-- 
Charlie Stross aka charless@scol.sco.com ..... UNIX oriented text mangler
WARNING: The opinions voiced in the preceding electronic document are the
product of a warped mind. Take two before meals.
From: sdr57@cas.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: asteroid impact
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:47:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cas.1992Oct9.164706.8297
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio

In article <tim.718642095@mik.uky.edu> tim@mik.uky.edu (timothy c huesman) writes:
>    Yeah, it's science fiction, and although possible, I wouldn't bet
> on the success of 'aiming' a missile from earth.  When Halley'd comet
> made its last pass, there was plenty of warning and they MISSED with
> flybys.  Hmm as one gets old the memory fades.  The comet was other
> than Halley's...not that it matters much, they still missed.  I'd
> put a better chance of success from a space-launched missile or
> 'placed' nukes set in place by people in a vehicle matching velocities
> with said asteroid.
>
>--
>
The USSR got their flyby right where they wanted it. Neat pictures.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts