HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:38:46 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>In <1993Jan7.173125.20305@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>>In article <rwallace.726348286@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>
>>heat sink, yes.  But terribly vulnerable radiators.  So to zap it, dump silver
>>paint so that it coats the radiator.  And as for the "full power
>>generating capacity", if it is environmental, you couldn't accelerate
>>(read "move") and it could be closed down with black paint.  And if it
>>is internal, so could the planetary base.  
>
>Who mentioned radiators? The heat sink for a fusion gun or whatever
>could simply be the habitat's water reservoir. I think a 10,000-ton
>water storage takn could soak up quite a lot of heat (with bleeder
>valves in case the water got too hot).
>
The carnot cycle gives us the maximum possivle efficiancy for any
reactor. Get the watter hot enough and all of a sudden your big
expensive (or small expensive) nuclear reactor gives you Zero power
output. You have to radiate the heat.

>If an amount of nuclear explosives equivalent to a Dinosaur Killer hit
>the Earth, that would cause a lot of inconvenience to everyone. Plus
>that megatonnage aimed at say Europe would kill quite a lot of people.
>Even not aimed at specific targets.

So what happens when the emp from a near miss with a nuclear device
fries every single electronic component in your colony?


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.

If you can't love the constitution, at least hate the government.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Pulsars as time machines?
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:45:02 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <dxd=f0B@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> My question is, *is* this so? What is an "average" radius and speed of
>a pulsar? Can we measure the speeds and sizes of pulsars that aren't
>aimed at us, and do any of those fall in the following neighborhood?
>Anyone have any buddies on sci.space? (I'm loath to post this there-
>they get enough traffic as it is, and most wouldn't care...)
>
>       radius                       rate of revolution
>
>       10 km                        ~40 microseconds
>       100 km                       ~400 microseconds
>       1000 km                      ~4 milliseconds
>       10000 km                     ~40 milliseconds

No real pulsar has a rotation speed anywhere near half lightspeed; they'd
fly apart if they did. Since pulsars are several times bigger than black
holes, they have much lower escape speeds (i.e. much lower than the speed
of light).

Pulsars have radii on the order of 10 km; only those in a very narrow mass
range (about 0.09 to 0.15 solar mass) will have a radius even as high as
20 km. The shortest known rotation period (the pulsar would have to be
pretty massive, and would have R < 10 km) is just under a millisecond.


--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......

"I blame you for the moonlit sky and the dream that died with the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights when I wonder why are the seas still dry
Don't blame me, sleeping satellite"                              (Tasmin Archer)

--

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:49:38 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>In <1993Jan06.193935.163389@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>
>>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>>>Surely the easiest and simplest method of wrecking a planet is to just
>>>throw enough hydrogen bombs
>
>>	I still think the easist way is to take a bussard ramjet out a
>>couple of light years, turn it arround and ram the star. Anyone feel
>>like doing the Lorenz transformation on a bussard ramjet accelerating at
>>10m/s^2 over a distance of say 10 light years? i don't have the back of
>>an envelope handy.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a Bussard ramjet can
>accelerate to no greater a speed than its exhaust velocity, since at
>that point each ton of hydrogen will slow it down in collection by the
>same amount it will accelerate it. Now, the theoretical maximum exhaust
>velocity for a fusion drive is around 20,000-30,000 km/sec; a ship at
>this speed will do plenty of damage, but not enough to make it an
>economical solution compared to using bombs. (Hydrogen bombs are going
>to be a *lot* cheaper weight for weight than a Bussard ramjet.)
>
>--
I'm not shure i see why the hydrogen colected would slow the ship at the
same rate it is accelerated, shurely it depends on the shape of the
magnetic fields. Obviously since mass-energy is conserved, and some mass
is being converted to energy, that energy goes somewhere. Newtons second
law tell us that it has to go half into the exhaust and half into your
ships kinetic energy. Furthermore Newtons laws are invarient in a
Galileaian(sp?) transformation. Therefore i see no upper bound on it's
energy. Please coorect my logic if you find it to be faulty.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.

If you can't love the constitution, at least hate the government.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3942 alt.folklore.science:4569
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:57:51 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <Geoff.6lb0@equinox.gen.nz> Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan) writes:

>>150 billion... Would you *want* to live in a world that full of people? Does
>>quality of life count for anything, or just quantity?

*How* full do you think it would be? Cities 30 times denser populated
than today; cities 30 times larger than today?

Most of the land area today is in fact empty, so 30 times more cities
would hardly be anything I'd call a problem at all. (OK, some of the
empty places are no good, but most are perfectly possible.) Remember,
if you make the cities dense enough, with a sharp limit between city
and countryside, we'd have the natural environment within easy reach
for those who want to go there sometimes and much of the ecosystem
could be left untouched.

>Yes, I would.  More people means more interesting things happening.
>More interesting books will be written. 

I fully agree. But with 10+billion people on USENET, at least I will
need a more intelligent newsreader.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Keywords: n
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:24:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.104941.21487@odin.diku.dk> damm@diku.dk (Kristian Damm Jensen) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}
}>In article <1isib2INNd23@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de writes:
}>}A planet and its biosphere are so big and fragile that 1), 2) and 6)
}>}are not really an option, and the chances of a single hit coming
}>}through are rather large, with unacceptable consequences.
}
}>Why are you assuming that you are using the native biosphere?  The
}>moon, for example, does not have such a thing...
}
}Because a base on the moon probably will be the same size and have the
}advantages as a spacehabitat.

More.  There is a LOT of shielding around a moon base...


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:41:06 GMT

Not bothering to quote here, because I'm rushed for time...too many irons in the fire today,
but if I don't respond now, I'll lose it.

Thing about space habitats is that you don't need _bomb_ to wipe it out.  A few hundred
pounds of very fast ball-bearings will likely do the trick.

The speed you could accellerate any sizeable space station at would probably make it a
very last ditch method of defense.  (You _would_ want to get it back into a stable orbit
at some point, I assume, and you don't want to kill anyone on it by suddenly breaking
it apart under 2Gs)

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:04:45 GMT

In <1993Jan11.153049.26594@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <rwallace.726538409@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>}In <1993Jan08.183846.101582@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>}
>}>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>}>>In <1993Jan7.173125.20305@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>>
>}>>>In article <rwallace.726348286@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>}>>
>}>>>heat sink, yes.  But terribly vulnerable radiators.  So to zap it, dump silver
>}>>>paint so that it coats the radiator.  And as for the "full power
>}>>>generating capacity", if it is environmental, you couldn't accelerate
>}>>>(read "move") and it could be closed down with black paint.  And if it
>}>>>is internal, so could the planetary base.  
>}>>
>}>>Who mentioned radiators? The heat sink for a fusion gun or whatever
>}>>could simply be the habitat's water reservoir. I think a 10,000-ton
>}>>water storage takn could soak up quite a lot of heat (with bleeder
>}>>valves in case the water got too hot).
>}>>
>}>The carnot cycle gives us the maximum possivle efficiancy for any
>}>reactor. Get the watter hot enough and all of a sudden your big
>}>expensive (or small expensive) nuclear reactor gives you Zero power
>}>output. You have to radiate the heat.
>}
>}Sure, but the water tank is only a temporary buffer while the radiators
>}are damaged or overloaded; a total reserve of maybe 1,000,000 tons of
>}water is not going to overheat in that time. If it does, you could buy
>}time by venting steam into space.
>}

>A cubic mile of rock would do better.  Ibid an ocean.  You are presenting
>options by which, through their specific utilization, planets are better.

A cubic mile of rock would not do at all, rock being a very poor
conductor of heat. An ocean would do brilliantly, except that if you've
got an ocean, that means you've got an atmosphere, which means you've
got to put your weapons in orbit, which means they're going to be
incredibly expensive to build and maintain, plus you can't use the ocean
as a heat sink, you've got to haul up large radiators or heat absorbers
(i.e. thousands of tons of water), which makes your weapons systems even
more incredibly expensive than they already were.

--
"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,alt.folklore.science
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:27:03 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


>> Wrong. It is very easy to point at an ecosystem and say it is inesssential,
>> but what you forget is that all of these systems are bound up together, and
>> loss of any one part endangers all of the rest.
>for a moment.  Are ecosystems really so interdependent and sensitive
>as that?  What *evidence* is there to support this dogma?  I see
>damned little.  The loss of frogs (real or not) only illustrates the

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all of the parts.
Who are you to say what is NOT essential?



>redundancy in the ecosystems -- lots of things other than frogs eat
>insects (and frogs don't control locust plagues, unless there is some
>strange form of locust that lives mostly in swamps...).


So you see the value of frogs only in their efficiency as controllers
of insects? The real concern is not so much for the loss of frogs as
in the implication that some important factor has started to change.
"Canary in a coal mine", you know.


Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3927 alt.folklore.science:4557
From: tim@nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu (Tim Conrow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Disappearing Frogs (Was Re: Global Sterilization)
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:10:31
Organization: California Institute of Technology
	<1993Jan4.044342.20088@cs.rochester.edu>
	<pete.726124773@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
	<1993Jan4.182011.21932@colorado.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu
In-reply-to: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu's message of Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:20:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.182011.21932@colorado.edu> juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:

   What is happening with rainforests, &c, is not the destruction of the
   ecosystem, but a replacement of one ecosystem with another. The new ecosystem
   is still complex enough to be self-sustaining, or the farmer who created it
   would quickly go out of business.  So the effective trauma, on a large scale,
   is limited.

Never mind all the other problems with calling a farm an "ecosystem",
I'll focus on the clear factual error here: the farms are *not* self
sustaining.  They begin failing in just a few years, which requires
the farmers to burn more forest to continue farming. Rainforest floor
is rather infertile, compared, for example, to prime plains farmland
in the US. The main fertilization is from the burned forest flora.

And what does complexity have to do with sustainability? Very simple
ecosystems exist which are fully self-sustaining.

And just because you're replacing the rainforest ecosystem with a farm
"ecosystem" doesn't invalidate use of the word "destroyed" and all
it's pejorative conotations. You've still lost the rainforest. In what
way does this limit large scale trauma?

Did I miss anything?

-- Tim

P.S. How `bout the large scale replacement of the rainforest ecosystem
with the gold mining "ecosystem", consisting mainly of wood shacks and
mud? Does this also limit large scale trauma?
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3928 alt.folklore.science:4559
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:24:38 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1993Jan4.225042.24568@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:

> I've seen this statement literally dozens of times.  Alt.folklore.science
> is as good a place for it as any.  Beyond "everybody knows", is there any
> evidence for it?  If arable land is in short supply and labor is not,
> then it would be at least as plausible to argue that children are *not*
> a net asset early on.


In Africa, at least, arable land is *not*, in general, in short supply
(although parts are more heavily populated).  The continent as a whole
is actually rather sparsely populated.  There are 676 million hectares
of potentially arable land in Africa; as of 1975 only 30% was in
cultivation; a projection for 2000 is 39%.  (Source: UN FAO,
"Agriculture: Toward 2000", 1981.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: (oddball question off the topic of...) Wrecking space colonies
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:50:42 GMT

In article <MARTINC.93Jan11094439@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
}In article <C0ow34.7z7@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
}
}   depleted uranium crowbars, 10 g - 1,000 tonnes @ 40 km/s
}
}I've wondered for some time -- what exactly *is* "depleted uranium"?
}238U alone (no 235)?  Iron-poor U?  Old tired stuff?
}--

Pretty much.  It's the uranium metal left after the "useful" stuff is taken out.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:19:41 GMT


Depends on two things:
1. What do you mean by "destroy"?  The lithosphere?  The biosphere?
2. How fast?

If just biosphere eventually, there seem to be quite a few ways.  Like move
a couple in...
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 14:25:57 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Reply-To: ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <rwallace.726413334@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a Bussard ramjet can
>accelerate to no greater a speed than its exhaust velocity, since at
>that point each ton of hydrogen will slow it down in collection by the
>same amount it will accelerate it.

This is indeed correct, provided you do the fusing at rest relative to
your spaceship.  Having the hydrogen fuse while it is streaming past you
at relativistic velocities is several orders of magnitude harder, I
presume, but at least theoretically possible.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
From: djh4535@zeus.tamu.edu (HARRIS, DUANE J)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: gravity
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:08 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


i'm no science major so i have a few questions

1. how does gravity effect light and the em spectum? (i think it does.)

2. what is the theory or what ever behind anti-gravity and is it practical?
         or is it just some comic book sh*t?

3. what about magnetism and gravity? (their relationship)

please try not to use alot of high tech jargon
(i'm not that versed in it)

thanx in advance.

		seth I
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:40:32
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<1993Jan08.183846.101582@zeus.calpoly.edu>
	<1993Jan8.171024.22702@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<rwallace.726568161@unix1.tcd.ie> <C0ow34.7z7@techbook.com>
	<rwallace.726765711@unix1.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:21:51 GMT

In article <rwallace.726765711@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:

   >An O'Neill colony begs to be destroyed.  Consider these simple
   >weapons, attacking from retrograde solar orbit:

   >depleted uranium crowbars, 10 g - 1,000 tonnes @ 40 km/s
   >km^2 cross-section deployable wire mesh -- for hacking apart radiators, 
   >	solar arrays, tethers, etc. @ 40 km/s

   From where is all this weaponry going to be fired? If it's fired from a
   long distance, the habitat will have dodged by the time it arrives
   (you're talking unguided weaponry, remember). If it's fired from a short
   distance, it will have to be fired from a battleship equipped with an
   appropriately huge rail gun, plus power supply to match. Meanwhile your
   (expensive) battleship is coming under return fire from the habitat,
   which is bigger, probably more heavily armed, and able to absorb more
   damage.

I think you're missing a point here.  1000 tonnes of 10 gramme
"crowbars" (actually, they sound more like 5 penny nails --- I think a
dime is about 10 grammes --- but what the hell) is a LOT of crowbars.
The dispersal can be easily made great enough that the cloud won't be
easily detectable; if the cloud is "deeper" along the line of orbit than
it is thick then you get a continuous sustained bombardment that ought
to eventually exhaust the defenses.

Furthermore, if you have a good idea of the limits of delta-vee
available to the habitat, you can arrange the dispersal so that there
are appropriate clouds coming along in any obtainable orbit.

There is no need for a rail gun to do it; you just move into the
appropriate retrograde orbit any place that's convenient, say at the
opposition point of the primary so your drive flare isn't visible.

Also, I still don't think you're taking appropriate consideration of
shockwave effects.  (There's a fun consideration of kinetic energy
weapons and shock wave effects in one of the _Venus Equilateral_
stories.) 
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:4027 alt.folklore.science:4591
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Date: 10 Jan 1993 10:38:20 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan10.031448.29374@netcom.com>, dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU:
>>>I've seen this statement literally dozens of times.  Alt.folklore.science
>>>is as good a place for it as any.  Beyond "everybody knows", is there any
>>>evidence for it?
>>
>>Check the literature, looking for the subject "demographic transition."
>
>I'll take that for a supercilious "don't know."

I'll take that as a lazy "I'm not going to take the time to try to learn about
it, and will continue to wallow in my ignorance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Reply to Time Travel FAQ stuff
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 01:43:12 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Well, there seem to be some bugs in the software here. Ken Arromdee and
Brian Philips made replies, but I can't see them. If you still care, :->
email or repost...

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science