HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: RFowler@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert A. Fowler)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Human flight.
Keywords: Spon
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:29:20 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory


>>      For the wing structure, I think the best bet would be bat-
>>like wings, that possibly may not allow true flight, but would allow
>>gliding for some distance. In considering this, I was trying to 
>>figure out whether completely adding new limns would be the go, or to 
>>use the existing arms (much like bat evolution) and have the stretched
>>skin attach to a certain distance down the torso.

I'd think the flying squirel model would be better.  Skin flaps from arms to 
legs, edge of flap is between wriste/ankle, without destorting the hip 
joint (so they couldn't walk like humans) only the arms would flap but this 
gives significantly more serface area to workwith without over lengthening 
the arms.

    _________________________________________________________________
                        
                        HONDA -- The only way to fly
    o          
  _/\_>   -A proud owner (just wish they were made in the USA)
 O,> / O   [with all respects to Ohio MINE were made in Japan]
           
                           CM400T/XL500R/VF500F
                             '79   '82    '84
                           
     Slower trafic keep right (SUCKzukies, HDs, etc.) ->->->->->->->
    _________________________________________________________________
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:58:25 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca's message of 23 Jul 92 06:14:22 GMT

In article <Brtvzy.Axv@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:

      Lesser variant of the above: the comet is pulverized and then tossed
   at us in a huge cloud. Try for 50+ meteors per minute visible from the
   ground, and figure the light pollution makes spotting your ships very
   unlikely. This has to continue for months, possibly.

It would also play hob with NEO commercial and military space traffic.

      Plant hundreds of probes in the outer solar system which produce a
   signature very similar to the one your ship will create. Say, a sudden
   burst of high energy gamma rays, if your ship is likely to spit those,
   and run them for a year or so until the people on the ground just come to
   accept them as mysterious unknown phenomena and don't get excited about
   any particular one.

Oooh, I like these.  These'd make a great opening act for a deep-space
technothriller.

(I just read Jack Ryan saves the world from nuclear war again last night
-- Tom Clancy's going to have to go SF if he's going to have Ryan do
anything bigger.)
--

Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. -- Schiller
Ergo bibamus! -- Goethe
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Organization: SCTC
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:10:23 GMT

>>In article <714@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
>>writes: 
>>>My point was actually fairly simple.  The Moties combination of large body
>>>size, long life, and r-strategy reproduction is boucoup unlikely[.]
>>
>>>In the Mote system we get the rather absurd combination of an r-strategist
>>>that has become the dominant species, wiping out all of the K-strategists.

>If I remember the book correctly (someone please re-read and check this)
>the Moties were **designed** not evolved.  Way, way back in their history
>they were built by some previous (probably K-strategist, certainly dominant)
>race.  So arguments about the likelihood of their evolving are irrelevant,
>as Niven and Pournelle never claimed they evolved.

I believe I _do_ remember the book correctly, and there was no mention
of the Moties being engineered, unless it was a mention of such
powerful subtlety that it escaped my notice (not impossible).

The idea, as I got it, was that there had been industrial society at
the level of fusion power for millions of years (the nasty pollutants
in water for so long that the native species tolerated them and the
helium).  Every N<5,000 [my estimate] years, overpopulation due to
decreased death rate led to wars of extermination that left most life
on the planet dead.  Due to the fact that most life on the planet at
these times were Moties and food species, the Moties were left to
radiate into empty niches each time.

Carry this out perhaps 400 times and I don't see any reason that most
species remaining would be Motie-descended.  There _was_ mention of
some species that didn't share the general Motie plan, but not many.

Several posters have asserted that an r-strategy can't be used by an
intelligent species.  I'm afraid I see no support for this statement
other than ``the only intelligent species we know doesn't use it.''
The same argument can support the contention that all intelligent
species have to be relatively hairless bipeds that post to USENET.
Say, now that's not so far-fetched . . . .

The big hole in the book, IMHO, is the Engineer's instinct for
machines and even worse, the Watchmakers.  However, I'm willing to
believe something like this might happen with enough Cycles of
selection, in absence of any way to test it.  

Still a terrific book, though.

	Mike 




-- 
Mike Beede         Secure Computing
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
------------------ Arden Hills, MN  55112
                       (612) 482-7420
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:28:58 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Jul23.060653.14757@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>
>What's a RAIR?
	
	It's similar to a Bussard Ramjet except instead of fusing interstellar
hydrogen, it energises it with onboard antimatter.  


							James Nicoll	
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 04:45:33 GMT

otten@sbpexe.enet.dec.com writes:


>To: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
>Cc: 
>Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems

>|>   Toss a comet at us (arrange for it with a robot probe which gets here
>|>early and brakes by one of the above methods) then slow down while we're
>|>still trying to dig our way out of the mess we're in.

>Must be a usage of the word "Sneaking" I haven't come accross before :-)

About as sneaky as blinding a cyclops so he won't see you underneath the
sheep.  Hey, it works.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Relativistic Bombardment (was Re: Sneaking into Star Systems)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:44:45 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<Brtvzy.Axv@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <Brtvzy.Axv@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:

      Toss a comet at us (arrange for it with a robot probe which gets here
   early and brakes by one of the above methods) then slow down while we're
   still trying to dig our way out of the mess we're in.

[MINOR SPOILER ALERT for Benford's `Into the Ocean of Night' series]

Reading Benford's `Into the Ocean of Night' series, I thought that
this was one massive hole in the plot: (recalling the discussion on
relativistic bombardment on this group a few months back) the machine
civilizations can wipe out mankind (on Earth) simply by sending a
relativistic bomb, the size of (say) the Snark (viz: 1 or 2
kilometres: a comet or something). We'd be out for the count before we
even knew it was there.

But then their whole strategy (seeding the oceans etc) was quite
strange. What was their intention? I couldn't figure it out, unless it
was more `art'.

Nick
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:47:22 GMT
	<1992Jul23.060316.14661@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> <59195@mimsy.umd.edu>
	<1992Jul24.131023.14508@sctc.com> <rwallace.712280599@unix1.tcd.ie>
	<775@tdat.teradata.COM> <l7dp5sINN341@appser
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 29 Jul 92 18:34:36 GMT

One thing about the Moties is that the history as it appears in the book
suggests that basically all the Mote animal life is really descended
from a proto-Motie, apparently bilaterally symmetric and probably
technological.   This kind of very narrow ancestry would be a perfect
situation for genetic drift to lead to the survival of what might seem
otherwise a pretty stupid adaptation.  So the fact that Motie regulation
is bizarre makes it's own kind of sense.

One side effect of this argument though is that the Motie style of (lack
of) population regulation is probably very widely distributed throughout
*all* Mote fauna.

In other words, unless they're actively killing off the animals all the
time, they should be up to their complicated super-pelvic joint in cats
and dogs and rats and voles ... or their analogue in Motie-descended
animals. 
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 29 Jul 1992 18:34:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <775@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <rwallace.712280599@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>|Important point: the Moties are NOT r-strategists, they are
>|K-strategists. They don't turn lots of kids loose to fend for
>|themselves, they cherish them (as is observed a couple of times in the
>|book, Moties value their kids more than anything else).
>
>I have been thinking, and I suspect you may be right here.
>
>However, the complete lack of any plasticity, any environmental adjustment
>in reproductive rates is downright *bizarre*.  I know of no animal om
>Earth that does not have *some* adjustment mechanisms, and K-strategists
>generally tend to have *more* *sophisticated* adjustment mechanisms than
>r-strategists.

They do adjust.  They just do it through huge wars that initiate the
(multiple) collapses of their civilization(s).

>So either way, the Moties are out of line biologically.

Maybe.  I don't think we really know enough about them.  We "know" some
things from observation of their culture(s?), some things that they
claim are true, and some inferred from bashing on that information.

Maybe we've been lied to and things aren't really as we've been led to
believe.

I hope that "Moat Around Murcheson's Eye" gets published during my
lifetime...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Re: Human flight.
Keywords: Spon
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:05:54 GMT

RFowler@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert A. Fowler) writes:


>>>      For the wing structure, I think the best bet would be bat-
>>>like wings, that possibly may not allow true flight, but would allow
>>>gliding for some distance. In considering this, I was trying to 
>>>figure out whether completely adding new limns would be the go, or to 
>>>use the existing arms (much like bat evolution) and have the stretched
>>>skin attach to a certain distance down the torso.

>I'd think the flying squirel model would be better.  Skin flaps from arms to 
>legs, edge of flap is between wriste/ankle, without destorting the hip 
>joint (so they couldn't walk like humans) only the arms would flap but this 
>gives significantly more serface area to workwith without over lengthening 
>the arms.

I was assuming that sort of thing as well, as (as I understand it) you
would need all the SA you could get, even by lightening bone structure.
Don't bats have that skin flap as well? Not as pronouced, I know.

eCcles
>    _________________________________________________________________
>                        
>                        HONDA -- The only way to fly
>    o          
>  _/\_>   -A proud owner (just wish they were made in the USA)
> O,> / O   [with all respects to Ohio MINE were made in Japan]
>           
>                           CM400T/XL500R/VF500F
>                             '79   '82    '84
>                           
>     Slower trafic keep right (SUCKzukies, HDs, etc.) ->->->->->->->
>    _________________________________________________________________
From: morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Citizen Elmo)
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Organization: The Welles Fargo Wagon
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:03:27 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <54970@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Gellis) writes:
> 
> [...]  The "second stage" is
> disguised to look like a small asteroid.  It is equipped with a powerful
> laser for sending data back to its home solar system; it only uses this
> when it is more than a few AU from Earth, so no one will notice.  The

	Uh, it's a laser.  Assuming that the earth doesn't lie on a line
between the asteroid and the homeworld, we wouldn't detect it period.
-- 
"You know, Chel, it seems kind of funny/Texas always seemed so big.
But you know you're in the biggest state in the union
When you anchored down in Anchorage."
--Michelle Shocked

elmo (morrow@fnal.fnal.gov,morrow@physics.rice.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:14:22 GMT

In article <Brtow2.F6y@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	Let's say there a hypothetical race with STL starships
>who want to look at our planet without alerting us  to their 
>presence. Most STL propulsion systems (ramjets, RAIRs, laser-
>driven sails) are pretty obvious to observers, so how would the
>ETs sneak insystem without being seen?
>
   Come in with full hyperbolic excess and shed it in Jupiter's
atmosphere with aerobraking, then use a more conventional chemical rocket
or ion engine for insystem navigation, both of which can be hidden pretty
easily from long-range observation.
   Do your braking burn when the Sun lies between the Earth and your
ships. This takes a bit of planning ahead of time, but they must suspect
we're here or they wouldn't be trying to come in quietly.
   Scream through without dropping hyperbolic excess while releasing high
delta-v (maybe a starwisp design?) probes to do the actual close-in
study.
   Toss a comet at us (arrange for it with a robot probe which gets here
early and brakes by one of the above methods) then slow down while we're
still trying to dig our way out of the mess we're in.
   Lesser variant of the above: the comet is pulverized and then tossed
at us in a huge cloud. Try for 50+ meteors per minute visible from the
ground, and figure the light pollution makes spotting your ships very
unlikely. This has to continue for months, possibly.
   Plant hundreds of probes in the outer solar system which produce a
signature very similar to the one your ship will create. Say, a sudden
burst of high energy gamma rays, if your ship is likely to spit those,
and run them for a year or so until the people on the ground just come to
accept them as mysterious unknown phenomena and don't get excited about
any particular one.

>						James Nicoll

-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Talk sense to a fool
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | and he calls you
 cneufeld@terranet.cts.com                       | foolish.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |       - Euripides
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jefft@athena.mit.edu (Jeff Tang)
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:48:43 GMT


Why not just turn off your drive and drift by, going through the orbital
plane.  You can also drop off a small probe that will drift by earth at a
slower speed.

--
Jeff Tang
jefft@athena.mit.edu
From: otten@sbpexe.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:03:30 GMT
Reply-To: otten@sbpexe.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


To: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems



In article <Brtvzy.Axv@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> you write:
|>Path: rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!utcsri!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!neufeld
|>From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
|>Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
|>Subject: Re: Sneaking into Star Systems
|>Message-ID: <Brtvzy.Axv@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
|>Date: 23 Jul 92 06:14:22 GMT
|>References: <Brtow2.F6y@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
|>Sender: news@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (News Administrator)
|>Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
|>Lines: 38
|> 
|>   Toss a comet at us (arrange for it with a robot probe which gets here
|>early and brakes by one of the above methods) then slow down while we're
|>still trying to dig our way out of the mess we're in.

Must be a usage of the word "Sneaking" I haven't come accross before :-)

|>>						James Nicoll
|>
|>-- 
|> Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Talk sense to a fool
|> neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | and he calls you
|> cneufeld@terranet.cts.com                       | foolish.
|> "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |       - Euripides
|>
David Otten.. Euro Expert Systems Support	|Your lack of planning
Digital Equipment Co. UK.			| is not my urgent priority
From: Gerrit@laosinh.stgt.sub.org (Gerrit_Heitsch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: speed of light
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:54:00 MET
Distribution: world
Organization: Lao-Sinh project (private UUCP site)

In article <1992Jul20.151457.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

> Besides, can you imagine what would happen if the ship, traveling at, say
> one-half C, should encounter a few errant hydrogen atoms?  This hull would have
> top be designed to withstand some _serious_ nuclear explosions.
If you want to fly at this speed, you should turn your shields on, or
you _will_ get problems...
Without (energy-)shields simply the shifting of the wavelengths towards blue
in the direction of your flight will kill everyone inside the ship, because
it will reach ultraviolet and proceede over X-rays to gamma rays and so
on with the increasing of the speed. From the outside you (at a speed of zero)
will be able to look _through_ such a spaceship. Maybe you will be able
to take some nice photos. ;-)

How long do you think can the people inside the ship take this?

Gerrit


         Gerrit Heitsch  Moenchweg 16  7038 Holzgerlingen  Germany
  Logical adresses: UUCP: gerrit@laosinh.stgt.sub.org FIDO: (2:247/706.9)
                 If you are from outer space, please use:
  universe!local-cluster!milkyway!solarsystem!terra!europe!laosinh!gerrit
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:48:49 GMT

In article <rwallace.712280599@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>
>(The real flaw in the book was that the Moties would actually have built
>space habitats; the resources for doing this are essentially unlimited.

	Ah, no. Given exponential population growth, the Moties could 
(Given the technology) Eat The Universe in a few millenia. They *did*
do the space habitat thing, but outgrew their resources in space.

>Furthermore, a fusion-powered space habitat automatically doubles as an
>STL spaceship with virtually unlimited range. So what if it took 1000
>years to cover the 35 light years to the nearest planetary system to
>Mote Prime?)

	The Moties can't  run generation ships without allowing for
cycles to occur along the way. No birth control and  a *tiny* ecosystem
makes for faster cycles.

							James Nicoll
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Moat around God's Eye
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:17:40 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1992Jul23.095510.1@skcla.monsanto.com> jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.060316.14661@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>, rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>I'm afraid I don't remember what the motie 'litter size' was.  R-strategy would
>usually require lots of children.  Of course the 'required' reproduction,
>meaning quick turnover, does offset this.

The only direct example we have form the book is the engineer on the welcome
ship which had 1 child.  But I don't think that moties are pure r-strat types
in that it appears that a typical motie has 1 child every 3 or so years and
lives only about 30 years (or was that just the hybred mediator type?)
giving somethign that looks alot like a k-strat type.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.lroal.com