HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcharpak@bu.edu (Joseph Charpak)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:32:31 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.tech
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Joseph Dawson (joseph@odie.cs.mun.ca) wrote:
: Why is data so limited.  He shouldn't need a communicator.  He should
: have one built.  Data should be able to talk with the ship without
: talking out loud.  He could also have a phaser built in, and that is
: only a start.
:  
: What do you think?
: 
: Joe

To: joseph@odie.cs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Why is Data so limited?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech,rec.arts.startrek.current
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Cc: 
Bcc: 

In article <1992Nov10.023154.15997@cs.mun.ca> you write:
>Why is data so limited.  He shouldn't need a communicator.  He should
>have one built.  Data should be able to talk with the ship without
>talking out loud.  He could also have a phaser built in, and that is
>only a start.
> 
>What do you think?
>
>Joe
.Data does not come with a phaser since for the very fact that it is in his
 nature to dislike them.  In one episode(I don't remember it's name) Data is
 kidnapped and is goaded into using it as a last resort, just before he was
 beamed aboard the Enterprise.  In fact he denied the fact and stated that
 O'brien was "mistaken" when he discovered that a phaser had been fired just
 before/during beaming.  ..The reason Data does not directly link to the
computer is because he _enjoys_ talking to it either because he feels he is of
the same kind as the computer or in the other end of the spectrum he feels it
makes him feel more human.  I read this in some recent TNG novel so it's not solely 
my own idea.
Joseph Charpak
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144)
Subject: Re: Did anyone record Riker's computer description?
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:00:05 GMT

Yeah...I have it on tape, but it will be a alot to write down. May I will when
I get some time.

That technobabbly really had that Ferengi going! Probably made him feel dumb as
$H^+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@jec308.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: Scotty in Transport
Reply-To: petitc@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:20:04 GMT

In article <tomcat.721064435@cwis>, tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo) writes:

|> In that episode, "Darmok", it was kind of weird...Picard did seem to "freeze"
|> when the transporter was engaged...but before that, when they first attempted
|> to beam  him aboard, you see him being dematerialized and moving as he is 
|> screaming "No!  No!".  It could be possible that moving in transport is NOT 
|> recommended, but it is okay.  I'll have to look it up in the Tech Man and see, 
|> but I would guess that it is possible to move in transport, but it is probably
|> not a good idea.


  I'd tend to agree.  Remember the one where the war veterans are kept on a
moon, when they want their lives back?  When he broke the confinment beam, he
could have been killed.

-- 
Trust:  A very precious social commodity, due both to high value and terrible
scarcity.
MATWDTM:  Mothers Against Teenagers Who Drink Too Much (failed name for MADD)
From: 00bwanderson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Q
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:10:12 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <BxB6o2.9Fx@umassd.edu>, s13987bl@UMASSD.EDU writes:
> I want to know all there is to know about the Q, and the Q continuum.
> please post any replies here, or E-mail to me.   
> 				Thanks

[large .sig deleted]

First, we get a smaller, less obnoxious .signature, then...8^)

Just kidding.  Anyway, there's nothing much to know because nothing much has
been said.  Just watch:

Encounter At Farpoint
and any episode that has a "Q" in the title-there are three, nu?

You might also want to read DC's first TNG miniseries...kinda interesting.
AAAAAAAAAAnd-look for the episode Time Squared.  (I think that's it...)  That
was originally to have been a two-parter about Q.  Pretty interesting,
really...

Spock out...
-- 
.sig?  We don' need no steenkin' .sig!

Bruce Anderson: A tradition of Chaos and Disorder since 1967
spock@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (unix)	00bwanderson@bsu-ucs.uucp (VAX)
Don't look at me in that tone of voice!  BSU disclaims me, and I disclaim them.
From: meierdalepau@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: test
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:04:57 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Did anyone record Riker's computer description?
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:05:10 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

rryan@panix.com (Rob Ryan) writes:

> Out of curiosity, why do you want Riker's description of the computer?
> I was assuming that he was making a lot of it up as he went.  That
> interpretation makes Riker's crack, "well, you do know what a xxx is,
> don't you?", funnier.  By making it up he (a) doesn't reveal any secrets
> to the Ferengi; and (b) isn't limited by his what he doesn't know about
> the system (he can just keep going and going and ...).  Perhaps he may have
> been telling the truth but it seems equally plausible that he was making
> it up.  Regardless, I would hesitate in taking that description as
> canon.

I assumed that he was making it up (especially considering his secondary 
comments to the Ferengi trying to learn, as you pointed out).

But I think it's a sign that Star Trek has too much technobabble in 
normal situations if you can't tell the difference when they're using 
garbage terms to describe somethings that's happening in the plot or when 
they're using garbage terms to be humorous.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
From: pjb@cci632.cci.com (Phil Busardo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Scotty in Transport
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:55:01 GMT
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY

In article <1dc2cmINNkr8@gambier.rick.cs.ubc.ca> w5y092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Todd Leroux) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.174456.15219@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> cwynne@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Colin J. Wynne) writes:
>>How 'bout this?  They used TOS transporter effects.  Not TNG, not even
>>movies, but TOS.  And in TOS they couldn't even move in transport; they
>>were in a sort of stasis (no, not a stasis field, but something similar)
>>during transport.  It was later tech advances that made it possible to
>>remain conscious and somewhat active during the beaming process.
>>
>>CJW
>
>In one TNG episode -- the one where Picard and a ?Tammarian? (you know,
>the dudes who talk in metaphors) are sent down
>to a planet to kill a monster -- Picard is beamed up just as he's about to
>strike the vicious beasty.  And he freezes in mid-swing.  That seems to be
>pretty strong evidence that people freeze during transport.  Unless of 
>course, episodes are non-canon.

I disagree.  In the WOK Kirk and Bones actually talk through the entire 
tranport process.
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Orientation
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:37:28 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1detq4INN8uh@bowen.rick.cs.ubc.ca> w5y092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Todd Leroux) writes:
> Why is it that when two ships meet out in the depths of space, they're
> always both the same side up?  It's not like there's a big this-side-up
> sticker for the universe, is there?

Use the right hand rule from physics, and your thumb will point to the
natural "up" in the universe.  Since everyone needs maps to navigate, and
it would be a pain to have a different "up" on each map, it makes sense
to me that most spacefaring races would standarize in a similar manner.
After all, with the diverse cultures we have on Earth, most cultures
have picked "North" to be at the top of their maps.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Why is Data So Limited
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:40:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.721503645
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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.

In <wf0Fkr200iV281h1JP@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Joseph Harris <mh6g+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>besides, a super data would kill so many good plot lines...
>( just imagine the additional number of "data saves the day" episodes...lame)

Unfortunately, there have been many times when Data *could* 
have saved the day, but didn't, because the writers didn't
realize or didn't take advantage of the abilities he does
have.  For example, Data has a phaser pointed at him at point-
blank range.  With his speed and reflexes, he should be able
to reach out and take the hand phaser before his adversary
knows what's happened.  But Data seldom uses these abilities
for anything but shuffling cards.

Then there's the business of Data doing a double take or
pausing to think.  This happens frequently, and certainly
makes him appear more human.  Often it is used for comic
effect.  But it shouldn't happen.  Data's thought processes 
are perhaps a million times faster than a human's.  Data's 
pausing for a second to think would be like a human pausing
for a year.

This, of course, brings up another interesting point --
Data's perception of time.  If Data can think much faster
than a human being, it seems likely that he perceives time
much differently also.  Each one of Data's days may be longer,
to him, than an entire human lifetime.
From: perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Galactic Engineers Concordance (followup)
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:35:51 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Nov12.183722.8684@iscsvax.uni.edu>, perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
> For all of you out there who enjoy reading about the technical
> aspects of Star Trek/ST:TNG, there's an excellent book put out
> by a friend of mine called THE LOGBOOK OF THE GALACTIC ENGINEERS
> CONCORDANCE. Very informative and discussion-oriented.
> 
> To find out more, write to ROY FIRESTONE at 11400 Abby Lane, SE
> Clackamas, OR  97015 and tell him TIM sent you!  Or e-mail me
> at PERDUE4575@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU
> 
> --Tim Perdue

--oops. Actually, it's a bimonthly magazine put out by a "club" of
fellow techies.  It has everything from foldout blueprints of new
classes of starships to Pulse Warp Technology articles.

It costs about $15 to subscribe for a year (6 issues). If you like
the technical aspects of ST/ST:TNG, then it's the best $15 you'll
ever spend. Very good production qualities and as close to professional
as you'll find this side of Starlog...

--Tim
From: CXMP@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXMP000)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: theory vs. theorem (was Re: time and warp speed)
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:44:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: VM1.12NOV92.12680527.0084
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Nov12.152452.12921@news2.cis.umn.edu> fin@unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth) writes:
>In article <BxKsA6.4xC@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, kelsey@redwing.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov11.224923.4705@news2.cis.umn.edu>, fin@unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth) writes:
> ...
>|> |> I believe that you are confused.  The term "theory" (in this context)
>|> |> means that it has been _proven_.  You are probably confusing the
>|> |> meaning with that of "conjecture," which means that it has been stated
>|> |> but not proven.
>|> |>
>|> You are confusing a scientific _theory_ with a mathematical _theorem_.  A
>|> theorem can indeed be "proven", and until it is it should be referred to as a
>|> "conjecture".  A good example of this is Fermat's Last Theorem, which has
>
>I believe that other branches of science (Physics, Chemistry, etc.)
>use "theory" in the sense that I do.  If you ask a physicist "is the
>Special Theory of Relativity 'just a theory'?" you will find that he
>or she will consider it "proven" in any reasonable sense of the word.

I am a physcist and while I consider the Theory of Relativity to be a
fact in that it accuately describes what is observed, I don't consider
it to have been proven in that there may be another theory they may
explain the same phenomena that Relativity does as well as phoenomena
that it doesn't.  By "phoenomena that doesn't", I don't mean that there
is any experimental evidence against Relativity but that doesn't mean
there won't be in the future (from some experiment that hasn't even been
tried yet, for example).

BTW, just so this post is on Star Trek: there have been suggested posted
on the net as to how one can exceed light speed, i.e. either by having
a special frame or by violating causality.  Although we don't have any
reason to believe either scenario (we may prefer one or the other), the
fact is that neither scenario can be completely ruled out.  Thus, faster
that light travel can be imagined, at least, without completely
disregarding Relativity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ! Address as above or use
Martin Phipps                   ! LOULA@hep.physics.mcgill.ca or simply
                                ! MUHEP::LOULA if you're on a VAX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal freeze, duplicate posts, lost posts and email-come-posts,
these are a few of my least favorite things.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: bodies going ka-boom in vacuum 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:45:58 +0000


In article <1992Nov4.224524.24072@news2.cis.umn.edu>
           crick@tsp.med.umn.edu writes:

>Much detailed descriptions of the horrible vivisection deleted.
>
>>So, there you have it.  People (or at least rats) can survive a
>>vacuum.
>
>I was understandably outraged by the horror of this post.  To subject any
>animal to the violent whims of humans is against every moral code that we
>follow today.  Animals have as much right to exist on this planet as humans
>do, and to think that they are here in our service displays the nauseating
>arrogance of humankind.  Animals should share the earth and not be treated
>as sources of food or objects for questionable scientific "research" using
>dubious experiments to pursue an equally obscure goal.

and so on...  I'm not sure whether 'crick' was serious in this reply - I
*would* be pretty certain that the original poster *wasn't*.  Personally
I found the 'experiment' to be very funny - although it's a pity they
couldn't use a real lawyer, or even a politician...

>Please support generously PETA, Animal Rights Coalition, and your local
>organizations to free these poor creatures from their torture, using
>whatever methods that provide results.

Hmm, that last bit sounds like a plug for the violent methods of the ALF
- mustn't hurt pretty furry animals, but depriving humans of medical
research is OK.  Anyone for defending worms?  Thousands every day are
chopped into little peices by agricultural machinery - stop this
senseless slaughter by refusing to eat crops that have been produced by
mechanical means!

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: V'GER VS BORG
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:59:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article 9437@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, lcotton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Leeroy F Cotton) writes:
>Hey! Why didn't the Organians intervene when the Borg stomped 
>on the Federation fleet? 
>

The Organians *ABHOR* meddling in the affairs of other species.  They only
did so in the case of the Klingon/Federation crisis because those two powers
insisted upon using Organia as a battleground, and this was physically
distressing to them ("The mere presence of beings such as yourselves...")
All the "evidence" suggests that the Organians removed their involvement
as soon as the situation stabilized, although neither side was anxious
to test this.  Certainly by the time of ST3:TSFS, the Organians didn't
stop Kruge from destroying a freighter and the science vessel USS Grissom,
nor did they step in when a cloaked Bird of Prey was systematically
attacking outlying Federation outposts (ST6:TUC - at least, in the
novelization).

For the most part, I suspect that the relatively omnipotent species (and
I don't believe they are truly omnipotent in an absolute sense) bore
easily with the affairs of "mortals", if they ever even show any interest
in the first place.

-- 
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Distribution: world
From: Ira_J._Seskin@fourd.com
Organization: 4th Dimension BBS
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:10:16 EST
Subject: Re: Did anyone record Riker's computer description?

>>But I think it's a sign that Star Trek has too much technobabble in 
normal situations if you can't tell the difference when they're using 
garbage terms to describe somethings that's happening in the plot or when
they're using garbage terms to be humorous.<<
 
I thought that was one of Rikers better moments....quite funny, and the Fereini being what they are....it worked quite well. 
 
In response to your first point, I don't at all think that STTNG has gotten
too Hollywood technical that one can't tell the difference between STTNG
technology and good humor. It really was a funny scene. My 10 year old
daughter had no problems with understanding whatwas going on....and no flame
is intended to anyone who had problems with it.
 
-ira-

 
-Ira-

********************************************************************
System: fourd.com                                Phone: 617-494-0565
Cute quote:  Being a computer means never having to say you're sorry
********************************************************************
From: andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Animals Have Rights
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:49:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Nov12.204920.6540
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.


    
     This is not the subject of this newsgroup, but must be responded to.

In article <1992Nov11.142804.11773@dvs.com> malecki@dvs.com (Dave Malecki) writes:
>Ed, do you feel guilty when you have a beer?  Think of all those poor yeast
>colonies that basically suffocated in their own waste so that you could enjoy
>a cool one.  You did say that all animals have rights, regardless of species.
>Does this include plants and microbes?  What about insects?  Is it because lab

    Sometimes it is not possible to draw a definite line between sentience
    and nonsentience. This does not legitimize drawing your line to your own
    convenience. An inability to determine the sentience of clams, for
    example, neither precludes the sentience of monkeys, nor precludes
    giving clams the benefit of the doubt.

    Please note that your argument can also substantiate abuse of humans.

>animals have fur and can be considered cute, that you have a bleeding heart
>attitude towards them?  Are you a vegetarian?  Don't you feel awful when you
>have a steak?

    Ad hominem arguments. In my own case, also false.

>
>Animals are here for our use.  

    Unsubstantiated.

>Cruelty only applies to sentient beings.  Are

    Agreed.

>animals sentient?
>
   
   Yes. You may be attempting, however, to use "sentient" in two different
   ways. In the definition of cruelty, "sentient" does not mean "capable
   of writing _Principia Mathematica_."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: gbsowrey@napier.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: An ANALOG computer: Possible??
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:41:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.190145.8691@iscsvax.uni.edu>, perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
> A couple of months ago, I was reading an article in Popular
> Science about TeraFlops computers of the future and I came to
> wonder if there wouldn't be a better way to build a computer.
> 
> I'm no computer engineer or programmer or anything else, but
> I'm gonna throw this idea up here and see if any of you can
> provide some feedback. Here goes:
> 
> Why not make an ANALOG computer? Instead of working with On/off
> (represented by 1s and 0s), why not have something like 3/4 on, 
> 1/4 off or 1/8 on, 7/8 off (represented by #s 1-9). Something 
> like that?
> 
> There are on/off switches for lights, but then there are dimmer
> switches too. Why not make a computer full of dimmer switches,
> instead of on/off switches. See what I'm trying to say here?
> 
> You're welcome to post a reply, or email me anytime.
> 
> --Tim Perdue

This isn't a bad idea, at least not in theory. However, in practice much more
difficult -- detecting a case of current vs. no current is easy. Detecting
varying intensities, now that's hard. I think someone is working one something
like that (with three state: yes/no/maybe), but if I see anything from it in
10 years or less, I'll be surprised.

Geoff Sowrey
2A Computer Science
From: crick@tsp.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD))
Subject: Re: Animals Have No rights
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:52:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.145921.19853@ra.msstate.edu> paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:
>>
>
>Too bad animals themselves don't respect the "rights" of other animals.
>What do I mean?  The eat one another.  How can they have rights if they
>themselves do not repect these "rights".  Animals have no rights.  
>
As humans we do not live in the wild where predation necessary for survival.
We ahve the intelligence and the resources to find alternative forms of
food and "research tools."  These differences separate us from the animal
kingdom.
>
>So you advocate terorism also?  After all they use whatever methods possible
>as well to get across their political view.
>
I suppose that the Union forces in the Civil war were terrorists because they
fought for the freedom of slaves.  Civil-rights activists who staged sit-ins,
and boycotts in the South during the '60's were also terrorists then by
your misplaced logic.  This is not a political view, it concerns the
rights of the oppressed and tortured.  These are basic rights which apply
to us all, regardless of species.

>I don't advocate the abuse of animals.  But I also realize that they don't
>have rights.  Too bad this political B.S. is on this net.

By claiming that animals have no rights, you are, in your own narrow-minded,
ignorant way advocating the abuse of helpless creatures.  As far as it's relevance on this group, Picard mentioned in one episode that scientists abandoned
the use of research animals centuries ago.  Would that we had the compassion
and common sense now that they have in that time.

Ed