HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dubuf@sicsun.epfl.ch (Hans DU BUF)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: re: Dual Visual Pathway: be careful
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:07:03 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <92Sep10.113948edt.47918@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, mgreen@cs.toronto.edu (Marc Green) writes:
|> 
|> >From: laborel@zig.inria.fr (Louis Laborelli)
|> 
|> >I would like to know if the subject of existence 
|> >of a dual pathway for object recognition and spatial localization 
|> >in human extrastriate cortex is a well affirmed  fact. 
|> >Is anybody aware of papers against this hypothesis ?
|> >Thanks in advance.
|> 
|> For arguments against the separation of location and recognition, you
|> might check out M. Green, Visual Search, Visual Streams and Visual
|> Architectures, Perception & Psychophysics, October, 1991.
|> 
|> M. Green
|> Trent University

Please be careful.
I don't know the paper by Green, our lib doesn't have Perc and Psychophys.
But linking physiology and psychophysics is not that straightforward.
Apart from that, the present knowledge on Visual Search, ie all aspects
of spatial configurations involved and the swampy border between low-
and high-level processing, is far from being complete. This became once
more clear at the TICUS held two weeks ago in Nottingham, where people
like Enns and Bloomfield presented a talk.

I have the impression that Louis Laborelli is working in computer vision
(inria at sophia-antipolis?) and, as for many others, would like to have
a confirmation of an idea or some philosophy to build into his vision
system. Giving one reference might be misleading when the paper describes
a particular experiment; all other experiments with possibly diverging
conclusions need to be taken into account and this takes a lot of reading.
I am confident that the paper by Green is complete in this sense, but still,
a nonexpert reader is easily biased...

All the best, to both Laborelli and Green, not forgetting all other readers,

Hans du Buf
From: roussea@server.uwindsor.ca (ROUSSEAU PAUL            )
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Neuro Linguistic Programming
Keywords: NLP
Date: 10 Sep 1992 01:47:26 GMT

I'm new to USEnet.  About two weeks ago, I was monitoring the
sci.cognitive newsgroup and a number of articles on NLP were
posted.  When I went back to the group tonight, they were all
gone.  Perhaps my local server carries a smaller number of 
articles and the NLP articles were cut out.  (I might have
been accessing USEnet throught the Cleveland Freenet at the time.)

In any event,  I'm a Master Practitioner in NLP and enjoyed reading
the articles on the subject, including those that cast doubts about
the claims made by some NLP people.  

Is there enough interest out there to create an NLP newsgroup, perhaps
an alt.NLP or (and this might upset some people) sci.cognitive.NLP.

I do not know how to start a new newsgroup so some help will be
needed to do this.  Post responses to this newsgroup or write
to me via e mail (roussea@server.uwindsor.ca)

Paul Rousseau

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:27:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.230223.27928@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Also, Tobias Owen from the University of Hawaii detected nitrogen in
>Pluto's atmosphere earlier this year.
>
>The two known bodies in the solar system with opaque atmospheres are Venus
>and Titan, and both of them have atmospheres that are denser than Earth's.
>Pluto's atmosphere is not very dense and will eventually freeze out as
>it moves farther from the Sun.

As I understand it, Pluto's atmosphere freezes when it's farthest from the
sun and then falls to the surface.  As it approaches the sun, the atmosphere
then thaws out and "reforms".  I think it would be well worth the effort to
send a probe to study this, since it's a phenomenon that doesn't occur 
anywhere nearby.

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
From: Shawn.McCarthy@p902.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Shawn McCarthy)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Relativity
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 16:53:00 -0500

Ok.. you look like you know what ur talking about (considerably more than i do
anyway.. :>  ) got a question: what if that train is moving just 5mph slower
than c (as measured from the station) and i run forwards at 6mph? According to
the train, i am moving at 6mph.. what does the station see? (or move a flag
foreward at that speed on the outside, so they can see it) ... when the object
(me or the flag) moves past c according to the station, what happens? or is that
a case of the train being shorter (from the station) so the speed really ISN'T
faster than c..?

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mars Direct
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:39:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.233725.6558@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>There is no "technical" reason why anything should cost anything; that
>is a judgement of economics, and in this case of politics, as well as
>of technology.  I have previously shown that Mars Direct, while being
>a considerable improvement, would still cost $150 billion for a single
>4-astronaut mission to Mars.

To get this figure, you altered the assumptions of Mars Direct. (E.g. not
to do detailed safety studies on a space station, etc...) The assumption
behind Mars Direct is to take some risks in this respect. The difference
is $150 billion for one mission (if you carefully test everything out in
advance) versus $50 billion for five missions (if you take a risk). While
I agree your analysis is more like NASA's usual way of doing business,
I think it also shows the problem with that approach.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x
Date:  8 Sep 92 16:53:33 GMT

Re Venus: We seem to know more about the Venusian atmosphere than I
knew we knew.  :-)  Since when are the _upper_ clouds H2SO4?  And,
do we really know what the overall composition of the crust and
atmosphere is, to say that there is somehow an "excess" of oxygen?
Were Venus ever to cool off, I would expect ferocious amounts of
oxidation/carbonation weathering to occur, for example.
 
Re Mars: I'm impressed with the Gaia approach, to this negative
extent: the lack of a fixed atmosphere on Mars seems like strong
evidence that life is not active there now, or it would exhale
one.  I'm not convinced that `seeding' Mars would be impossible,
but it would have to be not isolated spores but a complete
ecosystem capable of maintaining its own microenvironment.  A
blob with a crust, so to speak.  Things like the Dead Sea plankton 
that secrete glycerol come to mind.  This is pretty dependent
on whether the Martian crust is a pre-biotic permafrost as 
has been speculated, but I'm uncomfortable with dismissing the
possibility out of hand.

As for the morality of this sort of thing, I don't share the
comfortable expectation that we as a civilization _have_
future centuries at our disposal for a conservative planetary
exploration.  The spread of terrestrial life to other 
now lifeless environments seems _very_ moral to me, even a
moral imperative, given a possibly limited window of ability
to do so.  My opinion; others of course are free to differ.  ;-)

-- 
 
samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) -- and not a mere Device.
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terra-forming
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:20:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: sci

We don't know if there is or if there isn't any life on Mars.

We know that in one spot there isn't the sot of life we expected
to be there if it was there.

What is to prevent there being some sort of life-form analogous to
the vent creatures of the deap oceans living subterrameanly at
some depth at which water, heat and chemical sustanance is available
from interior heating?

What ever life there might be on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter,
at least has the right to exist. Is man God, to destroy other life-forms
without much measured forethought? Besides you never know the full extent
of what you might do by changing some significant variable in any given
environment. Or in other words -- saving some Martian bunny rabbit may
retain the planet's only-somewhat-hostile environment rather than having
an actively hostile environment. (Slinging trillion ton gobs of water/ice
at Mars might not do what you would think it would do.)

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.geo.geology
From: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle tank for habitation; was Inflatable Space Stations
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:49:11 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

Sorry, typo, trap-on should have read strap-on solid fule
boosters.
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: RL-10
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.145556.21649@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>...because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed
>>to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine
>>out capability

>On Atlas' first flight, June 11, 1957, it went boom. On Atlas-Centaur's
>first flight, May 8, 1962 the Centaur went boom....

Sure they go boom. If one does, the crew will die. If you have
a problem with that, we can all be thankful that you whern't
around in the early days of avation.

For the state of the art, they are a hell of a lot more reliable than
aircraft where at a similar time. That's good enough.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------224 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:16:10 GMT

In article <pgf.716427548@srl02.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>(I can hear them now. "Eeek! deployable! Ever since Galileo, we're not
>supposed to use deployable structures until hell freezes over! We're
>supposed to be stuck with whatever can fit inside the payload shroud
>until the end of time!" Why not just _not_ drive the probe across the
>country half a dozen times before launch?)

Well said.  Note that the TDRSS's had the same kind of deployable
antenna as Galileo, and they unfolded without a hitch.  In fact,
there have been dozens of successful automated deployments on all
kinds of spacecraft, from spysats to comsats, most in places where
astronauts cannot go.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:28:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <pgf.716434261@srl02.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>Yes, but thanks to Al Gore's Porkization of the Space Program,
>military research is the last refuge in the US government
>of advanced propulsion research. After Gore manages to
>cut that tree down, like Isle Derniere, the whole tree
>is going to wash away.

Good point.  Does anyone know if Clinton/Gore has taken any position on
DCX -> DCY -> DC-1?  Currently, DCX being funded by SDIO, and is bound
to be one of the first things to be trashed by a (God forbid!)
Clinton/Gore administration.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:51:23 GMT
Followup-To: Distribution:
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <pgf.716225492@srl07.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
B
>> (something about 'containing' a nuclear explosion being poppycock.)nt.
>
>Ever wonder what underground nuclear testing did?

In this identical vein, atmospheric nuclear explosions were contained
by the atmosphere.
>
>
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Space Platforms (political, not physical :-)
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:39:34 GMT

> Nick, Dale, Anyone?  Equal space for all parties, right?
> 

> If no-one knows, maybe I'll take the initiative and call the HQ  
myself...
> 


Due to distance (that little pond in between), I've not been as  
closely involved with the campaign this term as last one. (I wrote  
Ron Paul's space position papers in '88). But I can say that space  
settlements are mentioned in the platform as something positive that  
should be persued privately and that will come about more rapidly in  
a free society.

There are quite a few space settlement types in high places in the  
party. I sold buttons with sayings of Lazarus Long to several of the  
National Committee. The former National Committee Chairman has been a  
supporter from back in the L5 days.

Unlike the Demopublicans, the Libertarian party is technologically  
literate at all levels.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Ley and *Engineers' Dreams* (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:07:46 GMT

higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>See Willy Ley's 1954 book *Engineers' Dreams*, a tome to make any good
>Nineties environmentalist shudder.  Ley, of course, was the great
>correspondent and historian of early rocketry, which provides a slim
>connection to this newsgroup, but his principal career was pop-science
>author.  His strengths were spaceflight, astronomy, and paleontology,
>but this book was a foray into the Big Ideas of civil engineering--
>what Frank Davidson later called "macroengineering." 

>Did you know that the Mediterranean loses more water to evaporation
>than is replaced by the rivers flowing into it?  The difference is
>made up from Atlantic waters.  Dam the Straits of Gibraltar and the
>Med will gradually shrink, revealing new farmland all around its
>shores.  

I've been meaning to review a book by Lowell Ponte called
_The Cooling_ on this forum for a while, since it deals with
environmental modification and we seem to get large threads
on that subject every couple months... it does seem to have
some dubious science, but what really bugs me is this guy
has advised Claiborne Pell on science policy in the past,
and Pell seems to have a record of seeking science advice
from dubious characters that far outweighs any forgivable
doubts I might have about the book itself.

>Swell book, but hardly p.c. these days!  Since it deals with
>engineering projects on a sub-continent scale, it might be worth
>study by young terraformers before they tackle those planet-sized
>jobs.  Jim Oberg's *New Earths* is of course obligatory, and Frank
>Davidson's *Macro* might be of interest too.

_The Cooling_ deals with the great environmental Jabberwocky of
the 70's: The Coming Ice Age, And The Need To Prepare For It.
The nice part is where it deviates from being politically correct,
and talks about manmade climate modification on a global scale,
to help stave off the cooling.

You know, stuff like damming the Bering Straights, and pumping
water the other way to melt the north polar ice cap...

[Trick question: how much does this raise the sea level?]

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"
Xref: sparky sci.space:12489 comp.robotics:1726
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 6 Sep 92 08:17:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Sep6.081754.24502
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636

In article <1992Aug28.123432.16321@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Using only telepresence is limited not only to distance but also to scale.
>The available bandwidth is limited and telepresence in any realistic sense
>will use up a lot of it.

The bandwidth requirements aren't that bad.  Hand gloves, for example, 
typically use 19,200-bps RS-232 ports, far below the capacity of 
TDRSS or DSN.  Various protocols, eg symbolic abstraction of repetive
or primitive movements, can further greatly reduce bandwidth needs.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:59:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <22205@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks) writes:

>I don't think we should necessarily send over anything that we have
>bioengineered or altered or ensorcelled or whatever.  But I have
>always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae
>capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes.

Excuse me?  If by the "Venusian extremes" you mean the surface
of Venus (with its extreme temperature and pressure), this is
simply wrong.  No living creature based on the common terrestrial
model (proteins, DNA, etc.) could survive those conditions.  Indeed,
even the somewhat less extreme conditions inside hydrothermal
vents here on earth are too hot for amino acids to survive.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:03:49 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <65698@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
>Would a gravity assist from the Moon make much difference,
>even if repeated?

After you reach escape velocity, you don't get to repeat it any further!
Lunar gravity assists are mildly useful, but the win isn't big enough to
be worth the narrow launch windows unless you've got a mission that can't
quite be flown otherwise.  The Moon is too small to give good gravity
assists.  The only interplanetary mission that has used lunar gravity
assist, as far as I know, is ICE, and that was a spacecraft that was
meant for near-Earth operations and didn't have the fuel to get into
an interplanetary trajectory otherwise.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: RL-10
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:23:22 GMT

In article <9209111320.AA13915@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>-Neither.  The recent failures have been Centaur problems.  They're a bit
>-surprising, since the RL10 has been a very reliable engine.

>RL-10 failures? What does that do to Allen's statistics for the reliability
>of the engine to be used for DCX?

Even with the failures it's still extreemly reliable. However, it is not
a problem because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed
to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine
out capability (which it has).

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:35:24 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BuHnvE.53F@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>  The space suits would be designed 
>>from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.
>
>Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see
>that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon.  

Indeed, Nick's naivete is shown by his suggestion of using the shuttle suits
on the Moon.  Their legs are not flexible enough (they are considerably less
flexible than the Apollo-suit legs) and their center of gravity is too far
aft.  They are free-fall suits, not surface suits.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming needs to begin now
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:15:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <11SEP199202381403@reg.triumf.ca> vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:
>
>Jeez that's bizarre. I had that exact idea some 10 years ago, in
>detail. Plus a few more twists: use the glass to form solar mirrors
>to fire the glass factories, and use the fresh water to grow crops
>on the ground sheltered from direct sunlight beneath the evaporation 
>panels. The vapour is condensed by cool sea water flowing into the
>system along the tops of the evaporators.
>     I see 2 major problems with this scheme, besides labour:
>1) glass requires lime, to lower its melting point, and yield
>a strong product. Also sand must be very white to yield transparent 
>glass. 
>2) how do you pump the seawater cheaply? 

1) This is a minor problem that is easily paid for by the 
produce of The farming allowed by the presense of fresh water
and virtually unlimited sunlight. Of course, the bunny huggers
would argue that we are des~roying the pristine beauty of the 
Sahara Desert with nasty plants. :-)

2) Solar power generation of the water boiler type (PG & E's
Mojave plant for instance) can eaily supply the power. nce
you are pumping water mainly you can use hydraulic storage.