HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abb3w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Arthur Bernard Byrne)
Subject: Re: Psychohistory
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:28:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.235100.4565@newcastle.ac.uk> Shinji.Kono@newcastle.ac.uk (Shinji KONO) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.171823.27610@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> abb3w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Arthur Bernard Byrne) writes:
>>    Hari Seldon: Well, my skills are not unique... 
>
>But he was already in unique position at that time.

	True, but the arguement was the historical impact of Hari Seldon
himself. I am having Dr. Seldon argue that, had he not himself existed,
someone else of similar skills would have arisen to a similar position,
with much the same results on history. His position is, perhaps, unique.
However, it may be that more than one particular individual could have
occupied that position.

>To reduce 15,000 dark years to 1500 years, he needs a trick. The function
>of 2nd Foundation is not only maintaintenace of 1st Foundation's development
>but also changing the humanity itself.
>
>Without 2nd Foundation's support, 1st Foundation is a candidate of 2nd
>Empire in 15,000 dark years in my opnion. 1st Foundation's 2nd Empire will
>be very close to the first one, and it will fall down like the first one.
>
>People in 2nd Foundation is very special, out of psychohistorical
>assumption.  They are not human in some sense.  In 2nd Foundation's 2nd
>Empire, 1st Foundation prepares physical representation which is very
>much like original Empire, but it will never torn apart because of 2nd
>Foundation's control. That the another reason why Dr. Asimov wrote
>Foundation's Edge.

	Faugh. I disagree. I suggest (again) Michael Flynn's "In the
Country of the Blind", as being well worth reading, with especial
regards to Carson's Dilemma. What happens if someone inside the
Second Foundation attempts to use Psychohistoric analysis on the
Second foundation, AND NO-ONE ELSE THINKS TO DO SO?

AB^2
>
>Of course always, there is another....
>-- 
>Shinji Kono @ Computing Laboratory, University Newcastle upon Tyne
>kono@csl.sony.co.jp                     Room: 616 Claremont Bridge
>from Sony Computer Science Laboratory, Inc, Japan.
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Virtual reality, the brain, and high-speed modems.
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:21:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <12082@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> drenze@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Douglas J Renze) writes:

> [about brain workings]
> 
> How do we know that the routines are even the same from person to
> person?  Perhaps my eyes 'scan' vertically while yours scan
> horizontally...perhaps my image-processing routines are different than
> yours, ditto my auditory input routines, ditto my...well, you get the
> picture.  After all, each individual has to learn how to process
> information on his or her own...I should think that a necessary
> consequence of this is that each individual would, therefore, develop
> slightly different information- processing algorithms.  After all, how
> else could you explain the fact that some people can look at a series
> of unconnected clues and solve an investi- gation at a glance, while
> to others, they remain a series of unconnected clues?

Well, we do know that there are physiological similarities between
different people. For instance, we know that a lot of edge-detection
is done in the retina, and not in the brain. We know that there's some
sort of `map' of the field of view, laid out in the visual cortex.
This sort of thing. So we can assume that, at some level of
perception, we can apply a hardware interface.

But I think the sort of `Total Recall' interface proposed by somebody
else here may well run into the problem you describe.

Nick Haines nickh@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pas4427@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Cleveland Phil)
Subject: Re: Kevlar Balloon Space Station mk II
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 16 Apr 1992 08:48 EST  

In article <1992Apr16.005054.39402@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 2frssprout@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes...
>To summarize the issue:  Why not use Kevlar balloons as space station hulls?
> 
>Problems:  Radiation (hard, soft, and electromagnetic), affecting both the
>           Kevlar (James William Stepanek claims polymers tend to break down
>           under intense UV) and the people (EM and hard stuff).  
> 
>Response:  Fix UV and EM problems by an outside layer of aluminum foil?
> 
>Another thought:  - Space is cold.  Station is warm.  Brittleness problems?
>                  - Is there a real weight savings with Kevlar?  What is the
>                       density vs. aluminum (or whatever we're using)?
>                  - Advantage of Kevlar in flexibility during shipping,
>                       possible weight saving (any other ideas)?
> 
>-- Kevin J. Rice, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence 2frssprout@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu --
>-- "Never appeal to a man's better nature.  He may not have one. Invoking his
>self-interest gives you much more leverage." - Lazarus Long, aka R. Heinlein.

	What about those nasty micrometeors, don't they make the balloon go 
POP!!!?  They have put pot marks in shuttle windows.

  ========================================================================
==   Philip A. Stehno       (Cleveland Phil)    < When in doubt ...       ==
     (pas4427@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov)              >     /\    go fly a kite.
              ^^^^^^or lims01, lims02           <    /____\   
==                                               >     (_____(~~~~~       ==
  ========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: robs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Rob Schaeffer)
Subject: Re: Strength of skrith (sp?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:23:58 GMT

Lets try a new approach:

How much pressure is on the scrith level?

We need to know the mass per area of dirt, water, air, etc. over Ring World.
This mass is being pushed down at roughly 1 g.

So we need to know how much dirts is piled up and how dense that dirt is. I
don't remeber, does anyone? Add to that pressure, the weight of the air. (Can
we just add the air pressure to the "dirt pressure?")

Now we have the pressure on the scrith. How thick was the layer of scrith?

I can't read notes enough to follow this completely, so could someone send me
whatever answer(s) people come up with? Thanks.

Rob

-- 
 ----------------------------robs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu--------------------------- 
|             "My God...it's full of toasters!"                              |
|                               --2001, A Hardware Odyssey                   |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: lou@Cadence.COM (Louis K. Scheffer)
Subject: Re: Virtual reality, the brain, and high-speed modems.
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:58:31 GMT

mjg51721@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis) writes:

>I have recently read a variety of stories concerning COMPLETE virtual reality..
>where the user has had an implant (or something, sometimes this is not very
>clear) in his brain which totally simulates all sensory input, and also receives
>all commands from the brain.
>My question is....how much information is this?  How fast an interface would be
>required?  Would a simple parallel port do, or are fiber-optics more realistic?

The bandwidth required is quite low, assuming some (actually a great deal) of
computing power in the implant.  This seems reasonable given the timeframe.
First, assume that the bandwidth required is are dominated by vision.  Almost
all of what you see is almost exactly what you saw a moment ago.  HDTV uses
this principle to compress images by large factors (down to perhaps 10
megabits/second), and it should work MUCH better with implants.  For example,
you could send one desciption of the room you are in, and then just
position information from then on - just a few bits per second.  So the average
rate should be very low.
   The peak rate will be higher, and you can imagine situations where the view
changes rapidly.  (Free fall in a mineshaft where walls are covered with
modern art?)  Even here, however, the computer "knows" where you are looking,
and only the area where you are focussing your attention needs to be filled
in in detail.  (And this area would be compressed as in HDTV).  Furthermore,
fractal techniques seem ideal for virtual reality stuff. Here the computer tells
the implant to build an image (say) of a field of wildflowers, sends an image of
one of each type, and a distribution function, and the implant creates the 
detailed image.  If the user decides to concentrate on a particular flower, then
implant can send back part of what it created to the computer, so the computer
and the implant stay in sync.
   So given a reasonable amount of processing power in the implant, I think
the rate should be quite low.  I'd guess at most 1-10 Megabits/second peak,
with much lower average rates.  The data rate can be easily handled by a 
parallel interface, although that is a rather obsolete technology given the
kind of data compression assumed here.
   Lou Scheffer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: csmith@onetouch.COM (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere
Organization: MCS/OneTouch, Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 13:06:37 GMT

>>    1) It requires artificial gravity (spinning the sphere doesn't work)

>Whats wrong with velcro?  Why use hi-tech solutions when lo-tech ones
>suffice?

No good. We have a star pulling on the inside surface of the sphere with
a slight accelleration.  Also, the purpose of a surface is primarily to
provide a fairly normal environment.  Without a substancial accelleration
outward from the star (I can't say "down") we do not have that, in fact,
we have a slight accelleration "up"! Can't grown crops that way.
-- 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Craig Smith                                         csmith@onetouch.COM ::
:: Columbus, OH                                  ...!uunet!onetouch!csmith ::
::::::::::::::: "Life is a fulltime occupation."--Gene Kalman :::::::::::::::
From: francis@dogwood.atl.ga.us (John Stracke)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Parallel Universes
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:22:32 GMT
	<1992Apr14.205512.2812@news2.cis.umn.edu>
	<1992Apr14.233805.21167@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<29EB7073.1817@noiro.acs.uci.edu>
Organization: National Science Center Foundation

In article <29EB7073.1817@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cortese@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>Physics says absolutely NOTHING about "universes splitting off"
>ANYWHERE.  It says only that, through the act of observation, we have

Physics says that you cannot tell the difference between multiple
universes and a single one.  The former is the Many Worlds
interpretation of QM, the latter is the Copenhagen interpretation.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the one that most physicists use,
true, but there's no evidence either way.  By definition, the
alternate universes can't impact on this one.

/===========================================================================\
|John (Francis) Stracke         |My opinions are my own.                    |
|Natl. Science Center Foundation|===========================================|
|Augusta, GA                    | I will not buy this .signature,           |
|francis@dogwood.atl.ga.us      |    it is scratched                        |
\===========================================================================/
(Formerly francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu)
--
--
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:05:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

jes2x@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (John Sommerville):
>Could somebody tell me exactly what a Dyson sphere is, and in which books
>one plays a large part?  I would be most grateful.

A Dyson sphere is one which is built to surround a star, so as to capture
its complete energy output (as well as providing a large surface area for
the inhabitants).  People would live on the inside surface (there's a
selection of answers to the gravity problem).  Actually building a Dyson
sphere is a technically challenging problem.

The only book I can think of in which a Dyson sphere plays *any* role
is Timothy Zahn's "Spinneret", and its role in that book is not, if you'll
pardon the expression, stellar.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

"The death of God left the angels in a strange position."
	--Internal documentation, programmer unknown
From: max@west.darkside.com (Max Pandaemonium)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Strength of skrith (sp?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:27:05 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

> Anyone want to check my math, or have figures for tensile strengths of
> exotic materials?

I'd have to do some computations of myself offline, but according to the 
Ringworld Roleplaying Game (Chaosium), the tensile strength of scrith is 
approximately 10^16 lb/in^2.

Take that figure as accurate as far as you want . . . though the stuff 
John Hewitt did with it is quite impressive.

----------
Max Pandaemonium   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   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Strength of skrith (sp?)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:03:05 GMT


An simple way to see that the Ringworld must be built from unobtainium
is to use the Virial Theorem.  This theorem says that a limit on the
energy that can be stored in a mechanical system, such as a flywheel
or cylinder of compressed gas, is proportional to the tensile strength
of the material times its volume.  This gives any material
a "characteristic speed" proportional to sqrt ( strength/density ).

For a ringworld spinning at > 700 km/s, the energy/mass is enormous.
Self-supported flywheels made of conventional materials can reach a
few km/s at most (magnetically confined flywheels can spin faster,
but the stress is relieved by stationary structure, which is itself
massive).  So existing materials fail by a factor of roughly 100,000.

If we *did* have scrith, we could trivially build cables stretching
from the earth's surface to GEO (and beyond), as well as more ambitious
projects.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mjg51721@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis)
Subject: Re: Psychohistory
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:32:59 GMT

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
{Bunch of stuff}

>If the world is ripe for a particular scientific
>discovery, there's no stopping it.

>As for keeping scientific secrets, look at how well we're doing keeping
>the atomic bomb under a hat.

I don't think we HAVE done a very good job of keeping the atomic bomb under a
hat.  LOTS of people know how to build one, and are VERY fluent in the theory.
The only reason terrorists, etc., haven't build one is because the MATERIALS
and technology needed to physically make a bomb have been kept under a hat.

With psychohistory, there pretty much is no technology beyond the theory itself;
and I think that keeping ideas, especially in the scientific community, secret
for hundreds of years is unlikely.
:)
Mike Gebis   mjg51721@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: daveh@xtenk.wpd.sgi.com (David Higgen)
Subject: Re: Psychohistory
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.201851.3739@spss.com>, markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
> In article <1992Apr09.160916.14693@onetouch.COM> csmith@onetouch.COM (Craig Smith) writes:
> >I have a major gripe with Foundation's Psychohistory.
> >
> >It is based on the gas laws, which say that while the actions of a single
> >atom are not predictable, a large enough quantity of gas is highly predictable.
> >The problem is, that every major turning point was predicted by Harry Seldon,
> >but the actual change was accomplished, not by masses of humanity, but
> >by a single person!
> 
> Comments:
> 
>    Interviewer: Welcome to 'State your claim'!  First, we have with us
>       psychohistorian Hari Seldon!
> 
>    Hari Seldon: My theory is that when you get enough people together
>      history is determinate.  I say the Galactic Empire is going to
>      fall apart for 30,000 years.  However, with careful management
>      this can be reduced to 1000 years.
> 
>    Interviewer: But that wouldn't happen if you had never existed, 
>      would it?  Isn't that a whacking big difference for one individual
>      to make?
> 
>    Hari Seldon: Well, this is where my theory falls to the ground.

Alternate last response:

Hari Seldon: Not at all. If I did not exist, it would be necessary to
	invent me....


		Dave Higgen (daveh@xtenk.wpd.sgi.com)
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Magnetic sails
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:25:56 GMT
Organization: /theta/theta5/unc/martinc/.organization
In-reply-to: dug@hpopd.pwd.hp.com's message of 6 Apr 92 16:04:18 GMT

In article <98930001@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> dug@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dug Smith) writes:

   This sounds like a hoax to me.  What month's magazine did you say it was?

It's on the newstands here right now.

   :-)

Huh?
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Department of Computer Science/Sitterson Hall/UNC/Chapel Hill, NC 27599
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to
grow sharper.  -- Eden Phillpot, I'm told.  Anyone have a better reference?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Cherryh's technology (was: SF about doing science ?)
From: jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:48:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
 <1992Apr13.213902.6664@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> <1992Apr14.041927.16381@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>
Organization: Searle, Skokie, IL
Nntp-Posting-User: jjfink

In article <1992Apr14.041927.16381@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, 
   ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes:

> lfd@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Lee Derbenwick) writes:
> 
>>C. J. Cherryh's _Downbelow Station_ includes some strange physics:

...
 
>>She won the Hugo for it.
> 
> That she did, but not for describing technology, methinks.  Cherryh's
> strong points are character and intruige; she would make an excellent
> thriller writer, too.
> 

IMHO, Cherryh's most amazing and enlightening science in her science fiction is
in the so-called 'soft' sciences:  psychology, sociology, etc.

Except for the last couple (Rimrunners and Heavy Time), which I believe are
there partly to set the stage for BIG EVENTS, an underlying theme of the
Union/Alliance/Merchanters books has been encountering the alien (often in the
human figure) and how we relate to it.  The Azi are a prime example, as are the
'lost boys' in 40,000 in Gehenna, the bug-creatures in Serpent's Reach, the
downers in Downbelow station, etc. etc.


Organization: Senior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:49:20 -0400 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: different kind of universe
	<3469@balrog.ctron.com>
Distribution: rec

Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.science: 15-Apr-92 Re: different kind
of universe Larry Smith@ctron.com (4501)

> >The universe is flat three-dimensional, infinite (or possibly
> >finite/closed/toroidal, but so nearly flat that it appears flat), and
> >full of breathable air.  It is oriented by a gravitational `force'
> >(not, I repeat, like our gravity), which is in the same direction
> >everywhere. This force affects some things (such as people) but not
> >others (such as air). 

    Is it possible for any sort of living thing to be immune to the
gravity? If so, I bet some large thing would evolve to be immune. It
just floats in the air, sifting through whatever falls onto it --
microorganisms in rain or mud, falling fish, birds, falling people...
    It would look like a giant upside-down jellyfish, maybe. Your
decision as to whether it would be strong enough to snare a human
(prevent him from running to the edge and jumping off.) Give it poison
stings if you're in a bad mood -- useful for preventing large prey from
escaping like that. Or just lots of tangly tentacles.

    Another possibility: tiny organisms, also gravity-immune, that build
reefs like coral, for the same reason. They filter rain for
microorganisms and tiny insects. The reef structure is built from
minerals in the water and mud that falls.

    This might be the origin of your floating disks. In fact, I bet it
would be necessary.... the reefs start out really small and spongy, but
the body eventually get clogged with mud, so rain can't soak through any
more. Now the coralies on the bottom aren't getting nutrients anymore,
so they die. The ones on the edge are still getting fed (the reef is
thinner there, and they also get to suck the water that trickles over
them on its way to the edge.) So the edge keeps growing, and after
millenia you have a big disk. (The center would bulge up, though. Maybe.)

--Z


"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dpenn@bnr.ca ( Dick Penn )
Subject: Re: Cherryh's technology (was: SF about doing science ?)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.025518.3417@nic.umass.edu> s5223927@titan.ucc.umass.edu
(Daniel Lescohier) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.041927.16381@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>
ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes:
>>
>>One other thing which peeves me are the speed and acceleration.
>>Accelerating at 10 g's will not get you up to light speed in a matter
>>of minutes.
>
>	True.  It would take about 35 days to get to light speed at 10g
>acceleration (3*10^8 m/s / 100 m/s^2 = 3*10^6 s = approx. 35 days.)
>That's extremely fast compared to today's standards, however.
> 
>
Not True...  it takes infinite time to get to lightspeed no matter how fast you
accelerate, as you get progressively heavier as you go faster, and your rockets
don't accelerate you as much. This is general relativity. You get to about half
c in little more than half the newtonian time, but it gets progressively worse
as you go faster.

Where does Cherryh say you have to get to lightspeed to go through her
conveniently placed wormholes? Maybe the threshold speed is lower than c?

      -- Dick Penn