HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tdlowe01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu (Tony D. Lowe)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: DS9 in ENTERTAINMENT magazine
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:26:40 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tdlowe01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Summary: Behind the scenes at the DS9 set.
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU



There is a write-up about Deep Space Nine in the current issue (Sept. 25, I
think) of Entertainment magazine.  I don't think that there is any new
information in it, but it was an interesting article with several
behind-the-scenes photos, including the writer being made up as an alien
extra for a scene he described as an "homage to the bar scene in STAR WARS."

  Tony D. Lowe, The HapMaster  BITNET:   tdlowe01@ulkyvx.bitnet
  University of Louisville     INTERNET: tdlowe01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
            "Another brilliant mind ruined by higher education."

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim Griffith - the official scapegoat of rec.arts.startrek.info

E-mail submissions to trek-info@scam.berkeley.edu or ...!ucbvax!scam!trek-info
From: trek-info@fx.com (Jim Griffith - Moderator)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Guidelines For Submitting Articles
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 5 Oct 1992 19:40:14 GMT
Organization: Vulcan Science Academy, Tau Ceti Sector
Distribution: world
Expires: 31 Oct 92
Reply-To: trek-info-request@fx.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Last modified 10/5/92
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU


READ THIS IF YOU PLAN TO SUBMIT AN ARTICLE!

The following types of articles will not be accepted:
	
	1) Any article which essentially asks a question.

	2) Any article which essentially voices an opinion.

	3) Any article reading "please subscribe me".

Don't send me these.

The most important guideline is ACCURATE ATTRIBUTION.  If you submit a
transcript of an article that appeared in print, I expect the source to be
fully identified before I will accept it.  There are several reasons for
this.  It helps me ensure reasonably accurate and reliable information.  It
gives due credit to those responsible for the information.  Finally, in the
case of printed information, I will generally have to call the source and
obtain permission to reprint the article, and I need as much information
about the article as possible.

In addition, when sending submissions, TITLE YOUR SUBMISSION AS YOU WOULD
LIKE THE ARTICLE TITLED.

Note that both Tribune Media Services ("Marilyn Beck's Grapevine") and the
New York Times refuse reprint permission unless I pay a "usage fee".  If your
submission is from one of these two, then don't spend the time to type the
article in - simply send a very brief summary with a reference so readers can
find the articles themselves.  Feel free to selectively paraphrase articles
if you so desire, keeping "Fair Use" in mind.

Simply attempting to post a submission to rec.arts.startrek.info should cause
the article to be mailed to the correct place.

The following mail addresses exist for your use :

	trek-info@fx.com - SEND SUBMISSIONS HERE, NOTHING ELSE.

	trek-info-request@fx.com - send newsgroup questions, FTP
		problems, etc. here. Do *not* send submissions here.
		Note that I do not provide articles via email - don't
		even ask.

	griffith@scam.berkeley.edu - report problems with the first two
		aliases or send general Star Trek questions here.

	vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu - send questions regarding the
		STTNG PROGRAM GUIDE, the PARAMOUNT PRESS RELEASES, or the
		current STTNG AIRDATE SCHEDULE here.

	noe@cs.uiuc.edu - send questions regarding the STTNG CREDITS
		here.

	cwayne%hydra.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu - send changes to the list of
		STAR TREK/STTNG STATIONS and their airing times here.

Mail addresses permitting, I will reply, yes or no, to all submissions.

If you have comments, criticisms, suggestions, requests for archive
information, etc., send mail to "trek-info-request@dweeb.fx.com".

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat of r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to trek-info@fx.com,
				and questions to trek-info-request@fx.com
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Re: hallmark
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:29:39 GMT
Organization: Vulcan Science Academy, Tau Ceti Sector
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver.  The University has neither control over nor
	responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users.
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU


pvelasq@uswnvg.com (Patrica Velasquez) writes:

 >>Hallmark will be offering a limited run (12 months) Star Trek "glitter
 >>dome".  The dome (remember those snow globes your grandma used to have?)
 >>will feature a scale model of the original Enterprise mounted in a 110mm
 >>globe which sits on a black base embossed with the Star Trek emblem in gold.
 >>Margaret Hudacko
 
 >A reliable source who is the district manager of Hallmark supplies for
 >the North West area of the State of Washington has NOT heard of this 
 >offering.  Are you sure?

 >[Note - I've seen no notice of this either.  Can someone officially 
 >confirm or refute this? - ed.]

Sure!  My local Hallmark store has a large display depicting this item.
It looks like it might be pretty nice.  The selling price is $50.
The Enterprise is supposed to be about the same size as last year's
ornament, and this new one does light up in some way.

Needless to say I filled out the coupon to get on the waiting list. :-)
The release date was sometime in October or November.

[Note - other people have jumped in confirming as well.  My apologies for
	any confusion - ed.]

-{ Dean Adams }-

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim Griffith - the official scapegoat of rec.arts.startrek.info

E-mail submissions to trek-info@scam.berkeley.edu or ...!ucbvax!scam!trek-info
From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Star Trek a SF-channel exclusive?
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:25:20 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU


The following is from an article in the 9/18 edition of _The Arizona Daily
Star_, a local newspaper.  The by-line is Lee Winfrey (Knight-Ridder
Newspapers).

This is the relevant paragraph:

# The biggest names left on Koplovitz's [the SF-channel's creator] shopping
# list are the original "Star Trek" series, and its sequel, "Star Trek: The
# Next Generation".  She hopes to get the orignal "Trek" in about three years
# and pick up "Next Generation" about two years after that.  If that happens,
# the two "Trek" series would vanish from all the broadcast stations and the
# Sci-Fi Channel would be the only place you'd be able to see them.

-- 
You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and
sound but of mind. A journey into a wonderous land whose boundaries are that of
imagination.  That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim Griffith - the official scapegoat of rec.arts.startrek.info

E-mail submissions to trek-info@scam.berkeley.edu or ...!ucbvax!scam!trek-info
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
From: mears@hpinddf.cup.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.info
Subject: Teklord movie?
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:59:30 GMT
Organization: Vulcan Science Academy, Tau Ceti Sector
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mears@hpinddf.cup.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu
Originator: griffith@xcf.Berkeley.EDU



The following Q/A is one of the ones from the Celebrity Questions (By
Stacy Jenel Smith, Tribune Media Services) column in the back of the
TELEVISION guide from the San Jose Mercury News for the week of 27 Sept.
through 3 Oct. 1992.

	Q  Is it true that William Shatner is going to make a movie
	   based on his book, ``Teklord''?

	A  No, but he's working with the Atlantis Films to turn his
	   cop-in-the-future tale into a TV series.  The actor plans
	   to direct and appear in some episodes of the show, which
	   he hopes will be liek a ``Blade Runner'' for the small
	   screen.

David B. Mears
Hewlett-Packard
Cupertino CA
hplabs!hpda!mears
mears@hpinddf.cup.hp.com

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Jim "The Big Dweeb" Griffith - the official scapegoat of r.a.s.i.
Email submissions to trek-info@dweeb.fx.com, and questions to
						trek-info-request@dweeb.fx.com
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Feedback, Boundary Conditions, and Time Travel (long....)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:41:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <BvCJx5.6DE@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>> NO, NO, NO! I understand why you think this way, but it's NOT what I've
>>been talking about!
>> In the worldview under discussion, I *already* appeared back then. In
>>fact, part of the reason history turned out the way it did is because I
>>was there to "change the positions of air molecules, block and reflect
>>photons, etc."
>> History in this view is a static sculpture in four dimensions. Past,
>>presnt, and future all 'already' exist, just in directions we can't
>>normally perceive or gain access to. Whether this view conflicts with
>>free will is another topic.
>
>	How does quantum uncertainty fit into your model? Seems to  me
>that some past conditions can't be specified precisely.

 The way I look at it is with the filter of those experiments which
show that there's a certain nonlocality to quantum events.
 I.e. if a particle fissions, and the two halves go in different
directions, and then you measure the properties of the halves (thereby
'fixing' the properties, 'collapsing the wave function') you will find
that the particles' properties are correlated. This holds even if you
do the measurements so far away from each other that they can't have
communicated at the speed of light.
 So, a quantum system doesn't have a value 'until' it's measured; but
the measuerement may happen in the future, and by nonlocality, you will
find that the properties measured now correlate with waht properties
were measured in the past and the future...

>							James Nicoll


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru)
Subject: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:01:10 GMT

guru sez:
	in a lot of SF there's an assumption that 3D television will be as
	ubiquitous as is 2D now, and I got to thinking, just how would you
	make one?

	In the end I came to thinking about a foot-thick laminated LCD screen,
	in which the laminates are made of the same stuff as those little
	LCD TVs you can buy now. Since the upper layers are transparent, you'd
	be able to see the background without any problem. 

	Of course, the processing power needed to control this would be pretty
	high, particularly if you're going to get an acceptable rate of
	movement. This could be reduced by only changing the parts of the
	screen in which things are moving, say people, trees, cars etc.

	Now, the 3D camera. This is a tad more tricky, but possibly the
	easiest way is to use a normal 2D camera with a very fine-pitch laser
	(or similar) rangefinder to measure distances from the lens.

	Those are just my thoughts. Anybody else got any ideas/information
	on current research in the field?
	
-- 
      /~~~) /   / /~~~) /   /  
     (___/ (___/ /     (___/   These mind-expanding drugs have given me so much
        /                      imagination, I'm hallucinating grey vividly....
   (___/ mei172@cch.cov.ac.uk                       Victor Lewis-Smith
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<1992Oct3.202559.4583@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<BCR.92Oct4122950@hpl3sn02.cern.ch> <Menmque00gpI1Aul4n@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:07:32 GMT

>Human depth perception relies on three factors: depth of focus (not
>terribly important), parallax caused by moving the head, and parallax
>between the two eyes. 3D glasses, and the separate-eye-screen trick,
>utilize the third factor only; holograms use all three. You presumably
>are relying on the first two.

That not terrably important factor is the only reason I can juggle...  Anyways,
both focusing and eye paralax are worthless beyond 15-40 feet (depends on
the object, the individual, ...)  Lets take a step back... Why do we want
3D TV?  Presumably so we can look around and feel like we are part of the
action.  For this we either need a large scale hologram, or a virtual reality
TV...  A good virtuality would feed the eyes through all three factors.  
(i.e. Not everything would be infocus at once, you can move around, and you
can observe paralax.)  Lastly, probably the most important for long distance
3D simmulation (beyond the range of local movement and paralax) is contrasts
and shadowing effects.

                                Bill

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3050 rec.arts.startrek.tech:5160
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Teleportation == suicide
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:21:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvEG4K.IvE
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

randall-joshua@CS.YALE.EDU (Joshua Randall) writes:

>In article <66740@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>[stuff deleted]

>>Second, consider taking a ride, late at night.  There aren't many passengers.
>>The operators are bored, and perhaps inclined to experiment.  They might do
>>fun things like turn off the atomizer and, er, "play" with the passengers
>>after the scan is done.  As long as they kill and atomize them eventually,
>>whose to know?
>>
>>--Tim Smith

>Yikes.  Raises various interesting and nasty possibilities, such as the
>operators raping female scanees, or torturing them, or whatever.  Then what
>if one of the operators can't live with the guilt and spills his guts?  Can
>the scanee have him arrested for rape?  Or does it not count becuase that
>particular body no longer exists?

Death of the victim does not erase a crime.  (Otherwise, murder would not
be a crime!  :^)  Even if you don't think of the atomizing process as
"death", it still doesn't change the fact that the operator committed
rape.
-- 
___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________

"S.E.T.E.C. : Special Extra-Terrestrial Earthling Counter"
"A turnip cures Elvis = Universal Studios"                -- from "Sneakers"
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: A nuclear question...
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:20:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu


	Here's a question that pertains somewhat to SF:

	I've seen it written many times (in stories, popular articles,
etc) that at the time of the first atomic bomb test there were some
respected scientists who were of the considered opinion that detonating
the  Bomb could cause a self-sustaining nuclear chain  reaction
(Which would either then just sit there and glow in atomic brilliance
for eternity, or propogate across the world and blow it to pieces).

	This is really a two part question -- first, is this true --
that there were some eminent and competent experts who held these
views?

	Second, and more to the SF point -- was there, AT THAT TIME,
good reason to hold that view? In other words, was the fact that 
nuclear chain reactions of the sort they feared could not happen
something that COULD NOT have been known at that time -- that could
only be known through research done later?

	As a corollary to this -- in view of the answers to the
above questions, is it possible from an SF standpoint to have
a scientific advance whose science is sufficiently understood to
produce a desired engineering result -- a device based on this new
principle -- but whose science is at the same time so LITTLE understood
that the device could have any one of several radically different
outcomes upon operation? Or is the apparent existence of this condition
in the atomic bomb case just a sort of intellectual illusion -- that
is, that those who held that view were ignoring inarguable, complete
proof that their views were wrong?

	(This train of thought was started while re-watching an episode
of Ren & Stimpy: the "History Eraser Button" -- Stimpy: "So... what'll
happen?"  Ren(crazed):"That's just it! WE DON'T KNOW! Mayyyybe something
bad.... mayyybe something good!..."   (From the episode "Space Madness"))

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: jtb5@po.CWRU.Edu (Justin T. Ballard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Difference between Holograph and Hologram
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:09:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


With all this nitpicking going on I thought I would learn what the
exact definition of two items in question. What is a hologram and
what is a holograph. Thanks.
-- 
					Justin Ballard
					jtb5@po.cwru.edu
From: mikeu>
	id@pro-magic.ogi.edu (network.ucsd.edu!news!nosc!crash!)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Teleportation (continued)
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:50:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: pro-magi.1992Oct4.205059.182
Organization: Pro-Magic [A Proline BBS] Orlando, FL

Great episode of Star Trek, the Next Generation this week on the whole
subject of teleportation.  I would assume the proverbial "wires" are
buzzing on rec.arts.startrek.science, but since we don't carry that feed
yet, I just had to comment here.

I was especially interested in seeing how the teleportee might view the
process.  Up until now, I had assumed that the disassembly process and
re-integration were essentially instantaneous, or that at least it was
perceived that way by the teleportee.

But after seeing the teleportee move about in the beam and see how things
looked from his eyes, I think that Hollywood is getting further away from
credibility as far as science fiction might allow.  Especially when the
traveler actually acts on his own while in the beam and grabs someone else
theroretically in stasis in the electron stream.

Up unti now, even in these discussions, we have considered teleportation as
a scanning and breaking down process of atomic structure of the body and
then sending the electrical image to a receiver where the sender is
reassembled.  This episode seems to have changed the way that process is to
be perceived. Perhaps, not to the betterment of the series.

Comments?

-------------
Mike Ungerman
mikeu@pro-magic [a Proline BBS, Orlando, Fl]
Internet: mikeu@pro-magic.oau.org
          ...!osceola.cs.ucf.edu!pro-magic.oau.org!mikeu
Voice: 407-366-5840 | Prodigy: JSNP58A | Compuserve: 71326,31
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: phillber@nyx.cs.du.edu (Pelle Hillberg)
Subject: Re: 3D-TV. How would you do it?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 20:25:59 GMT


> in a lot of SF there's an assumption that 3D television will be as
> ubiquitous as is 2D now, and I got to thinking, just how would you
> make one?

Well, K Eric Drexler's proposal in "Engines of Creation" of hires screens
that project different images to each eye seems the most viable to me.

Pelle Hillberg, Uppsala University, Sweden
t88_lars_e@maja.teknikum.uu.se

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Constant mutations
Summary: Is it constant?
Keywords: Hello
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:23:11 GMT

I was wondering - its often assumed that (well, to my eyes anyway :-)
once a mutation is made, then that same muation will not crop up again,
especially in relation to humans.
What is the 'chance' (as a generality, not a compuation) that a 
set of genes will change slightly to produce a blue-eyed baby from
two double-brown eyed parents (and how many paternity suits....hmmm :))

Or to put it another way, what's to stop a species of ape making the
same changes as exist in our past, and head towards a homo-sapiens
species.....


Eccles
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:38:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvpvzI.IMM
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu (Vadim S. Kaplunovsky) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.085516.1763@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de  
>(Olaf Titz) writes:
>> ..........
>> Surely it is possible. Experience shows that in fact *most*
>> engineering inventions are *not* fully understood scientifically. Take
>> the transistor effect: At the time it was discovered, there was no
>> exact theory how it worked. At that time it was surely imaginable that
>> each transistor would emit gamma rays that could kill innocent people
>> listening to the radio news...
>> 
>Nonsense.
>Transistor was invented by people who knew the quantum theory of
>semiconductance and knew how a PN junction works.  They figured out
>that a double PNP junction can amplify currents and went out and made
>the device; after a bit of tinkering, it worked as expected.

I'd just like to back this up.  The transistor was indeed an design
effort, not a scientific discovery.  I would also like to point out
that to be exact, there is no such thing as an engineering invention
which is not fully understood.  Engineering is *defined* to be the
process of using scientific theory as it is currently understood to
solve problems.  If you're using guesswork, then you're doing a bit
of science in *addition* to engineering.  Inventions that occur by
accident (serendipity, etc.) are scientific *discoveries*.
-- 
___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________

"S.E.T.E.C. : Special Extra-Terrestrial Earthling Counter"
"A turnip cures Elvis = Universal Pictures"               -- from "Sneakers"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science