HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 08:43:54 EST

In article <1592.360.uupcb@brent.uucp> 
jeff.kling@brent.uucp (Jeff Kling)  writes:

>-> I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
>-> 'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
>-> would abandon the concept entirely.
>
>Or, assuming a warlike race: you could send large masses at near light
>speed via bussard ramjets at the offending worlds and destroy their
>existing life forms - at least the higher ones anyway.  Then go in and
>claim these worlds.  The other side would not have been able to
>communicate the destruction back to warn the other worlds in time as
>there would be no communciation faster than that of a ship.  So, at the
>end of the war you would have some enemy ships out there with no place
>to go for repairs, who could be mopped up later on at leisure.
>
>I am NOT advocating this, mind you.  Just offering an alternative.
>
>J

I think THIS supports my theory.  For one thing, Bussard Ramjets look
MUY infeasible.  For another thing, the universe will be a very unfriendly
place for this race.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk



Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:3532 rec.arts.sf.science:3854 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7081
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re:  Territorial Disputes
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:45:35 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:

> Carl Sagan and Iosif Shklovskii, in "Intelligent Life in the Universe",
> suggest that it may be possible to induce a supernova in a star by firing a
> (very!) large gamma-ray laser at it from a range of several light-years.
> They intended it as a way of producing heavy elements for a civilisation
> short of resources, but it would also make an excellent weapon.

That's very interesting; I'm not familiar with that hypothesis.  What 
magnitude of energy are we talking about, here?  Could it cause 
supernovae in stars that wouldn't normally (such as main-sequence stars, 
if your neighbor is really pissing you off)?


  ____  Erik Max Francis -- ..!apple!uuwest!max -- max@west.darkside.com   __
  \  /  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1  San Jose, CA  95117  37 20 N 121 53 W  ACGT  /  \
   \/   Like strategic interstellar conquest games?  Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
        Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.   All things that are, are lights.
From: mabw0164@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:20:42 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Magic is science before it got respectable.

Joe

PS - it also developed an enormous sense of self-importance along the way :-)
From: dascoser@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (david serchay)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Hall of Mirrors
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:47:45 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

kathrynw%radian@natinst.com (Kathryn Whitworth) writes:

> >> travels back in time so that he can be his father, his mother, his
> >> girlfriend, his boyfriend, his friend, his ... I found it to be the best
> >> short stories about time travel I have ever read.
> 
> No longer sure of attribution, but try "All You Zombies".
> 
> There's also a story by William Tenn (the title escapes me) which starts out
> as an experiment/press conference on sending a ball back in time.  Watch for
> mutating description . . . 
> 
> Kathryn Roth Whitworth

Actually it's "The Man who Folded Himself" by David Gerold. A very weird 
book. Good though.

Dascoser
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90c (ka9q DIS 1.18, CC 1.18c)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:46:17 +0000


In article <1992Dec10.172244.29523@infodev.cam.ac.uk> SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk writes:

>I don't think you need the enlightenment being asked for to solve this
>problem.  There is a limit on how large an empire can get, particularly
>if you start imposing near-real physics on communication, and if one
>group has the space to expand into, it will do so until the whole thing
>falls apart.

I've only just come into this, but there's an example of communication
problems in Piers Anthony's 'Cluster' series.  [I know, everyone's going
to jump all over my for mentioning HIM <g>]  In that the further out
from Earth that you got, the more in the past the people were, since
they only had sublight communication by spaceship.  So if you were 200
ly away, your technology and social system would be 200 years out of
date.  Then they got FTL transport (oops - I just typed FTP!  TCP/IP is
*not* any good for transporting people <g>) and suddenly the system had
problems because all the different cultures could now mix...

>The other dubious assumption is that all the races are capable of
>expansion at the same rate.  Even if, by fluke, the technologies are
>well matched, one might have a very much slower breeding rate than
>the other.  In the example, the "trapped" Kzinti may not be able to
>grow at a rate higher than N^2, and the problem become irrelevant
>unless they get completely boxed in.

I *don't* want to meet a Kzin who's been unable to get his own
territory!

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:11:40 -0500 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf

Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.misc: 11-Dec-92 Re: hard and soft sf
stalzer@macaw.hrl.hac.CO (1344)

> ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes:
> >... But if you came
> >across something like, oh, the replicators on Star Trek TNG, you couldn't
> >tell whether it was "magic" or "science"; in fact, it might not be
> >meaningful to differentiate between those two words.

> I disagree. If the Enterprise suddenly showed up abandoned in orbit one
> day (in good condition), I think that modern scientists, engineers, and
> technicians have the tools to eventually figure out how every piece of
> equipment works. It might take decades, but I don't think anything
> would be considered magical.

[....]

> I think the bottom line is that magic is dead.

Why? The TNG Enterprise is (fictional) 24th century technology. What
about 26th century technology? 28th? The point of Clarke's Law is that
there is no visible ceiling on technology. If you found a starship and
the only apparent "machine" on board was a solid cube of metal that
would materialize any food you named, in any language, would *that* be
magic? What if you hacked it apart and found no interior components of
any kind? 

Why is that example less plausible than a 18th-century scientist looking
at a silicon chip?

>   1. How to suspend disbelief. It's to the point now were once wild
>      notions, such as time travel, are being seriously discussed.
>   2. How to do large-scale science. The Apollo Program, Manhattan
>      Project, and the large accelerators show the we have the
>      administrative skills to successfully handle huge projects
>      with many unknowns.
>   3. A critical mass of scientific knowledge. We certainly don't
>      know all of the "words" in nature, but we seem to pretty much
>      have the alphabet figured out.

1: I'm not optimistic enough to think we've removed any blinders; we've
just expanded them. "Sufficiently advanced technology" means
"sufficiently advanced relative to where we are now." 
2: That's engineering skill. It doesn't help in learning new principles.
(Admittedly, the "advanced technology" on something like an Enterprise
is going to be 90% engineering improvements, and those we can probably
snap up like chocolate chips. It's the other 10% that causes problems,
and that percentage goes up as the tech gets higher.)
3: See 1.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: root@ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.COM
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
Organization: NCR Corporation - Dayton, OH
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:04:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.085656.22698@newstand.syr.edu> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>In article <wf_rnQm00gpIQQoVNa@andrew.cmu.edu>
>"Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>Why? The TNG Enterprise is (fictional) 24th century technology. What
>>about 26th century technology? 28th? The point of Clarke's Law is that
>>there is no visible ceiling on technology.
>
>Ah, but there IS.  There is a limit on how strong we can make normal
>matter.  There is a limit on how fast we can travel.  There is a
>limit on how much energy we can get from 1g of mass.
>


I think you just made his point.  The statements you make are true NOW.
They may, or may not be true in the future.


>You are assuming that technology can go on forever.  It CAN'T.


Well, I suppose the limits of technology would be reached if we were omniscient;
otherwise, I suppose there would still be something to be learned, eh?


>
>>If you found a starship and
>>the only apparent "machine" on board was a solid cube of metal that
>>would materialize any food you named, in any language, would *that* be
>>magic? What if you hacked it apart and found no interior components of
>>any kind?
>>
>>Why is that example less plausible than a 18th-century scientist looking
>>at a silicon chip?
>
>It isn't.  We could conceivably do this someday.  (Especially if you
>leave out the "materialize" part.  How about: "emerges from the tabletop"
>as in it actually gets transmuted from that material.)
>
>>>   1. How to suspend disbelief. It's to the point now were once wild
>>>      notions, such as time travel, are being seriously discussed.
>
>Exactly what do you mean by 'seriously.'  Either people discuss this out
>of a sense of intellectual fun, or out of an utter ignorance of absolute
>limits.  (IMHO, that is)
>
>>1: I'm not optimistic enough to think we've removed any blinders; we've
>>just expanded them. "Sufficiently advanced technology" means
>>"sufficiently advanced relative to where we are now."
>
>But the scale does NOT go on forever.
>
>	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
>
>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: frank@fnbc.com (Frank Mitchell)
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf
Organization: First National Bank Of Chicago, Chicago IL, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:19:43 GMT

In article <tal691.724490862@huxley> tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au (Tonio Loewald)  
writes:
> The "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"  
line
> has always ticked me off, but not because it was necessarily wrong as written
> (or spoken) but how it was interpreted.

I think the best interpretation of "magic" in Clarke's law is the very loose,  
everyday one you go on to describe: "something we don't/can't understand, but  
works (sometimes) when we do this".  Clarke, I think, also meant magic in the  
sense of something miraculous and astounding, which blows away any idea we have  
of what's possible.

> My point is this: magic and technology are completely distinct to their
> PRACTITIONERS because magic doesn't work and has a set of protective
> belief structures built around it that stop people from losing faith in
> it when it fails, of the form:
> 1) it worked, but we failed to perceive its operation
> 2) we stuffed up the conjuration process
> 3) we have angered the gods/spirits/whatever and that's why it failed

The distinction between science and magic isn't so rigid.  For one thing,  
science sometimes doesn't work.  Ever done a physics lab? ;-)  Once one tries  
to apply science, one runs into unexplainable anomalies, which one tries to  
patch over with explanations of the form:
1) The theory was right, but the experiment was flawed.
2) The sample was impure.
3) There were vibrations/interference/etc.

Science is a distinct tradition from magic, in that the wizard -- er, scientist  
-- usually tries to figure out WHY his incantation failed.  But it's nothing to  
do with the content (or "truth") of his theories; it's his approach to them.

And even voudoun, shamanism, witchcraft, etc. work -- by their own standards.   
Sometimes by ours.  (We can generally find a scientific principle to explain  
its success: psycopharmacology, autosuggestion, etc.  But it still works ...)

> There are still technological problems that we cannot handle, but
> advancing technology tends to solve them (perhaps finding others).
> Thus a sufficiently advanced technology will in some sense be EVEN
> FURTHER from magic than an insufficiently adanced technology.

Clarke was talking about the advanced technology as perceived by a member of  
the insufficient one, who would not have the necessary theoretical background  
to understand said technology.  Without training in the arcana, anyway ... and  
that might confuse him more.

I guess the point is that it's a continuum, and one man's science is another's  
magic.

--
Frank Mitchell,	Business Systems Analyst, First National Bank of Chicago
email:frank@fnbc.com (NeXTmail)

"A sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
-- me, I think (twisting Clarke's Law, of course)
From: mabw0164@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: territorial disputes - definition of terms
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:20:52 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In the numerous rebuttals that Mr. Suk has posted to this group, one of his
recurring themes is that the civilization in question has reached "the 
pinnacle of what natural law allows". This brings up a number of questions
which I think should be clarified:

- Regarding the civilization in question: are we speaking of a carbon-based
life-form with needs, fears, wants and restrictions such as humans are
subject to? If not is this life-form so drastically dissimilar to humans as
to make competition for common resources a moot point?

- Does the pinnacle you speak of mean that starships, spaceships, and other 
forms of physical conveyance have been done away with? If not, has the civili-
zation in question done away with the need for extensive support facilities such as
are necessary for such vehicles?

- Are you assuming a creature evolving beyond the point of physical need of
any sort? (in which case this whole discussion is wasted)

- Is it your assumption that development into a starfaring civilization will
automatically entail city-ships (a la James Blish) and the abandonment of
planetary habitats?

- Specifically what is this pinnacle that you speak of? Given that we have
pushed and broken almost every established "law" of nature, or the assumptions
of limitations as perceived, at some time in the past and present, do you 
have a clear vision of what that upper limit is?

These questions probably seem like nit-picking, but as I read the responses on
this group, the whole argument get re-defined with every response. At this
point, I'm not sure if we're talking about a Utopian society where everyone
is happy living in a finite environment travelling through space, or about
an evolutionary development so advanced as to have no animal needs whatsoever.

If the first, then like most philosophical political systems, it will brook no
variations, modifications or non-conformity, in which case I'm just as happy
to be dust by its inception. If the second, then there is no common ground on
which we can sympathize with or understand the wants and needs of this 
civilization. We'd have more empathic understanding of a nest of ants.

I await you're response to this newsgroup.

Yours truly
Joseph Chiasson
01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: john@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Ender: The Movie
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 18:12:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.160009.8188@ugle.unit.no> leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:
>...
>Oh, gods.  Is it going to happen?  A movie version of _Ender's Game_?
>will.  Please, please, please.  If a miracle *does* happen, this could
>get really good.  ...

It'll take a miracle.

Remember _Nightfall_.  Remember _Enemy Mine_.  Remember _Dune_.

Don't get your hopes up.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hall, Product Software Engineering, EASTMAN KODAK CO., Rochester NY
716 253 7446   john@kodak.COM   ...!rochester!kodak!ektools!john
From: benjy@benjy.cc.vt.edu (Ben E. Cline)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Ender: The Movie
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.181253.5742@pixel.kodak.com>  
john@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (John Hall) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.160009.8188@ugle.unit.no> leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO  
(Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:
> >...
> >Oh, gods.  Is it going to happen?  A movie version of _Ender's Game_?
> >will.  Please, please, please.  If a miracle *does* happen, this could
> >get really good.  ...
> 
> It'll take a miracle.
> 
> Remember _Nightfall_.  Remember _Enemy Mine_.  Remember _Dune_.
> 

> Don't get your hopes up.
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Hall, Product Software Engineering, EASTMAN KODAK CO., Rochester NY
> 716 253 7446   john@kodak.COM   ...!rochester!kodak!ektools!john

Remember _Millennium_.  John Varley even wrote the screenplay...

Benjy
From: griffin@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Crystal Griffin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: A Million Open Doors
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:46:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Dec18.001133.15325@brtph560.bnr.ca> denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025) writes:
>In article <9212171315.AA09390@rutgers.edu> MARTHA@brlncc.BITNET ("Martha C. Motta da Silva ") writes:

[Stuff about a generation ship movie deleted]

>>Well , as soon as I read this message I remembered reading a short story
>>by Robert A. Heinlein that had a similar plot . I don't remember its name
>
>The story is called 'Universe' and its anthologized fairly often.  I'm
>sure you'll find it in 'The Science Fiction Hall of Fame' either in
>vol 1 (short stories, 'The Roads Must Roll' was also in this one), or
>vol 2 a or b (novellas/novellettes), I can't recall which one, at a
>guess I'd say its in volume 2a, but check them all out.  By the way,
>these books are excellent.  If you're interested in golden age SF from
>the 20's to the 50's these two books collect the stories SFWA thought
>should have won nebulas if they had existed at the time :-)


Howdy-

ZT here.

I'm not providing more info about this story or movie, but I would
  like to say that Heinlein's _Universe_ is NOT in either Vol 1, or
  Vol 2B.  I have both of those, but not 2A.  And, I too agree that
  you should check these books out.  They're full of great stories,
  and being short stories and novellettes/novellas, they have enough
  variance to capture the attention of ANY taste.

Just for my Record.

                       The Crystal Griffin
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: hoahosth@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (ANDREA HOSTH)
Subject: Re: Ender: The Movie
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.181253.5742@pixel.kodak.com> john@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (John Hall) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.160009.8188@ugle.unit.no> leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif 
Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:>>...
>>Oh, gods.  Is it going to happen?  A movie version of _Ender's Game_?
>>will.  Please, please, please.  If a miracle *does* happen, this could
>>get really good.  ...
>It'll take a miracle.
>Remember _Nightfall_.  Remember _Enemy Mine_.  Remember _Dune_.
>Don't get your hopes up.

Well, since "Ender's Game" is one of my all-time favourites of sf, I really 
want to see what a movie would be like. But the point is taken. I really 
wanted to see "Highlander II" as well. (I still can't get over that - the 
way they completely ignored large proportions of the first movie's plot). 
Anyway (stepping off soapbox), what I want to know is whether they will get 
away with portraying Ender properly - ie. as around 8-12 years old (and if 
they get McCauley Culkin to play him I'm going to kill myself). 

We've seen kids as horrible, evil monsters. We've seen kids (ie. Newt in 
Aliens) fighting along the side of good, but never in quite this role. The 
child as serious-minded, death-dealing protagonist? Will Hollywood get a 
backlash from this? 

I hope this movie gets the budget it deserves. I hope that the point that 
the race Ender (almost) wipes out is not like Ripley's Aliens. I hope that 
it gets nominated for Oscars (thinking ahead) because its a story that 
deserves it and I hope its done well enough to get up there. I hope that a 
real sf story survives the Hollyamericawood schmaltz. 

But I doubt it.

Ankh
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Subject: Re: hard and soft sf 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:10:16 +0000

In article <1992Dec15.085656.22698@newstand.syr.edu>
            pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter Kwangjun Suk) writes:

>There is a limit on how strong we can make normal
>matter.  There is a limit on how fast we can travel.  There is a
>limit on how much energy we can get from 1g of mass.
>
>You are assuming that technology can go on forever.  It CAN'T.

In your opinion.  And many scientists wouldn't agree with that opinion -
certainly those things are true *now*, with what we (or you, at least)
can currently visualise, but there's no evidence to suggest that new
discoveries won't be made.

Near the end of last century (in case this article is still going round
the net in a few years time <g>, I mean the 19th century) most
physicists were confidently saying that virtually everything had been
discovered (in physics), and all that was left was to clear up a few
decimal points.  In clearing up the 'details', we suddenly had
relativity theory, quantum mechanics, semiconductor technology, to name
a few instances that have totally transformed the world and the way we
think about it.

It looks as though the 'limited technology' philosophy is headed for the
same rude awakening...

>Exactly what do you mean by 'seriously.'  Either people discuss this out
>of a sense of intellectual fun, or out of an utter ignorance of absolute
>limits.  (IMHO, that is)

'Absolute limits'?  IMO anyone who quotes those is talking about
religion, and I refuse to argue about religion (it's futile - if I don't
agree with someone on basic premises, we can't even communicate).

>But the scale does NOT go on forever.

In your opinion again - and not in mine, or (obviously) the original
poster...

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *  The only way to find the limits of *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  the possible is to go beyond them  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *  into the impossible.    A.C.Clarke *
***********************************************************************