To : Frank Glover
Subj : B5 -- Coincidence?
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Whoa, Cool! Frank Glover and me are inna cat fight about "B5 -- Coincidence?"!
FG>
TS>> TR> Yah. But then, what would be a good design for a
TS>> warship... a
TS>> TR> sphere, maybe?
TS>>
TS>> Then it would be "Death Star" and "Skylark of Space" rip-offs,
TS>> wouldn't it?
FG>
FG> Remember also that Paramount artists considered a sphere as the
FG> basic design for Trek Federation ships, before going to a saucer
FG> design. See `The Making of Star Trek,' and `The Art of Star Trek' for
FG> details. (Had they done it, Fleet ships might've all been variations on
FG> the ship Beverly Crusher commanded in `All good Things.')
I've seen both books; I recognized the Pasteur as being the original concept,
which is now being called the Daedelas class in the relatively new Star Trek
Chronology. Great book; covers all the series (except TAS) and the movies
(pre-"Relics").
Todd Sullivan
... "Hang him with his pen and ink-horn about his neck." --Shakespeare
-*- ASTG 1.9
--- Spot 1.3a Unregistered
* Origin: Todd's Spot in the Continuum (1:202/720.3)
Ä [11] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 369 of 423
From : Nancy Crockett 1:170/600 .îí 18 .åę 95 21:59
To : Tommy Kellerman
Subj : Highlander
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TK> I'm afraid that the only computer connections with America
TK> are through Fido-
TK> and InterNet.
TK> Thank you for your valuable help, I do appreciate it.
Anytime. I'll answer what I can, however, I have been known to be wrong, so
don't consider me an expert. I'm just a fan who like the show a lot.
TK> NC> Have you seen the one with Adrian's butt shot yet?
TK> WHAT?! Hahaha! No, I haven't, but that sounded kind of
TK> kinky...
When I was in Denver, one girl asked him when he was going to have a butt shot.
He seemed very embarrased, but admitted that he had just filmed one the day
before. :) He was in a bathtub, during a flashback. So it was done with some
taste. They have shown sides of breasts before, so it is only fair the females
should have a good scene too! (BG)
TK> /// -Tommy L.- \\\ * I have something to say: It's better
TK> to BURN out
TK> than fade away !! *
Great quote! Did you like Clancy Brown in Earth 2? Quite different from the
Kurgon (sp) in Highlander huh?
... IBM: It may be slow, but at least it's expensive.
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Tulsa Chat BBS-Tulsa, Ok-(918) 234-1352 (1:170/600)
Ä [11] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 370 of 423
From : Dkimmel 1:101/230 .cę 17 .åę 95 21:01
To : The Raven
Subj : KUBRICK COMMENTS
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TR> RL> BTW: I don't seem to have access to the entire SFFAN "Kubrick"
TR> RL> thread. What seems to have been the catalyst for all the fire and
TR> RL> brimstone?
TR> Someone said "Kubrick's a great director, but as a person he sucks" and
TR>Dkimmel had an apolplectic fit.
No, no one said any such thing, and there's no reason to make things up
about my response either. In fact, while wild claims about Kubrick's
personality have been offered, it all seems to be in the mind of the
person (people) making the comments. No evidence to back up any of
these wild claims is offered.
Indeed, what I *calmly* refuted was the utterly moronic claim that
Kubrick had anything to do with the turkey, "They Saved Hitler's Brain."
Someone foolishly claimed that every director had films they were
ashamed of, implying that Kubrick had something to do with it. I merely
noted, for those slow of wit, that this was not the case.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Facts are stupid things." -- Ronald Reagan
--- FLAME v1.0
* Origin: Withouta Net - Drop In Anytime! - 617/846-5416 (1:101/230)
Ä [11] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 371 of 423
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .cę 17 .åę 95 12:26
To : James Woodcock
Subj : nuclear
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (07 Dec 95) James Woodcock wrote to Mark David...
JW> MD> Nuclear power is the most cost-effective and nearly the safest.
JW>
JW> Until it fucks up...look under 'Chernobyl' or 'Three Mile Island'
"...for a one-thousand megawatt solar-electric conversion
plant...we're talking about covering fifty to a hundred square miles
with 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons
of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons
of other metals such as chromium and titanium--one thousand times the
materials needed to construct a comparable size (1,000 megawatt)
nuclear plant. These materials are not cheap, and real estate isn't
free. Neither is the labor to keep miles of collector area clean.
Morever, these materials are all products of heavy, energy-hungry
industries--to the degree that many studies have concluded that
building solar plants would produce a net energy loss--and produce
large amounts of waste, roughly 10 percent of which is highly toxic.
So much for "free" and "clean" solar power."
"In a year a one-thousand megawatt coal-fired plant produces 1.5
million tons of ash--thirty thousand truck loads--that contains large
amounts of known carcinogens and toxins, and can be highly acidic or
alkaline, depending on the sulfer content of the coal burned. Getting
rid of it is a stupendous task--a *real* waste-disposal problem--and
it ends up being dumped in shallow landfills that are easily leached
out by groundwater, or simply being piled up as mountains on any
convenient site. And that's only the solid waste. In addition there
is the waste that's disposed straight up the smokestack, which
includes six hundred pounds of carbon dioxide and ten pounds of sulfer
dioxide every SECOND and the same quantity of nitrogen oxides as
200,000 automobiles."
"A one thousand megawatt nuclear plant, by contrast, produces nothing
in addition to its cubic yard of high-level waste, because there isn't
any chemical combustion--no ash, no gases, no smokestack. Because of
the compactness of nuclear processes, nuclear power constitutes the
first major technology in history in which it has actually been
possible to contain ALL the wastes produced and isolate them from the
environment...."
--James P. Hogun, "Know Nukes"
P.S. Three Mile Island didn't hurt or kill ANYONE. As for Chernobyl,
we'd need a couple of dozens such disasters every year to kill as many
people as die in traffic accidents annually around the world.
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [11] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 372 of 423
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .îí 18 .åę 95 16:21
To : Lawrence E Dunlap
Subj : Gibson
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (17 Dec 95) Lawrence E Dunlap wrote to Daniel Nystrom...
LE> I agree with you the cost of developing neural interfacing with a
LE> cyberspace network will cost several hundred millions of dollars and
LE> probably won't be used for artifical surrogate sex stimsim
LE> productions. Scientists will have to provide beneficial uses for such
LE> advances and acceptable uses to differing generational groups and
LE> difering cultures.
Wanna bet? If it's *possible* to do pornographic sim/stim,
somebody *will* do it. And he'll end up with more money than God.
Especially if AIDS continues to be a problem. How much safer can sex
get, after all?
As for the immense cost of the technology--yes, at first. But
computers once filled rooms and cost zillions of dollars. Now you can
buy computers for a few hundred dollars that outperform anything from
just a few years ago.
If they ever actually manage to create a reliable and safe
brain/machine interface (which I think will be much harder than many
people assume), lots of different individuals and groups will be
working on lots of different uses for it.
My personal favorite: a high-tech medical emergency kit, complete
with computer and headset. When you need the kit, you slip on the
headset and turn on the power. Presto! You know how to *use* all
that keen equipment now!
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [11] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 373 of 423
From : Ecarey 1:101/230 .îí 18 .åę 95 09:12
To : James Woodcock
Subj : NUCLEAR
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
JW> MD> Nuclear power is the most cost-effective and nearly the safest.
JW> Until it fucks up...look under 'Chernobyl' or 'Three Mile Island'
Chernobyl was [is still] a badly outdated and badly maintained facility.
You couldn't build a reactor like that anywhere in the industrialized
world today; the few that are still in existence are in the process of
being decommissioned except in the old Soviet bloc countries, where
they're trying to get the money to decommision and replace them.
But even given its bad design, Chernobyl was unusually badly run, and
Soviet disaster response was lousy. Note that the initial problem that
occurred at Three Mile Island was exactly the same as the initial
problem at Chernobyl - exactly the same original mistake was made - but
at TMI, nobody died, nobody even got sick, nothing was evacuated for
more than a few days. This was the result of a combination of better
design [proper containment buildings and safety equipment], and better
disaster response [they had trained people readily available to deal
properly with the situation], and the fact that in a free country, you
can't keep the lid on very long, so they _had_ to act quickly and
effectively, because they were doing it in the full glare of publicity.
Chernobyl and the previous steam explosion in the Urals in fifties
represent the overwhelming majority of all deaths that can be attributed
to nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants really are much safer to
operate than coal or oil power plants, vastly safer when you include the
dangers of coal mining, without which you don't have coal-fired power
plants.
The problems of the nuclear power industry are these:
1)They have lousy p.r. They are clueless when it comes to the task of
conveying the real benefits, safety- and environment-wise, of nuclear
power, and they are so arrogant they don't understand why they should
have to.
2)They too often choose to site plants in places where, in the
exceedingly rare event of a serious problem arising, effective
evacuation would be _impossible_, and attempting it would be very
dangerous - on Cape Cod, where the _only_ road out goes directly by the
plant, and in Seabrook, NH, a major seaside resort area that can't
handle its _normal_ summer traffic when nobody's in a panic, are my
favorite examples. This means that although the chances of a real
disaster are low compared to other types of plants, siting choices
artificially raise the possible losses in life and property. There's no
excuse for this.
3)The nuclear waste problem, which is far more of a problem than some on
this echo are willing to concede. It's solvable, but only if the nuclear
industry first solves problem #1, their p.r. incompetance and their
