From : Frank Glover 1:2613/477 .cę 31 .åę 95 21:36
To : Lawrence E Dunlap
Subj : Re: Botched seaQuest
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
LE> For a submersible to be built to the size that is found in that
LE> cancelled program, it would require a economy generating a $40 to 90
LE> trillion planetary GDP to permit such a construction twice.
LE>
LE> Even if we don't crash the shaky economy we run today, some major
LE> breakthrough in technology would be necesssary to allow such a
LE> economy
LE> with the developing world being largely like the US of 1995 in 2032
LE> as
LE> it was portrayed in that show.
Why not? I wouldn't make too many assumptions about the design (and in the
case of SeaQuest`II' it would be just a matter of digging up the CAD
blueprints), fabrication and construction techniques available in 30-odd years.
We didn't see much in the way of factories and production lines, so who knows
how much it has in common with today?
Indeed, all those large, privately owned undersea habitats imply that they're
not outrageously expensive to build.
(One thing I noticed from the second Back to the Future movie was that
someone must've discovered and been able to produce cheaply those antigravity
devices almost overnight. Most cars seemed retrofitted with them, rather than
having been designed in. And if they can be found in something as mundane as the
hoverboards, it *must* be cheap to make. I'll bet most people didn't consider
that, but I find *sudden* tecnological changs of that sort to be the most
interesting...)
Frank
--- QuickBBS 2.80 GoldBase (Zeta-1)
* Origin: The Matrix Data Bank BBS, Rochester, Ny (1:2613/477)
Ä [8] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 138 of 187
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ķá 30 .åę 95 14:48
To : Darre LuAllen
Subj : ST Voyager
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (29 Dec 95) Darre LuAllen wrote to Lori Brown...
DL> Tuvok is a super-brain Vulcan (who's wasting himself as a
DL> security officer).
I beg to differ. I can't think of anyone else on the ship better
suited to acting as a security officer. Tuvok is five times stronger
than the humans (the majority of the crew)--and probably of most of
the rest of the crew as well. He's probably faster.
Assuming he runs true to Vulcan form (and there's no reason not to
assume this), he has an eidetic memory, he's a lightning calculator,
he has an encyclopedic knowledge of his chosen field (for Spock, it
was science; for Tuvok, presumably it is crime, law, security
procedures, background info on all the crew and maquis, the history
and use of most weapons, security tools, mechanical and electronic
lockpicking, computer hacking and security, etc.). There's probably
very little trouble anyone could try to cause that he wouldn't be
prepared to handle (aside from convenient oversights driven by bad
writing...).
And, of course, there's the fact that being a logical Vulcan doesn't
mean you can't be as cunning and deadly as the next guy.
Imagine a starbase corridor somewhere. Tuvok is standing over the
charred remains of...someone. Security guys arrive.
"Why did you shoot this man, Tuvok?" they ask.
"He threatened my life and demanded my creditcard."
"But he only had a club--couldn't you have defeated him in combat?"
"Probably. But there was a small element of risk which I saw no
good reason to accept. Had he defeated me, he would have continued
his criminal career and someone else might have been hurt. By
resorting to crime in this fashion, he had repudiated any social
contract between us. The only logical response to his attempted
robbery was to kill him."
"You had time to set your phaser on kill, but not to take him
alive?"
"You misunderstand--my phaser is *always* set on kill. In an
emergency, I can simply draw and shoot. If the threat is sufficiently
low, I can take time to reset it to stun setting."
"Uhmm...I see."
Just because you're a logical Vulcan, you don't *have* to be a
pacifist.
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [8] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 139 of 187
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ķá 30 .åę 95 15:01
To : Michael Harper
Subj : Cybersex
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (28 Dec 95) Michael Harper wrote to Mark Jones...
MH> MJ> Uhhmmm....who? Never heard of them.
MH>
MH> Kristen Cloke is the dark-haired beauty who plays Vansen on
MH> Space: Above & Beyond. There's something about her that makes me
MH> want to grab her and run into the woods...
That explains it. I never watch S:A&B. I couldn't get past the
silly notion of aircraft carriers in space (they're even *shaped* like
carrier, big and flat...) and human-piloted space fighters dodging and
jinking in outer space.
MH> Marie Marshall was in a single episode of B5, "GROPOS". She played
MH> Dodger, a Marine corporal who tries to rip Garibaldi's clothes off.
MH> Later, when she's boarding the ship to take her to the firefight she
MH> dies in, she gives Garibaldi a kiss that practically melts his
MH> bridgework.
Oh...HER. I remember her now.
MH> The point is, neither of these women is a classical beauty, but
MH> there's something about them both that turns me on.
MH>
MH> Maybe it's the fire in their eyes that does it...
Maybe you just like dangerous women. I know I do. (I didn't realize
it at first, until a female friend of mine who knew my tastes in
actresses explained it to me--they're mostly dark-haired women that
I've seen stomping bad guys into jelly in various flicks.)
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [8] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 140 of 187
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ķá 30 .åę 95 15:06
To : Bianca Wesslak
Subj : nuclear
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (24 Dec 95) Bianca Wesslak wrote to Nicolai Shapero...
BW> Uranium hurts and kills more people over time than does black
BW> lung.
Not when it is safely locked up behind the shielding of a nuclear
power plant reactor--rather than lying around in the soil (which is,
if you remember, where we get it from). And it generates power while
it's there, too! What could be better?
BW> Actually I got the half life stuff, that I am using for the nuke
BW> power plant bs from a nuclear power plant guy, allright. And
It's "BS" alright.
BW> believe it or not I do know what a half life is. It is exacly
BW> that a half life, that when the isotope becomes "stable" The
BW> stuff we use in our nuclear plant actually half long half live, I
BW> beliave from my info about some thousands of years. I also
Get a clue. In fact, I'll *give* you a clue. Do you know *why* they
removed spent fuel rods from reactors? BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER
'HOT' ENOUGH TO GENERATE POWER. Which means, in case you don't get
it, that they're not terribly radioactive anymore. Which is why they
can be stored relatively safely.
BW> BW>... You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge.
BW> Yeah and what about japan and hiroshima and nagashaki, there
BW> still being effected, how about since all the nuke bombs being
BW> exploded,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by BOMBS, kid. Does the
existence of napalm (jellied gasoline used as a weapon) mean that we
should abandon *all* use of gasoline?
BW> and the unsafety ofnuke power plants, every one born
BW> today has a little bit of plutonium in there lungs, among other
You're asserting an unproven point (that nuclear plants are unsafe) to
prove the point in question. That's a fallacy.
As for everyone having uranium in their lungs--I regard this as total
bravo sierra (bs). You (I think it was you) made this claim before,
but totally failed to provide ANY evidence for it. Do you have any?
NS> Yes. And knowing the hard realities of physics helps you to make
NS> an informed decision.
BW> reality is only a perception that humans came up with, it changes
BW> to new concepts that we decide are right. Physics is only theory
BW> that a bunch of people agree upon, not fact, thories.
Jesus, no wonder you're hysterical. You haven't got a clue. Reality
simply IS, no matter what we think about it. Reality never changes,
only our understanding of it changes. All the technology we have
today was possible ten thousand years ago--but nobody knew enough to
create it back then. The universe didn't change; our collective
understanding of how it works--and how to manipulate it--is what
changed.
BW> I also remember when still in highschool hearing from a physics
BW> professor, about half lives.
Obviously, he was busy brainwashing you with anti-nuclear propaganda
instead of teaching you about science.
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [8] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 141 of 187
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .ķá 30 .åę 95 15:19
To : Bianca Wesslak
Subj : nuclear
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (24 Dec 95) Bianca Wesslak wrote to Mark Jones...
MJ> A radioactive substance can be highly radioactive OR it can have
MJ> an extremely long half-life. Not both. (If such a substance did
MJ> exist, it would be the ideal fuel source--lots of energy output
MJ> and usable for centuries. If such a thing existed, we wouldn't
MJ> have a radioactive waste problem--it would still be inside the
MJ> reactor, generating power!)
BW> Granted, but the stuff we use does have a strong half life, it becomes
BW> even deadlier when re use it.
I assume you're talking about breeder reactors. The same arguments
still apply--either it is highly radioactive (with a short half-life),
or it has a long half-life and is less radioactive. It CAN'T BE BOTH
(if it was, it would be the ideal fuel source anyhow and we wouldn't
be worrying about disposal, we'd leave it in the reactor)!
In any case, radioactive materials are less harmful when collected and
shielded inside reactors than if we just leave them lying around in
the soil and the rocks around us--which is where we find them.
MJ> Total up the number of people ever killed by black lung disease
BW> have I at any point in time sponsored fossil fuels, I'm talking
BW> about radiation not the rich but limited fossil fuel industry,
BW> why do people seem to scream at me statistics of black lung, and
BW> coal miner deaths...
Because you are a *de facto* proponent of continued fossil fuel use,
since solar and wind power simply CAN'T SUPPORT a high-tech industrial
civilization. The energy simply isn't available. So unless you
propose to decimate the human population and go back to seventeeth
century population and energy consumption levels, you DO support
fossil fuel use (and all the deaths and illness it entails). There
are no alternatives except fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Besides, if you're going to demand an accounting of nuclear power
advocates for possible illness or death it could cause, you have to be
prepared to accept your share of the blame for the deaths and
illnesses caused by the fuels *you* approve of.
MJ> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuclear power accidents. They
