Aucbvax.5889
fa.space
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Thu Jan 21 03:44:06 1982
SPACE Digest V2 #84
>From OTA@S1-A Thu Jan 21 03:29:40 1982
SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 84
Today's Topics:
wire stuff
Harry Stine and Science
Collision with skyhook
Question about gateway
pur-ee!davy's question about gateway
G. Harry Stine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon Jan 18 10:18:34 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark at Berkeley
Subject: wire stuff
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
I beg to differ with you. Perhaps you can legally say that newsgroups
are only internal mailings, sent to a closed controlled set of people,
but this does not make it true. In fact, most of the interesting arpanet
mailing lists (including space-enthusiasts) have a copy fed into USENET,
which is neither the arpanet nor tightly controlled. Most, if not all, of
the contributions you see posted by somewhere!somewhere!somebody@Berkeley
are from somebody on USENET who would not have contributed had the digests
not been posted to USENET in the first place. The point is, a digest is
in effect a newsletter, not mail, and as a contributor you have no control
or knowledge of who is getting it. (This is true even on the ARPANET, not
just USENET.)
Since the space news stuff that Adam posts are already on USENET (a less
tightly controlled entity than the ARPANET) and since he retypes things
that look interesting, rather than having an automatic feed, it seems to
me there is no legal problem with the wire services. (Obviously there would
be no problem in taking them from the newspaper, right? Same thing.)
The real question being asked is whether the arpanet people on the space
mailing list WANT to get the news Adam posts. The USENET people are going
to get it anyway. The obvious thing to do is to try it for a while and
see what the arpanet people think.
Mark Horton
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 1119-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ AT USC-ECL>
Subject: Harry Stine and Science
To: space at MIT-MC
I remember being extremely annoyed when Analog printed Stine's article
on relativity. I was so annoyed that I cancelled my subscription.
The problem was NOT that Stine challenged widely held beliefs. What
was annoying was that he was selectively myopic (look only at results
that confirm your theory) and used ad hominem arguments (scientists are
stupid/dishonest/evil, so don't believe them).
These traits are characteristic of the pseudoscientist. For examples, try
"Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner. I think
we can safely classify Stine's theories as pseudoscience, not because
they are wrong, but because of the way he presents them.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1982 05:37:56-PST
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!horton at Berkeley
Re: STS video on sat. transponder??
recently i saw an article about the upcoming sts video feed being on one of
the staellite transponders. do you folks recall the details. it
might have been a usenet only item, if so sorry to bother you with this.
or it might havE come on net.columbia,
thanks(
kurt horton (pur-ee!uiucdcs!horton)
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1982 22:10:09-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
>From Network:c70 Thu Jan 14 01:50:44 1982
Mail addressed to space at mc could not be sent.
Host has been down for over a day
------- Unsent message is below -------
Date: 12 Jan 1982 11:53:05-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject: Collision with skyhook
What is the probability that a satellite would collide with a skyhook,
both for the rotating and fixed versions? I read somewhere that SPSs
could not be built in low orbit and transported to geosynchronous orbit
because it was probable they would experience more than one
collision with a satellite. Is this correct? What would be the cross-section
of the skyhook in the regions of concentration of satellites?
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 18 January 1982 08:58-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: space at mit-mc
cc: king at KESTREL
I certainly concede that this isn't a very forceful argument,
but it does constitute a plausibility argument for the assertion that
no inertialess drive, buildable form more-or-less-ordinary movable
parts, can exit.
The argument is that there is no form of life tht uses one.
It appears that essentially every piece of mechanical engineering that
doesn't involve something like high vacuum, high temperature,
extremely high velocity, etc. appears in some form of life. (For a
while it appeared that no form of life had rotating parts, but many
bacteria do.)
Comments, anyone?
As an aside, is there a mailing list which might be called
"engineering in life forms"?
------------------------------
Date: Mon Jan 18 12:34:55 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley
Subject: Question about gateway
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Is "fa.space" (the SPACE DIGEST) going away soon? It's getting kind of
dull to see all those neat letters in net.space, and then seeing them
2 days later in the digest.....
--Dave
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1982 at 1744-PST
From: Andrew Knutsen <KNUTSEN@SRI-UNIX>
To: space at MC
Subject: pur-ee!davy's question about gateway
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX
Since this question applies to usenet only, and
certainly doesnt involve space, I suggest it be discussed
in "net.news.group".
------------------------------
Date: 21 January 1982 04:20-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT>
Subject: G. Harry Stine
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
If one is a "humanist" does this invariably imply a tragic
condition? that we accept fate, and give up the idea of solving
our problems thrugh science and technology?
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
