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 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 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 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 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.