Traveller-digest     Friday, September 10 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1082



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: WoTC
Re: Roger Sanger? 
Re: WoTC
Re: ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Question regarding software for Traveller gaming
Re: Photographing starship miniatures
Re: Question regarding software for Traveller gaming
Re: WoTC
Re: Question regarding software for Traveller gaming
800-ton Freighter request
SEC: UNCLASSIFIED: MT Deckplan queries
Re: Grand Tour
Re: The Big Button [ Virus, eggs, booby traps ]
Re: WoTC
Re: ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: WoTC
Re: 5FW: 1st Fleet?
Re: 5FW: 1st Fleet?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 99 21:39:30 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: WoTC

On 09/09/99 at 09:49 PM,  "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com> said:

>> >The company that makes GI Joe and Monopoly now sells satanic demon
>> >raising instruction kits that cause children to go insane, wear black
>> >trenchcoats and kill innocent classmates en masse.
 
>> >At least that's how the fundie spin will be.
 
>> Bruce, the Assembly of God down the road already holds periodic toy
>> burnings during their revivals staring GI Joe and Barbie.  They
>> don't *need*  the D&D/MtG connection, they already think the
>> toymakers are agents of the Devil.

>Hell, Eris, see if they wanna buy any swastikas or something.  It
>kinda goes  with that mindset.

You know I'm not joking, and they burn swastikas as symbols of the Devil, too. One of the assistant pastors had his son sledge-hammering video game cartridges at the last shindig, as I understand it.  

>> The problem, really, is that Hasbro has no motive to pursue low
>> volume, small profit, ventures like either MtG cards or TSR RPGs.
>> Although, they may be high volume/profit in our *little* niche, it's
>> small potatos in the mainstream toy and game markets.

>Well, I'll admit, I'll be glad to see the end of Magic; The
>Addiction.  When  I was looting^H^H^H^H^H^Hshopping at my FLGS the
>other day, a couple kids  came in asking about 'demonic cards' and
>such.  The owner didn't exactly  freek, but he put it in no uncertain
>terms that it's a *GAME* dammit, not a  religion.

>Kinda makes you wonder bout the kids coming up today...

<sigh>

>> >It's telling that the founders of WOTC were willing to sell now...in
>> >a take the money and run sort of way.
>> 
>> Shoot, would *you* sneeze at 325 million bucks?

>Eh.  I'd settle for half a percent of that.

Yeah, for WOTC.  I might hold out for more for the rights to Traveller...if I had them. Okay, I'm fibbing. <g>

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 22:53:10 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Roger Sanger? 

> At 09:19 PM 9/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >> >Dave, where do you hail from?
> >> 
> >> 	Only the shadow knows ... currently I'm laired in Northern
> Virginia
> >
> >There goes the neighborhood...  <g, d, & *R*!!!>
> 
> 	Don't run, you'll only die tired ...

And your point is?

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:53:55 -0400
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net>
Subject: Re: WoTC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: WoTC


>A large, highly public American toy corporation now owns Magic the
>Gathering and D&D.
>
>Expect these games to vanish once the fundies start in on Hasbro.
>They're a lot more vulnerable to loud calls for boycotts than either
>WOTC or TSR ever were.


It's possible, but doubtful. TSR is actually running in the black nowadays.
Unlike Hasbro's purchase of Avalon Hill, which was the purchase of a company
that was playing to a vanishED market (note the past tense), TSR is now
economically viable. Avalon Hill was purchased not that long ago with the
intent to turn out computer games based on the properties, as far as I
recall, give them a chance to do it. Computer games don't get made
overnight, and the type of retooling that Hasbro will require to be a player
in the computer game market is immense.

D&D, and roleplaying in general, have both managed to avoid any real
negative press recently. In fact, the only people who really strongly object
to AD&D are the type of loonies who have been attacking Disney and the
Teletubbies... and neither has really bowed to the pressure yet.

>The company that makes GI Joe and Monopoly now sells satanic demon
>raising instruction kits that cause children to go insane, wear black
>trenchcoats and kill innocent classmates en masse.


Yes, and you do understand how much flack Hasbro took in the 80s for making
the G.I. Joe line, a line of "war toys." They *never bowed,* and to this day
still support the collectors of G.I. Joe with special editions that get red
tagged. In other words, they're supporting the collectors while losing
money. Note: I'm talking about the small action figures here, not the 12
inch dolls, which they continue to release at a loss as well.

>At least that's how the fundie spin will be.


Perhaps, but time will tell if it will actually have any real effect. Hasbro
didn't let the anti-violent toy crowd, which was a strong lobby, even in the
80s, take down G.I. Joe, so don't be surprised if they stick by Wizards of
the Coast.

Hasbro is an established company that's "been there and done that." Of all
the companies out there, very few large American companies have had the guts
to stand by fans of their line (specifically in this case, G.I. Joe). They
have continued to support the niche market of Joe collectors, at
considerable cost to themselves. Hasbro doesn't have a record of backing
down to complaints. G.I. Joe and The Transformers both came under fire at
different points, and Hasbro stuck with them.

Sure, they're sitting on Avalon Hill properties. I hope you didn't expect to
see Panzer Blitz sitting next to Monopoly at your local toy store! It was
never fated to happen. The tabletop wargaming market is dead. There is no
market for them.

On the other hand, TSR is the industry leader in roleplaying games. It's not
a dead market. In fact, as of recently, the roleplaying market has begun
growing again, due in large part to excellent leadership of the WoTC's new
management on the AD&D line.

That's right! It's a reversal of the trend we've been seeing for so long.
New roleplayers are being lured in.

Love it or hate it, the Dungeons and Dragons line is what lures new gamers,
and that's good for the whole industry.

>My prediction?
>
>Hasbro will strip out Pokemon, and toss the rest quietly on the
>dungheap. Pokemon will be a fading fad, gone in 6 months anyway, but
>I'll bet Hasbro more than gets their $325 million out of it. They were
>willing to bet that.


Pokemon will be a fading fad? What a surprise! ;)

Of course it will be. There is no evidence that Hasbro bows to the whims of
special interest groups *like a smaller company must*. Let me repeat that,
*like a smaller company must.*

>It's telling that the founders of WOTC were willing to sell now...in a
>take the money and run sort of way.


Really? Any evidence to back that up? Wizards of the Coast turned a bankrupt
gaming company on the skids into a money making proposition.

Yeah, sure, Magic: The Gathering gets a bum rap... a long time ago when I
was a wee roleplayer the grognards at the local hobby shop often gathered
around, talking models and Napoleonics, about how roleplaying games were
destroying their hobby. It is humorous that 15-20 years later, old grognard
roleplayers would complain that CCGs would kill their hobby.

The truth? WotC were canny enough to realize that CCGs were a flash in the
pan, more or less, and they rode the gravy train for as long as they could.
They knew they had to break into the roleplaying game market, one with an
older and more established pedigree. Their first attempt was abortive, at
best, and they screwed alot of people over. That sucks, there is no denying
that. Then, they took the opportunity to buy TSR, expand its line, and pull
it out of an economic hole. Not a slump, a hole. They made very good
decisions with TSR and now there will be more people who will get turned on
to roleplaying games.

Okay, let's take a look at some other possible scenarios:

1.) Wizards of the Coast Never Forms: WotC never forms. The jump from
trading cards to trading card games never happens. Comic purchases hit a
slump (which they did, the market has been declining). With less free money
floating around, they stick with what works. Comics. Some expand to carry
roleplaying games. TSR finally slides into bankruptcy, only nobody's
interested in buying. The most popular roleplaying game, by a decent margin,
disappears from chain bookstores and hobby shops. Without 13 year old hack
and slashers there are no 16 year old angsty goth gamers. White Wolf
collapses in on itself. Without 13 year old hack and slashers there are no
16 year old power gamers. Palladium collapses in on itself. West End games
collapses shortly thereafter, the lucrative Star Wars line not enough to
save it. Four major roleplaying game companies disappear from the face of
the earth. It's up to Steve Jackson now to singlehandedly save roleplaying
games with a tiny share in the market. GURPS has never been good at luring
new players anyway and its got absolutely no recognition among
non-roleplayers. They might pull through for a few years and then eventually
go the way of GDW, just not enough interest in the product.

2.) Wizards of the Coast Sticks with the Unpopular RPG Properties They
Planned: They introduce Magic: The Gathering to comic book stores. Comics
have entered into a slump, and comic book stores are looking for something
new. Magic: The Gathering fits the bill nicely. WotC makes alot of money.
The comic book stores literally rake in the cash. The comic book stores pump
lots of this money into CCGs, but they siphon off some to roleplaying games.
Comic book stores begin to carry increased amounts of RPGs, which is
essential to the growth of the industry. The introduce Everway and some
other RPG properties, and they sell alright. WotC sticks with them, however.
It's something of a financial drain, so they don't have any free capital
floating around when TSR goes belly up, the industry dies as explained
above.

3.) Wizards of the Coast Buys TSR: Everything goes as #2, above, except they
fire lots of people in their roleplaying development area. It sucks, and
these people gt screwed, but WotC feels it expanded too fast. They still
want to break into the RPG market. TSR goes belly up. WoTC buys the company.
They focus on the aspects of AD&D that make it sell, and begin to try to woo
back old school AD&D fans. For the most part it works, and within a few
years TSR goes from bankrupt to running in the black. This is good for the
whole industry, as AD&D is the introductory game for the *vast majority* of
roleplayers. If AD&D's customer base grows, it's safe to assume that the
customer base of roleplaying games will grow. It's simple math. The more
AD&D players there are, the more who will experiment with other games they
never heard of. WotC makes a lucrative deal with Interplay to put out
Baldur's Gate, a smash hit computer game that lures many new players who got
their first taste of the concepts involved with Interplay's popular Fallout
CRPG (GURPS had their chance, but they passed it up).

Um... yeah, you've already guessed it. #3 is what happened. I think that the
near future will be very telling for the hobby we all love.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 23:05:59 -0400
From: Kurt Feltenberger <kurt@blazenet.net>
Subject: Re: ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 07:17 PM 9/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On 09/09/99 at 08:46 AM,  "Sword Worlder" <swordworlder@clinic.net> said:
>
> >So, like, does this mean that the FASA stuff won't be on the TravCD?
> >:-p
>
>That's probably what it means, unless some one has gotten permission from 
>FASA to put there stuff on the TravCD.
>
>AFAIK, FASA still controls those copyrights, that is they weren't sold to 
>Microsoft.

Last fall I tried to track down who had the rights to the Adventure Class 
Ships and the other ship plans they did way back when.  The rather terse 
and rude reply I received from FASA after waiting a week and a half stated 
that they had sold them "some time ago" and the person answering the e-mail 
had other things to do than track down who it was.

Kurt Feltenberger
kurt@blazenet.net
Morrow Project Campaign http://www.sol-3.net
WT-L Support Pages http://www.sol-3.net/wt-l

"To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
      may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"
~Stephen Decatur

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 20:36:41 -0700
From: "B. Mallory" <bmallory@earthlink.net>
Subject: Question regarding software for Traveller gaming

Hello to All,

     In 1986 an article was published in a Challange magazine titled
"Electronically Exploring the Traveller universe" with a sub title of "A
Comprehensive Sector Generator".  The article was written by Marc
Miller.  The portion of the article that I want to refer to regards the
usefullness of standardizing data formats.  What I want to find out
about is the state of progress with this.

     The ability to access a public file format for characters,
subsectors and ships would make writing a ships maintainence program
much more straightforward.  This is a way for gamers to share their
creations (the characters, ships, maps, etc.) without worrying about
stepping on toes.

     If this has already been done then I would simply like a lead.  If
not, then what are your thoughts on such a project.  With FFE starting
to publish the T5 in November This data might be popular.

Thanks
bmallory@earthlink.net

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:32:55 -0400
From: "Sword Worlder" <swordworlder@clinic.net>
Subject: Re: Photographing starship miniatures

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Bradbeer <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
> Most autocameras I've used use either IR ranging or a focus-split type
> arrangement. Ultrasound seems like a slightly unreliable system. Wouldn't
> the registered range vary with heat and humidity? And would that really
work
> beyond a few yards?

There have been several sonic AF cameras, the most successful being the
Polaroid SX-70 Sonar.  It could focus down to 1 foot, but the next step
after 12 feet was infinity.  Almost all point & shoot AF systems are IR at
this point.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TRAVELLER Domain
http://www.downport.com
Colin Michael, WebDev

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:38:53 -0400
From: "Sword Worlder" <swordworlder@clinic.net>
Subject: Re: Question regarding software for Traveller gaming

- ----- Original Message -----
From: B. Mallory <bmallory@earthlink.net>
>      If this has already been done then I would simply like a lead.  If
> not, then what are your thoughts on such a project.  With FFE starting
> to publish the T5 in November This data might be popular.

It is the Collector Edition of classic Traveller that is being published
beginning this November, not T5.  The next version of real Traveller is in a
state of flux AFAIK.  I've heard both M0 and M200 as being the initial
milieu, and I've heard that the rules will be a fixed T4, but then I heard
that a totally new, generic system is in development.  Sounds like we need
an update from the horses mouth.  Trouble is that the horses hearing aid is
turned off :-p

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TRAVELLER Domain
http://www.downport.com
Colin Michael, WebDev

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:04:36 -0400
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net>
Subject: Re: WoTC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: WoTC


>On 09/09/99 at 01:54 PM,  Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
said:
>
>>Scary, actually.
>
>Remember what Hasbro did to Avalon Hill, the wargames, The General?


Yes, but this was no wolf in sheep's clothing. Anybody who expected Hasbro's
acquisition of Avalon Hill to mean that Avalon Hill would be on the comeback
trail was deluded. Hasbro made its intentions very clear: computer games.

>Bruce, the Assembly of God down the road already holds periodic toy
>burnings during their revivals staring GI Joe and Barbie.  They
>don't *need* to the D&D/MtG connection, they already think the
>toymakers are agents of the Devil.


Actually, the amount of attacks on Barbie, G.I. Joe and so many other things
have little or no impact on the market. Why?

It's simple. How do you find out about these attacks? The media. How does
the media make money? Advertising. What's one of the largest advertising
markets in the United States? The toy market. Sure you hear people complain
every once in awhile, and the big toymakers usually stick to their guns.
When they don't, it's usually not a big deal. When G.I. Joe was attacked,
vocally, during the 80s, Hasbro didn't back down. It took decades for
Barbie's body shape to approach normalcy. The big companies shrug off bad
press because they run the press.

It sucks, but this could be *good* for WotC, AD&D, not bad.

>Who knows.  Hasbro bought AH mainly for the titles and ideas they
>could mine for their computer game division.  I suspect they have
>the same idea with WOTC/TSR.


Doubtful. I'm not sure about TSR's deal with Interplay, but I know that
Interplay is scheduled to do at least one or two more roleplaying games
based on TSR's properties. Hasbro *could* leave well enough alone and focus
on the tabletop aspects. It really could go either way. While big companies
frequently appear stupid, they don't get to be big by actually being stupid.

Here are the facts as they stand:

1.) Baldur's Gate was a breakaway hit, and it created a whole new market of
young roleplayers.

2.) As of the last report I've seen, a relatively large budget Hollywood
movie based on the AD&D property is currently in filming on location in the
Czech Republic. Whatever studio has it may kill it at some point before it
hits theaters, but even an idiot marketing director knows that the words
"Dungeons & Dragons" together are known by the vast majority of people in
the United States. Don't expect Armageddon or Independence day, but do
expect that it will help to create a new market for RPGs. Personally,
there's one scene I really, really want to see, but I don't want to be a
spoiler.

3.) TSR is operating in the black. It's making money and Dungeons & Dragons
is still a household word. Those folks who were introduced to Dungeons &
Dragons between 73 & 84 (and there were alot of them) are now parents, and
in some cases, they're going to have children who hit the right age bracket
for the marketing of the game. In other words, there are parents out there
who know that AD&D doesn't turn kids into bloodthirsty killers and are
spending money on their own children.

Add up 1, 2 & 3 and you get the potential for big money. This took me maybe
5 minutes to think up. A company like Hasbro doesn't spend $300+ dollars in
just 5 minutes. I'm sure they thought about this purchase for a long time
beforehand, and I'm sure these facts were factored into their decision to
buy.

>The problem, really, is that Hasbro has no motive to pursue low
>volume, small profit, ventures like either MtG cards or TSR RPGs.
>Although, they may be high volume/profit in our *little* niche, it's
>small potatos in the mainstream toy and game markets.


I'll cut the huge essay I wrote down to size, and simple say this: AD&D,
regardless of my personal beliefs, was always destined to be a household
name. TSR screwed up so many times, for so many reasons, I could write for
hours... and I would never even mention their problems with the growing
internet in the early-to-mid 90s. That was the last and least of their
problems. TSR hit the skids in the early-to-mid 80s, the sheer power of the
game they created was powerful enough to keep the company afloat... and
that's precisely the reason that it's still a marketable commodity.

The truth of the matter is that AD&D was always available in more markets
than any other roleplaying game. You could walk into a chain bookstore, a
hobby shop, or a comic book store and find it. When TSR was in "feast"
phase, the roleplaying industry ate well. When TSR was in "famine" phase,
the roleplaying industry starved.

I know somebody's going to point out that both Palladium and White Wolf were
able to feast during TSR's famine phase and increase their share in the
market. At what expense though? GDW and a host of other RPG companies were
forced to close their doors or cut down their lines.

>>It's telling that the founders of WOTC were willing to sell now...in
>>a take the money and run sort of way.
>
>Shoot, would *you* sneeze at 325 million bucks?


Besides, there's very little detail on the sale. There's no evidence that
the controlling factions of WotC are taking the money and running. I think
that people should give it time before assuming the worst.

If the worst does indeed happen, it's frankly highly unlikely that even a
quarter of us (the members of the TML) will be here talking about Traveller.
If AD&D collapses, the roleplaying market *will* go with it. Traveller is
not a household name. GURPS is not a household name. Hell, for all of its
popularity in our own gaming ghetto, Vampire is not a household name (at
least not in the roleplaying sense).

Dungeons & Dragons is, and that's precisely what makes it such a valuable
commodity, and that's precisely why it's important to our hobby. Now, there
are going to be those of you out there who are going to pretend to not be
phased by this and say, "Hey, even if roleplaying games disappear, I'll
still play Traveller." That's great. As for me, I like the possibility that
people like Wiseman, Miller, Thrash, Zeigler, et. al. can actually make a
little money doing what they enjoy as a hobby. I'm happy that they turn out
things so that I don't have to and it is available for me to get my hands
on. I'll gladly buy their stuff and keep buying it, and I'd like to have the
opportunity to keep on doing it.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 21:26:26 -0700
From: "B. Mallory" <bmallory@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Question regarding software for Traveller gaming

Sword Worlder wrote:
> snip
> It is the Collector Edition of classic Traveller that is being published
> beginning this November, not T5.
> snip

Thank you for pointing out my error. I was thinking of classic
Traveller.
Any comment on the idea of open formats for Traveller data?

Thanks
bmallory@earthlink.net

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:20:56 EDT
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: 800-ton Freighter request

It's still got a wart or two to remove, but the Capronix class Medium 
Freighter is now viewable at:

http://member.aol.com/gypsycomet/index.html

and follow the New link.
 The Capronix is a T4 (QSDS) design instead of High Guard, but I've never let 
a detail like that stop me...
 Quicker than usual turn-around was accomplished by using the Jupiter's hull 
and some of its major bulkheads. Any yard that can build a Jupiter can build 
a Capronix.

GC

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:34:45 +1000
From: "Hughes, Michael" <Michael.Hughes@cbr.defence.gov.au>
Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED: MT Deckplan queries

Guys, I got a whole passel of MT ship design/deckplan queries.

When doing deckplans for MT, how do you work out how many freshers, lounges,
rec areas are on a ship? Is it a case of half the space of staterooms are
allocated to actual quarters, and the other half consist of access
corridors, lounges, freshers, galleys and the like? What happens when you
have more people in a ship than you have 'paid for' in terms of quarters. I
mean, if life support is based on hull volume, how can it be applicable to
how many quarters you have. 

Also, what's the deal with life support? Is it assumed that one floor decks
have all the relevant life-support crammed into .7 of a metre, leaving the
other 2.3 metres of space as actual walking about space (like how in a
modern office block we have false ceilings covering air conditioning and the
like).

And when allocating drives, what percentage is the actual equipment and what
is access space? 50/50? If you had less space devoted to access space (I
guess with a task DM for maintenance), could you use that reclaimed area for
other things such as crew lounges?
And finally, how do you allocate space for Bridges? I know HiGuard had 2% of
mass (min of 20 tons) which MT sort of replaced with numbers of controls,
but it seems they only take up a couple of kliters in entirty (- computers).

I am in your hands. Help me MT Tmlers, you're my only hope <FIZZ>
PS Thanks to all the people who send me 800 ton Higuard ship designs
(especially Michel, Dave(?) and Auric Shipyards).

- - Michael 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:28:21 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: Grand Tour

In a message dated 9/10/99 2:30:11 AM !!!First Boot!!!, j_pete@bellsouth.net 
writes:

<< I hope Tukera Lines doesn't claim this ship to be *unsinkable*. ;-)
 There's a story there somewheres methinks.
  >>

Gee, would that involve an uncharted planetoid and not having enough shuttles 
for all of the sentients onboard...:-) ?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:17:14 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: The Big Button [ Virus, eggs, booby traps ]

In mail you write:

>>So even low class gear could be dangerous, but if you took precautions,
>>you can easily deactivate it, simply because it's not *bright* even to
>>do more than a few fixed "sabotage" or "anti-personnel" functions.
>
>>To simulate this properly, the GM should consider what sort of
>>equipment might contain a computer that *controls* something. And what
>>sort of "sensors" (if any) it may have.
>
> Leonard, this is a really great post!  I had never thought about
> the Virus' ability to boobytrap every "Java-enabled" (tm) system
> on a starship.
>
> Going a step farther, even today microcontrollers tend to be computers
> in their own right, and are embedded into every appliance because
> they're so cheap... has you coffee maker ever tried to kill you yet?

I don't own one. Matter of fact, for some strange reason, I don't *own*
any appliances with built-in controllers. On the other hand I have lots
of them hooked up to units my computer can control (X-10 interfaces).

> Kind of like your house being haunted...

Sort of. BTW, the only way a *current* coffe maker can try to kill you
is by activating when empty and hoping to overheat and cause a fire. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:35:14 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: WoTC

In a message dated 9/10/99 2:52:13 AM !!!First Boot!!!, semo@pil.net writes:

<< Um... yeah, you've already guessed it. #3 is what happened. I think that 
the
 near future will be very telling for the hobby we all love.
  >>

Superb analysis. I concur...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:37:01 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In a message dated 9/10/99 3:11:34 AM !!!First Boot!!!, kurt@blazenet.net 
writes:

<< The rather terse 
 and rude reply I received from FASA after waiting a week and a half stated 
 that they had sold them "some time ago" and the person answering the e-mail 
 had other things to do than track down who it was. >>

Probably explains why they're hurting. That stuff DID NOT happen when Tom 
Dowd first moved to Chicago to work with them...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:42:16 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: WoTC

another great post. I'm a pessimist, but I hope you're right...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:53:00 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: 5FW: 1st Fleet?

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:52:02 +0100 From: "Nick Bradbeer"
<nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
>>>Thanks. I wonder why the author didn't just put '18' there.
>>
>>Propably because the 18th was stationed somewhere else at the time.
>
>The 18th and the 018th are seperate fleets?

No, the "0" at the start of "018th" is just a place holder that I use to
orginize my data. It is still the same fleet.

Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:53:00 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: 5FW: 1st Fleet?

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:35:48 +0200 (METDST) From: Hans Rancke-Madsen
<rancke@diku.dk>
>Clifford N Linehan writes:
>>Year: 1116
>
>There was a reorganisation of the regular fleets following the 5th
Frontier
>War, so the location of a fleet in 1116 does not say much about where it
>was in 1107.

True, but there is no information on the reorganization that I am aware
of.

>>Sector: Spinward Marches
>>Sub-Sector: G: Lanth
>>Fleet: 018th
>>Reserve Fleet: 1018th
>
>Because the regular fleets gets shuffled around once in a while while
the
>subsector fleets stays put, it is quite unlikely that any subsector
fleet
>should have a number that corresponds to the regular fleet stationed in
its
>subsector. It's not impossible, of course, just quite a coincidence.
What
>evidence do you have that the Lanth subsector fleet is #1018?

The 1018th is the reserve fleet for Lanth.

All of the information for the fleet locations come from the two
following
locations, but both locations have the exact same information.

The Missouri Traveller Archive
http://www.mu.org/~joe/traveller/archive/General/Imperial_Fleets.txt

Imperial Navy Archives
http://traveller.webjump.com/


>Qnd Erwin Fritz writes:
>>Thanks. I wonder why the author didn't just put '18' there.
> 
>Propably because the 18th was stationed somewhere else at the time.

Or the author did not have access to the information.

Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1082
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
