From ???@??? Tue Jul 16 18:34:08 1996
X-State:  3
X-Total-length:     29137
Received: from NS.MPGN.COM (NS.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.254]) by mail-e2a-service.gnn.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA27361; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by NS.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) id PAA16867 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:56:30 -0400
X-UIDL: 837568871.092
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:56:30 -0400
Message-Id: <199607161956.PAA16867@NS.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
To: traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
Subject:   Traveller-digest V1996 #260
Reply-To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Errors-To: owner-traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
Precedence: bulk


Traveller-digest           Tuesday, 16 July 1996       Volume 1996 : Number 260

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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

         1. Re: Pop Culture in Trav
         2. Re: Realism
         3. Re: Realism
         4. Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #226
         5. Ship design on the Web
         6. Re: Realism
         7. Re: Realism
         8. Mars\Moon Stuff
         9. Re: Realism
        10. Culture and Realism
        11. Re: Mars\Moon Stuff
        12. Culture and Realism 
        13. Re: Realism
        14. Re: Culture and Realism
        15. Risk-proof society

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

From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:24:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Pop Culture in Trav

On 16 Jul 96 at 7:17, derek stanley spewed:

> You forgot Mister Bean and Red Dwarf.
> 

Yup...I did...thanks for the addition...

Stu
 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tagline brought to you by Big Ed's Taco Emporium, conveniently located next to
Bob's Pet Shop.
Stuart L. Dollar           sdollar@goodnet.com    

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

From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:55:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Realism

On 16 Jul 96 at 14:24, Dragoness Eclectic spewed:

> >> The most important aspect might be internal consistency - set up the  

> (A) Violation of internal consistancy, whether you're playing AD&D 
> or Traveller, is the prime cause of inability to maintain "suspension 
> of disbelief".  As someone else pointed out, what works in Regina 

Agreed...

>      (A.1) Be aware of the implications of your technology. 

True...this is often forgotten about...

>      (A.2) Human beings should act like real human beings, unless 
>            you have a very good explanation for them acting abnormally. 

Of course this pretty much leaves your options wide open, since human 
beings are capable of lust, greed, paranoia, prejudice, etc, etc, as 
well as selfless acts of generosity, kindness, love, etc...  
Sometimes motivated by more than 1 thing...

>      (A.3) [PET PEEVE] Technology that exists RIGHT NOW should not be 
>            regarded as a rare, expensive, experimental technolgy of  
>            several tech levels higher! 

It should be when its still at the experimental stage...which 
technology are we talking about?  Fusion?  

>      (A.4) Any technology that has been in use for the last 10,000 years 
>            has no real surprises left. (e.g. gravitics, jump drive, fusion,
>            lasers, cold sleep) 

Actually, technology that has been in use for that long does that all 
the time now.  Things fail...things break down...  Granted, a cold 
sleep capsule has to have the same sort of things go wrong with it 
consistently...it won't discover new and interesting ways to fail 
that aren't consistent with its engineering...

> (B) The Defense Department projects that have been working on weapons- 
> grade lasers and particle weapons for the last 20 years will be real 
> surprised to hear that, I'm sure.  So will the guys running the nuclear 
> powerplants around the world... And I'm really surprised to find out 
> that the computer I'm typing this on doesn't work, nor does the network 
> it's hooked up to.  How are you reading this, anyway? 

Yeah, they've had a whole lot of practical applications in the 
field...  I remember all those particle weapons and lasers they used 
in the Gulf War after all.  Yes, we are closer to those sort of 
applications than Traveller postulates, and I will be the first to 
admit that the old Tech Level tables do cry out for an 
overhaul...which it sounds like they'll be getting in the new 
edition...

As far as nuclear power plants and particle weapons, they're not 
exactly man portage-able are they, you can't exactly miniaturize 
them enough to throw 1 in a Coast Guard Cutter...let alone wear 
one with a backpack on your shoulder...

And even if what you are saying is true...particle weapons and lasers 
in real world terms...ARE expensive, rare, and experimental...  
Otherwise, you'd see more practical application of them... 
  
On the other hand, I remember hearing just the other day about 
lasers being shipped to Israel...to knock down missiles...

Are you talking nuclear fission or fusion???  If somebody had a breakthrough
in fusion, how come I haven't read about it???  You think somebody 
would have said something about it.  Fission isn't all that 
spectacular...we've been doing that for 40+ years now, but its not 
quite the same thing...

As for your comments on computers, give me a friggin' break...  Yes, 
obviously computers work...but computers that are close to 
self-aware?  We are still in the stone age as far as artificial 
intelligence goes...though not as much as a few years ago.  I don't think 
we've come that far yet...  Maybe we'll reach that plain a lot quicker than 
Traveller postulates, then again, maybe not...Moore's law can't run forever...
at some point there will be diminishing returns in new computer technology...
just as there is in every field of engineering...

Obviously, the CT computer rules are a greybeard, and really no 
edition of the game has handled computers all that well... 

> Point being, a lot of the Traveller technology is based on real-world 
> engineering; the main exceptions are Jump and Gravitics.  (We're 
> working on Fusion now... I expect we'll have that, or something 
> totally unexpected, within 30 years.) Make sure the fictional versions 
> aren't *less* capable than the Real World versions! (See A.3, above). 

True enough...  But even according to Traveller, fusion is the next 
big step...  This seemed reasonable enough in '77 when the first 
edition of the rules came out, and it does now as well...

Your points about real vs. fictional in terms of capability are good 
though...

> (C) Yes, we do have the technology to build a base on the Moon. It 
> requires some engineering development, but no fundamental breakthroughs. 
> Ditto for a manned Mars mission, and Mars colonization.  And orbital 
> habitats. And a number of other things that someone said weren't currently 
> possible. 

That was me...

Obviously we are close on orbital habitats, but to make such things 
long-term, you have to have a breakthrough in gravitics that we're 
not even approaching.  The effects of long-term weightlessness are 
well documented...

Mars, I question...  Any spacecraft we've built wouldn't have the 
combination of endurance and life support to carry a man to Mars...  
I contend that the aforementioned breakthrough in fusion is going to 
need to happen before this does...  Actually, the space shuttle is not 
even engineered to take men to the moon...

> Note that "politically & economically feasible" are not the same 
> as "technologically impossible". 

True enough...

Stu
 
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tagline brought to you by Big Ed's Taco Emporium, conveniently located next to
Bob's Pet Shop.
Stuart L. Dollar           sdollar@goodnet.com    

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

From: Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Realism

Stu talked a bit about going to Mars, and I have to disagree with him.  It
*is* possible given *current* technology.  Proof of concetp plans have
alreaddy been done by NASA and by the former Soviet Union.

Don't mix Apples with Oranges Stu :)  The Shuttle was not *intended* to go
to the moon, it is a sub-orbital cargo ship really.  A Mars craft would
look *nothing* like the shuttle, and would be launched from orbit, not the
ground.

_______________________________________________________
Tom Ellis
tellis@telerama.lm.com
http://www.lm.com/~tellis/

"No! Do, or do not.  There is not try." Yoda
_______________________________________________________ 


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

From: derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:44:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #226

gsw@aloft.att.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, July 15, derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca> wrote:
>>You might know that you're porticomp is infected, but what if you drop
>>it?  What then, some little skate punk comes along, finds it and 
>>suddenly it's gotten completely out of your hands.
> 
> Exactly. And it's worse than that. You can't trust *anything* (at least
> not completely) if it's been laying around unprotected. Suppose Virus
> altered a screwdriver by inserting a silicon core and placing an "egg"
> inside it. It can't do anything to you normally, but what if you try
> to use it to pry up a chip (or the 57th century equivalent?). If it
> can physically move to the chip, you're in deep guano. Especially if
> you were removing the chip to put it in your starship.

This might be possible if the screwdriver had a silicon core and a 
powersource and was somehow hooked into screwdriver blade, but that's 
going pretty far.  Virus would have to be really thinking to do something 
like this, I'd put something like this in the 0.00000000000000000000001% 
probablity scale.

> That example is a bit contrived and pushing believability (even with
> the silicon lifeform concept), but what about this: Virus similarly
> infects a piece of wire so that it detects when it is on a "secure"
> computer connection and infects the computers then.

I don't think it could infect wire, as far as I know it can only infect 
chips.  The problem is if you need a TI 441-B chip and you know that the 
portacomp laying at your feet has one, do you trust that chip?  Is Virus 
hiding in that chip?  Or perhaps in one of the other chips in the 
portacomp.  This is where things get scarry.
 
> I think this is the type of scary scenario you have alluded to in
> the past. Virus changed the rules and people could not adapt fast
> enough. Now it is not enough to have a "safe" hand computer, you
> also have to be *very* careful if you ever take it apart, fix it,
> change the batteries, etc. :-)

See at the point in Vampire Fleets where we are I'm still storing data on 
that Virus Infected Portacomp.  Plus I have a pocket full of Virus 
Infected CPU's, okay they're carefully stored in a pack.  Why am I still 
using the portacomp inspite of the fact i know it's infected?  Because I 
also know it was infected by what I consider a fairly benign strain of 
Virus, "Archer" and because I know there isn't anything that the Virus in 
my portacomp can do to hurt me, there's not enough processing power in 
the portacomp for it to attain sentience and even if it did it'd be 
stupid to come out and say, "Hey I'm Infected!"  Just inviting self 
termination.

Hence all the data I've collected on Virus, it's activities and Promise 
in contained ironically in a Virally infected computer.

Derek Stanley


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

From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk (Liam McCauley)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:52:18 +0200
Subject: Ship design on the Web

     I came across an interesting idea on someone's web page today.  
     Basically it was a form for generating vehicles for the game Dirtside 
     II (this is a generic SF wargame).  After playing with Jo Grant's 
     spreadsheet, and seeing how nice that was, it seems that it wouldn't 
     be too dificult (for someone else ;-)) to create a form for generating 
     T4 ships using the QSDS.  Maybe IG could then put it on their web page 
     as an official resource?
     
     Comments?
     
     [The Dirtside II web page was at
     
         http://www.cs.utk.edu/~cowell/min/ds2/gen.html
     
     and was written by Andy Cowell.]
     
     Cheers,
     Liam
     
     -- 
     Liam_McCauley@QSP.co.uk

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

From: cyhiggin@usa.pipeline.com (Dragoness Eclectic)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:25:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Realism

On Jul 16, 1996 08:55:23, '"Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>' wrote:

 
>> (C) Yes, we do have the technology to build a base on the Moon. It  
>> requires some engineering development, but no fundamental breakthroughs.
 
>> Ditto for a manned Mars mission, and Mars colonization.  And orbital  
>> habitats. And a number of other things that someone said weren't
currently  
>> possible.  
> 
>That was me... 
> 
>Obviously we are close on orbital habitats, but to make such things  
>long-term, you have to have a breakthrough in gravitics that we're  
>not even approaching.  The effects of long-term weightlessness are  
>well documented... 
 
You might find the book "High Frontiers" by Gerard K. O'Neill of 
interest.  It is *the* classic on the subject.  He was writing 
about building PERMANENT habitats *before* the end of the 20th  
century, and not by hoping for a breakthrough in gravitics. You 
build them large, and SPIN them for simulated "gravity". 
 
>Mars, I question...  Any spacecraft we've built wouldn't have the  
>combination of endurance and life support to carry a man to Mars...   
 
That's because we didn't build them to go for Mars.  Read 
Werner Von Braun's original proposal, from back in the 1950s. 
NASA has been studying the manned Mars mission problem seriously 
for some years now--it probably has a web page somewhere. 
 
In short: if you build it in orbit, you can build it as large 
as you need to do the job... 
 
>I contend that the aforementioned breakthrough in fusion is going to  
>need to happen before this does...  Actually, the space shuttle is not  
>even engineered to take men to the moon... 
 
Uh, you did notice that we landed men on the Moon long before 
the shuttle was built?  :-)  It's just a matter of building 
the spacecraft to do the job--we know how to do it already. 
 
I think you're also forgetting space solar power as an unlimited 
power source inside the orbit of Jupiter or thereabouts. 
 
                           --Cynthia 
 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Alt.gothic.CR Master-at-Arms ---------- cyhiggin@usa.pipeline.com

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

From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:33:09 -0800
Subject: Re: Realism

On 16 Jul 96 at 12:39, Tom Ellis spewed:

> Stu talked a bit about going to Mars, and I have to disagree with him.  It
> *is* possible given *current* technology.  Proof of concetp plans have
> alreaddy been done by NASA and by the former Soviet Union.
> 
> Don't mix Apples with Oranges Stu :)  The Shuttle was not *intended* to go
> to the moon, it is a sub-orbital cargo ship really.  A Mars craft would
> look *nothing* like the shuttle, and would be launched from orbit, not the
> ground.

Granted...  It may be more of a case of political will holding this 1 
back than technology...But I think there would be some technical 
hurdles to cross before this one would be feasible...

On the other hand, I will be truly surprised if it doesn't happen 
within the next 50 years...  I hope I live to see it... :-)

Stu
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tagline brought to you by Big Ed's Taco Emporium, conveniently located next to
Bob's Pet Shop.
Stuart L. Dollar           sdollar@goodnet.com    

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

From: Tom Miller <scouse@inforamp.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Mars\Moon Stuff

Hello,

Saw a bit about why\why not we can go to Mars and the moon, so I thought I'd
add my two cents.

I basically think the reason the space program hasn't made that many great
leaps recently, and why the space station project is continuely being pushed
back and cut in funding is two factors:

1)  The USA is now more concerned with domestic problems that with space
exploration and scientific research.  I remember my brother doing a school
project on NASA's budget vs. Military earlier this year, and NASA gets
something like half a cent out of each dollar, while USA military gets 10-20
cents.  I'll try and dig up the exact figures and post them.

2)  The collapse of the USSR.  They were always high on doing lots of space
explorations, and sometimes basically ignoring their populace.  While this
may not have been the best of ways to explore space, they still got a lot
done, look at the various space stations, etc.  Now, they can sometimes not
even afford to get their cosmonauts down from the space stations, let alone
build new ones.

Also, with a base on the moon, a lot of people say "what's the point?".
Indeed, what is the point of a base on the moon?  What does everyone think?
I basically have this idea:

First of all, a base on the moon would be a major step in our exploration of
space, sort of a rallying point for space exploration, perhaps getting more
people, and more importantly, more money into the programs.  Secondly, I
think that it may be feasible to build a launch site on the moon.  If ships
were to take off from their they wouldn't need nearly as muchg fuel due to
the lower gravity of the Moon.  That way, less money would have to spent on
fuel, and also, as an added bonus, the space launches wouldn't pollute the
atmosphere of aour planet!

That's all I have to say, don't know how this relates to Traveller, but....

Thanks,

Peter Miller

	----------     This Message is From Either...   ----------

Tom Miller * Liverpool List * Genealogy * http://www.inforamp.net/~scouse/	
Peter Miller * New Frontiers * RPG * PBeMs * Homepage down temporarily *

	----------      E-MAIL: scouse@inforamp.net     ----------


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

From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:00:13 -0800
Subject: Re: Realism

On 16 Jul 96 at 17:25, Dragoness Eclectic spewed:

> On Jul 16, 1996 08:55:23, '"Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>' wrote:

> >That was me... 
> > 
> >Obviously we are close on orbital habitats, but to make such things  
> >long-term, you have to have a breakthrough in gravitics that we're  
> >not even approaching.  The effects of long-term weightlessness are  
> >well documented... 
>  
> You might find the book "High Frontiers" by Gerard K. O'Neill of 
> interest.  It is *the* classic on the subject.  He was writing 
> about building PERMANENT habitats *before* the end of the 20th  
> century, and not by hoping for a breakthrough in gravitics. You 
> build them large, and SPIN them for simulated "gravity". 

Granted, but such a habitat is going to consume a LOT of 
energy...is current solar power technology going to do it???  I can't 
answer this one either way...

> That's because we didn't build them to go for Mars.  Read 
> Werner Von Braun's original proposal, from back in the 1950s. 
> NASA has been studying the manned Mars mission problem seriously 
> for some years now--it probably has a web page somewhere. 
>  
> In short: if you build it in orbit, you can build it as large 
> as you need to do the job... 

True...hadn't considered the orbit option, but then again, first you 
have to build the infrastructure to build something from orbit...back 
to your comment about economic and political considerations...

> >I contend that the aforementioned breakthrough in fusion is going to  
> >need to happen before this does...  Actually, the space shuttle is not  
> >even engineered to take men to the moon... 
>  
> Uh, you did notice that we landed men on the Moon long before 
> the shuttle was built?  :-)  It's just a matter of building 
> the spacecraft to do the job--we know how to do it already. 

Yes, but you are looking at several orders of magnitude in the 
difference in distance between the Moon and Mars...  We could have 
probably sent the Apollo lander to Mars...but the crew would have 
been dead for lack of oxygen before we could get it there...

I have to admit you've persuaded me.  It's more an engineering 
problem than a technical problem...  On the other hand, its even more 
of a political problem than either one...

> I think you're also forgetting space solar power as an unlimited 
> power source inside the orbit of Jupiter or thereabouts. 

Hardly unlimited...  Diminishing with each step you take towards Mars...  Solar 
sails or panels can only be built so big in proportion to the craft, after 
all...

Stu
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tagline brought to you by Big Ed's Taco Emporium, conveniently located next to
Bob's Pet Shop.
Stuart L. Dollar           sdollar@goodnet.com    

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

From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Culture and Realism

All this talk of 20th century culture has lead me to agree with another
poster. Why is the Imperium so much like the 20th Century First World?  It
seems obvious that there would be a *vast* diversity of cultures in the
Imperium and most of them would look very foreign to us. 

The easy answer is playability, but I see that as a cop-out.  Most players
and GMs think nothing of role-playing in medieval Japan, Glorantha, or
other fantasy settings with extremely foreign cultures.  Why must SF look
like the 20th cen. US?  I hope the Folks as IG realize that the Imperium
will be a whole lot more interesting if socio-cultural realism is given as
high a priority as technical realism. 

Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com




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

From: farrarb@vnet.net
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mars\Moon Stuff

Just continuing the converstation about why we haven't done a great deal 
of space exploration lately...

There are 3 fairly important factors, i think, beyond those already 
mentioned..

first, NASA is trying to find inexpensive ways to explore space (vis a 
vis inexpensive mars robots, and so forth, built from largely standard 
parts..)  (saw some of this on discover..if i could only remember the 
program...:)

next, there is a general movement (in our society, and especiall in nasa) 
to make it nearly risk-proof...space exploration is a *very* risky 
proposition...the apollo missions were nowhere near as safe as they would 
be made today (:wonders if they would even be attempted today..*sigh*)

and last, and not the least by anymeans, is a general division amonst the 
supporters of nasa as to what the next big thing should be.  Should it be 
an orbital space station, or a moon base, or a trip to mars? should we be 
working on vtol rockets, or orbital rockets to move things into orbit..what?

Lots of great and wonderful ideas, yet no single one has captured the 
american imagination like the moon did (and well, kennedy was largely the 
force there, i believe..)

bill



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

From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Culture and Realism 

All this talk of 20th century culture has lead me to agree with another
poster. Why is the Imperium so much like the 20th Century First World?  It
seems obvious that there would be a *vast* diversity of cultures in the
Imperium and most of them would look very foreign to us. 

The easy answer is playability, but I see that as a cop-out.  Most players
and GMs think nothing of role-playing in medieval Japan, Glorantha, or
other fantasy settings with extremely foreign cultures.  Why must SF look
like the 20th cen. US?  I hope the Folks as IG realize that the Imperium
will be a whole lot more interesting if socio-cultural realism is given as
high a priority as technical realism. 

Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com





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

From: Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:41:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Realism

THe only real problems with an interplanetary mission are engineering
details, no new technologies are needed.  For that matter, we have designs
*now* for a huge .1C craft using nuclear detonation for thrust....no
kidding.  The project was called Orion I believe.

_______________________________________________________
Tom Ellis
tellis@telerama.lm.com
http://www.lm.com/~tellis/

"No! Do, or do not.  There is not try." Yoda
_______________________________________________________ 


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

From: Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:45:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Culture and Realism

Personally, I neither need nor want anyone to define the culture(s) of the
Imperium for me.  That is 50% of the fun of being a ref.  I have seen
planety of characters get in trouble because they assume too much about
local or Imperial culture.  (Try drawing a gun during a duel on one planet
and see what happens, try drawing a knife during a gunfight on
antoher...say hello to a stranger on one world and you are considered
mentally ill, always eat with the left hand only on this one or your host
will be very upset....)

_______________________________________________________
Tom Ellis
tellis@telerama.lm.com
http://www.lm.com/~tellis/

"No! Do, or do not.  There is not try." Yoda
_______________________________________________________ 


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

From: cyhiggin@usa.pipeline.com (Dragoness Eclectic)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:54:09 GMT
Subject: Risk-proof society

On Jul 16, 1996 15:11:49, 'farrarb@vnet.net' wrote: 
 
 
>next, there is a general movement (in our society, and especiall in nasa) 

>to make it nearly risk-proof...space exploration is a *very* risky  
>proposition...the apollo missions were nowhere near as safe as they would 

>be made today (:wonders if they would even be attempted today..*sigh*) 
 
Yep. Many times on alt.gothic, I've said that "Americans are 
so afraid of death, they'd outlaw it if they could".  As it 
is, have you ever noticed the number of laws and regulations 
whose purpose is to protect you from any risk whatsoever, no 
matter the cost in freedom or trivial things like that... 
 
ObTML: So, will this trend worsen in the Far Future (tm), or 
reverse itself somewhere along the line?  I can see the Vilani 
culture being much like Niven's "Safe at Any Speed" era,  
and any kind of risk-taking behavior would be considered 
"abnormal", "unhealthy", or even criminal.   
I see the Terran/Solomani culture treating risk-taking as 
a normal, even desirable facet of human behavior. 
 
                   --Cynthia 
 
- -- 
"O Grave, where is thy victory? Death, where is thy sting?" 
                                                --Alexander Pope 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Alt.gothic.CR Master-at-Arms ---------- cyhiggin@usa.pipeline.com

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #260
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.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".
