Traveller-digest            Friday, 19 July 1996        Volume 1996 : Number 269

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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

         1. Re: Culture and Realism
         2. Lots of Cultural Models
         3. Re: Canada infiltrates Hollywood...
         4. Re: Culture and Realism vs. Artificial
         5. Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #266
         6. Subs and Ships
         7. Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #266
         8. Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #237
         9. Re: Corn Dogs and canon
        10. Jump Drive Canon
        11. Virus of my Virus
        12. Re: Realism
        13. Re: Realism

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

From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 21:02:03 -0600
Subject: Re: Culture and Realism

On 07/18/96 at 06:57 AM,  derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca> said:

 > Look at the Vilani.  Who are the Vilani?  They're the Japanese, 

Interesting view.  I pictured them as culturally more like the
13th-14th century Chinese:  highly structured, rigid classes, very
traditional, bureaucratically governed, long history of past glories,
and rejecting of expansion and innovation (as dangerous and
unbalanced).  Doesn't *exactly* fit the Vilani, and the Vilani don't
exactly match the Confucian Chinese, but pretty close.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------




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

From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 21:38:41 -0600
Subject: Lots of Cultural Models

On 07/18/96 at 07:19 AM,  "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
said:

>> On Jul 17, 1996 07:06:33, 'derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>' wrote

>> I see them as more Chinese-stereotype than Japanese.  

Yep, me too.

>>The  Aslan are the Japanese-stereotype... 

Well...I don't see them that way.  I play the Aslan as a variation on
Cherryh's Hani.

So...who are the Romans?  The Incas?  The Byzantium Romans?  The
Vikings?  The Ottoman Turks?  The Zulu?  The Mongol Hoard?  The
Polynesians?  The Greeks of the City states?  The Persians?  The
Bedouin Arabs?  The Caliphate Moslems?  The Egyptians?  Etc. Etc.

Notice I completely left the out Franks, Germans and English?  <g>
Most of us are more familiar with certain european cultures, but there
are a wealth of other models available to play with.

And then there are the aliens!  <g> CJ Cherryh's Hani, Stsho, KNNN and
Kif, for example.  Niven's Puppeteers, Kitzi, Moties and Outsiders,
for another.


Eris
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------




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

From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 21:51:23 -0600
Subject: Re: Canada infiltrates Hollywood...

On 07/18/96 at 01:47 PM,  Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com> said:

>Let's not forget William Shatner...

Oh...yes...let's! <g>

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------




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

From: Paul Kestner <pjwk@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:13:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Culture and Realism vs. Artificial

Instead of trying to figure out what base culture inspired various aliens.

This might be a nice twist, let us pick a culture, and come up with a
'Traveller' alien race based on them to some degree.   The fun part is when
you change the setting the culture developed in by ploping it down in some
differant physical enviroment. (example: nomadic hunter tribal/clan type of
...   let us say Eskimo...  put in a resource rich enviroment, like say,
south west pacific island chains.)  Then develope the story line of why this
is so. (insect swarms force movement from island to island, and are
attracted to any settlement's food stockpile.)   Modify for any odd physical
characteristics there alien bodies have.

This will give you the base personallity arch-type of the culture.  Now
expand to intersteller scope and one possiable view is a enviromentally
minded people that don't understand the concept of land ownership. (any
empty building is fair game to move into and use until they move on.)   Very
friendly and helpful to distressed travellers, (if they have a spare manuver
drive and yours is broke, they will prob. sell it at a low cost or give it
to you), except in areas relating to life support, (they will fight you over
table scrapes of food.)

This concept works best if you know the subject culture only in passing.
(The facts won't get in the way.)
My only knowledge of eskimo's is what I read in comic books.
....
Paul Kestner  a.k.a.  pjwk@erols.com
parting remark: "The Devil hides in the details."
....


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

From: derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 21:59:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #266

Ross Coburn wrote:

>It says something about Baywatch when P.Anderson/Lee/whatever, the 
>epitome of the American bouncy blonde, happens to also be Canadian (from
> Vancouver).  So, in effect, we are watching an American show starring 
>our own exported cheesecake.  That's really weird.

Actually she wasn't born in Vancouver, she's from Campbell River (?) 
something like that.  She was discovered in the crowd at a BC Lions 
football game and became the Labbats Blue Girl.
 
>BTW, Keanu Reeves (the male equivalent of ms Lee?) is also Canadian, as 
>are many others in Hollywood (more than you'd think!), but I think that 
>it's a profession requirement that you hide this fact if you want to get 
>big in the U.S.

Lets not forget, William Shatner, horrid captian of the Enterprise, James 
Doehan (?) intrepid engineer of the Enterprise, Michael J. Fox, Alanis 
Morissette, Brian Adams, Most of the Original Cast of SNL, Dan Acryod 
(?), John (the great one) Candy, Martian Short, Harrold Ramis, Rick 
Morannis, Dave Thomas, Lorne Greene, Sarah Chalke, Jason Priestly, Alan 
Thicke (you can keep him), Cynthia Stevenson etc. etc. etc.

and the list of famous Canadians goes on and on and on...

Least we forget the inventor of standard time zones, can't remeber his 
name.  Don't forget Alex Trebek, host of Jeopardy and man in black on the 
X-Files.

Derek Stanley


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

From: "David C.. Broussard" <broussa@connecti.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:08:06 -0500
Subject: Subs and Ships

I doubt in modern naval warfare that a sub would get a torp shot at a
carrier.  They are too well protected.  More likely an Oscar class Cruise
missile style sub could take out a carrier.

Torps are too slow, and too short range to get a shot in on a carrier. 
Figure that the ASW screen goes out minimum 50 miles from a carrier, it
would be a challenge.  Although near to a coast a particularly reckless
D/E Captain might sit on the bottom waiting for the group to pass
overhead, then if he was lucky he might get off ONE shot.
DCB
- -- 
David C. Broussard (broussa@connecti.com)  
Home page: http://www.connecti.com/~broussa/
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions represented herein are the sole responsibility of
the proclaimer, and should not be interpreted as dogma, doctrine
philosophy, or anything else other than blabber.  However, if you
REALLY like it, then gimme a dollar!
- -----------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: Darryl Adams <dtadams@ar.ar.com.au>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:21:58 +1000
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #266

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, derek stanley wrote:

> 
> Actually she wasn't born in Vancouver, she's from Campbell River (?) 
> something like that.  She was discovered in the crowd at a BC Lions 
> football game and became the Labbats Blue Girl.

And they say that Australians are a wierd mob. What the bl**dy hell is a 
Labbat Blue Girl???

>  
> >BTW, Keanu Reeves (the male equivalent of ms Lee?) is also Canadian, as 
> >are many others in Hollywood (more than you'd think!), but I think that 
> >it's a profession requirement that you hide this fact if you want to get 
> >big in the U.S.
> 
> Lets not forget, William Shatner, horrid captian of the Enterprise, James 
> Doehan (?) intrepid engineer of the Enterprise, Michael J. Fox, Alanis 
> Morissette, Brian Adams, Most of the Original Cast of SNL, Dan Acryod 
> (?), John (the great one) Candy, Martian Short, Harrold Ramis, Rick 
> Morannis, Dave Thomas, Lorne Greene, Sarah Chalke, Jason Priestly, Alan 
> Thicke (you can keep him), Cynthia Stevenson etc. etc. etc.
> 
> and the list of famous Canadians goes on and on and on...

The scarey thing is that they ALL had to leave Canada to become famous. 
We also had this thing, where you did not make it unless you made it 
oversees. Fortunately this has resulted all the bimbo's and himbo's from 
our soaps to go to england to wear strange clothes at pantomines and pass 
out at American pubs.

But dont forget famouus Australians : Mark Miller! Bill Clinton! Albert 
Einstein! Prince Charles!....(Stop that! You are Getting silly...WACK!!!)

> 

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<
Darryl Adams                                       

dtadams@ar.com.au
 
"But as a Mistral employee once told me,
Your only as good as your fans"	        	TISM : Play Mistral for Me 


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 02:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #237

Thus spake Gerald Williams <gsw@aloft.att.com>:

> Not to let a bad thread die...

(petulantly)  Awww, why not?!?

[previous discussion snipped]
 
> Do you see my point? Virus-free technology does exist. My mechanical
> pencil is not vulnerable, nor is my electro-mechanical watch. Given
> time, I could prove to you that my electronic watch is not either.
> I'm certain that my Sega Genesis is safe even if Virus had access
> to the joystick ports (although I'd rather not go through the proof).
> Of course, I can't prove that my PC and UNIX workstations are safe
> (I'm quite sure they're not). I think that this will be the trend in
> the future. The more modern computers will tend to be networked and
> integrated, and vulnerable to a sufficiently advanced attack. Older
> computers would be thoroughly understood using current technology,
> and tend not to be vulnerable.

I think it's already been accepted by those who support the Virus plot 
device and who are familiar with the applicable, canonical material (as 
if that horse didn't have enough of my marks on it!) that there were/are 
devices that did not/could not serve as viable hosts for Virus 
infection.  A Sega Genesis (or the Traveller tech equivalent), if not 
used for a dormant 'egg,' would make for a very stupid Virus, which just 
happened to be able to manage flashy videogames pretty well.
 
> Note that I'm not talking about making physical modifications. Of
> course, any equipment that can be physically altered is vulnerable,
> regardless of whether it uses silicon, optics, or gears to operate.
> I've heard claims that the Deyo transponders provided a way for
> virus to do this (they had to be given a "silicon conduit" to the
> main computer's memory). Of course, if I were paranoid about such
> things (e.g., if I were a pirate or a non-Imperial), I would at
> least spoof the transponder by connecting it to an isolated "main
> computer". In any event, this does not help give Virus a foothold
> into hand computers and other non-transponder-equipped equipment.

Transponders were merely one of many means of infection, and a darned 
convenient one that the early strains, especially, were able to put to 
good use.
 
[more snippage, where George discusses the vulnerability of societies 
dependent on computer-controlled infrastructures and the fact that the 
technology for self-modifying chips has already been developed]
 
> > As for Virus safe systems, I beleive that the Regency is working on
> > these, and as yet they haven't built one.
> 
> This is illogical. I would buy that they have not been able to
> build a Virus-safe starship computer, perhaps. But they certainly
> can build safe hand computers. I'm certain (but don't intend to
> prove) that we have these now. I could certainly *design* one and
> *prove* that it is safe if I had to.

Virus countermeasures, as instituted by those societies which survived 
the Collapse, involve minimizing the opportunities for Virus to infect 
the 'protected' system, and minimizing the damage that said system could 
do if infected.  Conventional wisdom holds that rendering a system immune 
to Virus infection is impossible.  Post-Collapse starships, for example, 
do not have anything near the level of system integration that previous 
designs did.  Making a starship a viable Virus host requires physically 
connecting all of the systems with data cables.  The first documented 
example of such a travesty can be found in the "Lady Elise" adventure 
that comes with the TNE Referee's Screen.  Even so, this 'infection' was 
barely viable, not only because it was of limited function to begin with 
(having been purpose-built by another virus to carry out a specific 
mission) but because the dispersed nature of the infected starship's 
electronic architecture did nasty things to its personality, not to 
mention its ability to respond quickly to a given situation.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 02:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Corn Dogs and canon

Thus spake That Computer Guy <darkstar@udel.edu>:

[part where I state that the TNE novels are unreliable sources of canon 
 snipped]

> : Firing 'warning shots across the bow' with a laser.  Stop giggling!
> 
> Any reason why this can't be done?  You figure that if you get within 10
> feet, somebody has got to know that they missed on purpose.

Someone getting 150 Mj of photons shot across their bow in space will be 
oblivious for the same reason that I'd be oblivious to the beam of my 
pocket laser pointer travelling across the room.  If it doesn't hit 
anything, you don't see it.  Whoever thought that you could 'fire a 
warning shot across the bow' with a laser must have been hearkening back 
to those dogfights in "Star Wars", where sizzling green bolts of energy 
from "lasers" would fly about.
 
> : The continuous operation of a jump drive while in J-space.  No, I don't 
> : think he ever read DGP's "Starship Operator's Manual," either.
> 
> Actually, I think that they were planning on changing the way jump
> drives worked.  This is why you now need fuel as coolant and it's used
> up during the jump instead of all at once.  Yes, this aspect of TNE was
> suppossed to invalidate SOM.
> 
> I think Dave Nilsen said something to the effect of "It now gives the
> engineer something to do instead of sitting around for a week twidling
> his thumbs."

Well, if there had ever been a TNE re-release of the "Starship Operator's 
Manual," that might have been okay.  As it stands, barring some error 
during the transition to J-space, or the destruction of the ship, nothing 
that happens on board will change the duration or destination of the 
voyage.  Besides, in my campaign, at least, the engineer doesn't get to 
sit and twiddle his thumbs -- there's too much routine maintenance to 
do.  Having the chief engineer chasing the rest of the crew around with 
paint cans and brushes has led to some interesting roleplaying situations.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Jump Drive Canon

Thus spake Derek Stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>:

[snip]

> > The continuous operation of a jump drive while in J-space.  No, I don't
> > think he ever read DGP's "Starship Operator's Manual," either.
 
> This I have to question you on.  You mean in DGP's "SOM", I've never seen 
> it, you activated the Jump Drive, established a Jump Feild then shut the 
> sucker off?  Personally, if this is what it says it strikes me as 
> strange, if the Drive is off it can't consume fuel and wouldn't need 
> anykind of coolant thus upon activating a Jump Drive for a Jump 4 trip a 
> Midu Agasham Class Destroyer consumes 10,500 cubic meters of fuel 
> instantly???  Does this strike anyone else as strange?  Please clarify if 
> I'm missing something important here.

Well, according to the SOM, the fuel was not consumed instantaneously.  
The central part of the J-drive, according to that resource, was merely a 
fusion plant that had only one rate:  "Very Very Fast".  Part of the 
'jump-fuel' was actually used as coolant while the rest was fed through 
the J-drive's reactor, with the resulting energy pumped into a 
high-capacity energy sink (In SOM, these are exotic, superconducting 
'zuchai crystals').  At the end of the 'burn' which, if memory served, 
took at least several minutes (or more like thirty), the stored energy 
was then pumped through the jump relay governor into the lathanum hull 
grids in the proper sequence over a comparatively short period of time (a 
fraction of a second).  At the end of the entry process, the ship was 
sealed in a 'bubble' and was 'tumbling' merrily through J-space with all 
of its jump fuel allocation expended.
 
> Personally, although Its a bit of creative licence I'm sure, I like the 
> idea of "jump fire."  It gives you something to stare at while in 
> J-Space.

Actually, pre-TNE-novel canon holds that staring at the jump field can 
be a Bad Thing.  In my campaign, almost all viewports are sealed to 
prevent passengers and crew from suffering hypnogogic hallucinations and 
the like.  I can't remember exactly what SOM says about jump exit, but I 
do believe that there is some warning offered by the jump field soon 
before the return to normal space.  What it might be, I couldn't say 
right now, though.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Virus of my Virus

Thus spake Derek Stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>:

[snip]

> Anyway the Virus Safe computers of the Regency are actually already 
> infected in the first place.  They're just infected with a domesticated 
> strain of Virus that sit's there quietly waiting for another strain to 
> enter the computer.

You've probably already been 'zinged' for this, but:  It was the RC, not 
the Regency, that adopted 'domesticated' (Peacemaker) virus strains for 
their own shipboard computer systems, as detailed in the "Vampire Fleets" 
sourcebook.  That same resource also, quite unmistakably, points out the 
Regency opposition to such an action.  Check out the quote about "pacts 
with devils" if you've got it.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:07:05 PST
Subject: Re: Realism

In mail you write:

> On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Stuart L. Dollar wrote:
>
>> On 15 Jul 96 at 3:42, Leonard Erickson spewed:
>> 
>>>> If we made Traveller as realistic as possible - meaning that there were 
>>>> no obvious holes in the setting, technology, etc. - would it still be fun?
>>> 
>>> If we did it *right* it would be.
>> 
>> Not for too many of your players.  Pretty soon you'd wind up having 
>> 1000 page rule books, devoting a voluminous number of pages to explanation 
>> of a pseudo-scientific concept that currently is impossible using present 
>> day physics.  It doesn't matter how much time, volume of pages, or 
>> money you poor at it, the thing is called science FICTION...
>
> True.  Regardless of the explanation, if the item in question is not 
> fact, it must be fiction.  Spend a sentence or 1000 pages on it, it 
> remains fiction.
>
> Nonetheless, well-reasoned fiction is better than poorly reasoned 
> fiction, if only because it serves to suspend the reader's disbelief in 
> the subject matter.  For instance, IMO the Virus explanation in the main 
> TNE rulebook is unbelievable; the items contibuted to this list from the 
> Survival Margin sourcebook, however, lend a bit more credence to the 
> Virus argument.  Would it not have been better to include a more detailed 
> explanation of the Virus phenominon in the main rulebook?  

I think I'm being *badly* misinterpreted.

What I am saying is essentially this:

1. Stick to the laws of physics, and other "known reality" if at alll
   possible. This lets players extrapolate from whatever fields they
   *do* know, without running into trouble.
2. When it isn't possible, be consistent. 
3. have as *few* "new laws" as possible. (ie, if you keep having to add
   more rules to handle "side effects", then maybe the original change
   wasn't so hot)
4. consider the *consequences* of the new laws. For instance, thruster
   plates lead to near c missiles, unless you can find a way around it.
   (There is a *simple* one, but it won't give you thruster plates that
   work the way people want)

Traveller only has *two* main areas where you need to change the laws
of physics. Jump drive, and thruster plates. Antigravity/contragravity
don't really break anything. Psionics doesn't follow the rules, but
they are generally too limited to be a major consideration.

Jump drive isn't a major hassle. The two big problems with FTL are the
simultaneity problems, and time-travel. With jump drive working as
specified, you need unreasonably high real-space velocities to create
any problems.

We already know the problems with thruster plates. The energy
consumption won't fit as long as they operate more or less as
described. Which means you get near c rocks. <sigh>

>> Suspension of disbelief does have to come into play somewhere.  Jump 
>> drive, Maneuver drive (thrusters or HEPlaR), meson guns, PAWs, don't 
>> exist...  They probably won't exist in our lifetimes...if ever...

Jump drive isn't a big problem. You specify its behavior and forget it.
Thrusters are a problem because the consequences of their behavior are
a problem. Reaction drives we already *have*, just not that good. So we
know how to figure for them, and any "problems" are a reflection of the
way the real world works. Meson guns have been done to death, but the
basic principle (it only goes off at a set distance) is *workable* (ie
it doesn't cause contradictions). PAWs? We *have* PAWs. They just
aren't fit to be deployed. 

> The material should draw one 
> in, never dispelling that suspension of disbelief by throwing something 
> in the reader's face which is glaringly unbelievable.  

Or that leads to a glaring inconsistency. Ever sit down and figure out
what things would *really* be like if the typical FRP game rules were
the "reality" of a world? It *wouldn't* resemble the middle ages very
much. 

> The most important aspect might be internal consistency - set up the 
> rules of how the universe works, then never violate them.  This is what a 
> good fantasy author will do.  Hard science fiction requires more.  Take 
> what we know about the universe, then fill in any gaps in that knowledge 
> with ideas that do not conflict with the things that are known.  That 
> seems, to me, to be a good rule of thumb, anyway.  Then again, I'm not a 
> science fiction author...just a reader.

Actually, the difference between SF and fantasy is a bit more subtle.
Either way, you are postulating a world with different rules. For a
story to be SF, the changed or added rules must be something that is
*thought* to be possible (or else be of a limited set of "not possible,
but time-honored" ideas like FTL  or time-travel). With fantasy, the
rules are *not* thought to be possible.

With "hard fantasy", you set some rules and stick by them. Poul
Anderson's "Operation: Chaos", Randall Garrett's "Lord Darcy" stories,
Heinlein's "Magic, Inc" and even Modessitt's Recluce stories all work
this way.

With Hard SF you try not to add any rules at all, and the story may
depend on the the details of the science. With more general SF, the
general rule of thumb is to take one change and see where that takes
you. Like Niven's transfer booth stories. The change there is "what if
somebody came up with a cheap teleportation device with this set of
properties". The consequences took him something like ten stories to
cover.

>> If you don't suspend disbelief somewhere...think about what you have 
>> left...  present day guns, missiles, vehicles...landbound on 1 
>> system...because there is no effective means currently for getting to 
>> Mars, let alone Alpha Centauri...  We don't even have the 
>> technology to establish a colony on the moon...
>
> True.

Not true. We *have* the technology. We've had it for decades. It's just
not something we want badly enough to *pay* for. Give me the money, and
we could get to Mars, or establish a lunar colony, or even send a probe
to Alpha Centauri! (the designs for the Alpha Centauri probe were done
up 20 years ago by the British Interplanetary Society, and before you
laugh, please note the the BIS did some plans for a lunar rocket back
in the 20s or 30s. It'd work.)

Hell, there are tons of designs for *improved* technology floating
around. Some get built, some just sit there. It all depends on whether
you can find backers. 

>> As for simulating an economic system good luck!  No 2 economists 
>> can really design an economic model that simulates a world economy 
>> effectively, and agree on it...  I remember an old joke about 2
>> economists trying to design a Trivial Pursuit game based on 
>> economics.  They came up with a game that had 3000 questions, and 
>> about 12,000 right answers...
>
> Sadly, true again. 

Economics has the same problem that weather forecasting does. It's not
*possible* to have exact knowledge of all the variables, and the
functions are *highly* chaotic (ie minor changes in inputs lead to
large changes in the output). 

This just means that exact predictions are out. And you won't get exact
matches between historical data and the output of a model. But if the
model presents "reasonable" outputs (ie you get the same "climate", and
the frequency of "extremes" is similar to the real world) then you have
something good enough to work with.

>> As with all things, it is for the players in conjunction with the 
>> referee to balance realism vs. playability...  The good news is that 
>> the Traveller system has in the past (and would appear to be doing in 
>> the future) allowed you to choose to a certain extent...
>
> Yes.  While the game should pick an initial point along the playability 
> vs. realism continuum, it should also be possible for the participants to 
> choose a somewhat different point to play at.  I simply feel the basis 
> should be more to the realism side than the playability side when it 
> comes to background, underlying technology, and so on.  

With a "realistic" game in the sense *I* mean it, the game *design* is
what needs the realism. Then if the players never examine anything in
detail, it doesn't matter. But if they need details about something
they don't wind up with something "impossible" (like the 70 kilo crunch
gun).

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

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

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 17:10:34 PST
Subject: Re: Realism

In mail you write:

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

Yes, but unless you are postulating a fundamental change in human
nature the proportions of the population acting in those different ways
will be pretty much the same.

>>      (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...

When was the last time you heard of a bridge or building failing due to
improper design? When they do it makes nationwide news. Failing for
lack of maintenance, yes. Due to sabotage or natural conditions
exceeding design parameters (earthquake, flood, etc), yes.

Last bridge failure I heard of was the Tacoma Narrows bridge(suspension
bridges are only about 150 years old). Last buliding failure was that
"skybridge" thingie in the hotel 10 or 15 years back (and that was
technically not a design failure).

>> (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...

Particle weapons are *lousy* in an atmosphere. That's why you don't see
them deployed. Lasers are better, but not a lot better. Again, that's
why they aren't deployed. We aren't doing SDI, so we don't have the
space based systems deployed.

> 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...

You can't put an 18 inch naval rifle on a Coast Guard Cutter either.

> 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... 

I assume you are *not* using a CRT to read this? Thast's a practical
application of a particle beam. So is ion implantation in the
semiconductor industry and in some metal treatment setups. Both lasers
and particle beams are used to "etch" (cut) ID numbers into some types
of part. I used to work with a laser that burned ID strips into silicon
wafers. This was not photolithography or the like. I'm talking numbers
and letters a couple of mm high.

Lasers are used to cut cloth and metal patterns. There are a *lot* of
industrial uses of lasers and particle beams. They just don't have a
lot of (obviuous) *household* uses. And such weapons uses as they have
at the moment are the type that you have to dig for in the literature
(or else have a *high* security clearance and "need to know")

> 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.

You don't hear about it because the Energy Department doesn't want to
publicize "breakthroughs" in a research area that they decided to shut
down. We had "breakeven" several years ago. But since then the budget
cutting dropped all but the most promising line of research. Then they
they dropped that since it was just "one item" in the budget.

> 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...

The heck with "self aware". We've got systems that can do anything a
ship's computer would be called on to do, and take a lot less space.
Hell, unless you are running a *massive* "remote computing" type setup
(airline reservations, banking, credit cards), there are actually good
reasons for *never* having a computer over a cubic meter or so. 

You can trade speed for processing power, and for speed you need to
have the computer be *small*. Remember, a nanosecond is less than a
*foot* (ie light travels less than a foot in one nano-second). Since
current flows in conductors are considerably *slower* than light (30%
or so), that means that for really high speed systems, all the RAM and
CPU stuff *has* to be close.

> at some point there will be diminishing returns in new computer technology...
> just as there is in every field of engineering...

Sure. We are almost there for IC technology. We can't go too far into
the sub-micron level before we run into quantum effects.

On the other hand, we are also starting to investigate computing
circuitry that is *based* on quantum effects. Things like quantum well
transistors. 

And when considering just how far things can go, consider that the max
density for *storage* may well be individual protons in a block of
metallic hydrogen. That's something like 10e60 bits per cc!

>> (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...

Nope. No need for gravitics. Spinning for gravity works just fine if
you build the habitat large enough to avoid inner ear problems from the
spin (UI think that requires a radius of 100 meters or so).

> Mars, I question...  Any spacecraft we've built wouldn't have the 
> combination of endurance and life support to carry a man to Mars...  

Among the many other prospects, one suggestion is to just send up some
Salyuts (the Russian space stations that preceeded Mir). We *know* that
given enough supplies, they can be used more than long enough. And
attaching enough supplies is *not* that hard. As I recall, it worked
out to something like one launch of one of the larger Russian boosters
to get the supplies and main vehicle into orbit, and one shuttle flight
to carry the crew *and* their Salyut module (it'll fit in the shuttle
bay!)

> 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...

That's because it was never *intended* to do that. It was specifically
designed to haul cargoes into low earth orbit. Something to go to the
moon would be designed a lot differently. 

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #269
**********************************

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".
