<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1368</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/20/99 4:12:30 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest    Saturday, November 20 1999    Volume 1999 : Number 1368<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: MTU Imperial Justice (was: IMoJ)<BR>
Re: Re : Disabling Weapons<BR>
Re: The naming of things<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: No longer totally OT( was Re: Totally OT but ...)<BR>
Re D&D and Games Design<BR>
Re: Totally OT but ...<BR>
Re: The naming of things<BR>
User Interface Question<BR>
RE: Starship disabling weapons...<BR>
Re: Totally OT but ...<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: The naming of things<BR>
Re: Disabling Weapons<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:02:05 -0500 (EST)<BR>
From: Kenji Schwarz <schwarz@fas.harvard.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Chris Seamans wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> >Civilizations which progress far<BR>
> >enough to reach advanced technology will also have come to the same<BR>
> >conclusion.<BR>
> <BR>
> I can't tell you how many times, in the last few months, I've read<BR>
> variations of this same statement concerning just about everything under the<BR>
> sun. ;)<BR>
<BR>
Strange... I had the same reaction.  Probably it's the unilinear nature of<BR>
technological determinism that brought us both to see the truth, dontcha<BR>
think?<BR>
<BR>
Kenji<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:37:03 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> From: Luther Martin <tml@ksarul.com><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>>I'm not so sure that this will be the case. One of the lessons which is<BR>
>>impressed upon students in their Officer's Advanced Course and C&GS (this<BR>
> is<BR>
>>my US Army experience talking here) is that the law of land warfare exists<BR>
>>and is generally followed because it makes sense to.<BR>
><BR>
> The cynic in me reads this and considers the source. I don't mean that as an<BR>
> insult to you, but it's obvious that an armed service branch that<BR>
> specializes in land warfare is going to say that the law of land warfare<BR>
> exists and is generally followed because it makes sense to.<BR>
><BR>
> One would imagine that someone who joined a branch of the armed services<BR>
> that specialized in land warfare wouldn't get to a point where they'd be<BR>
> able to teach policy if they believed that no "law of land warfare" exists,<BR>
> and that it is generally followed out of tradition, not because it's<BR>
> rational or sensible to do so.<BR>
><BR>
> I'm not saying that I hold that belief, only that I am not surprised to hear<BR>
> that the U.S. Army teaches a doctrine thats says that there is a reason for<BR>
> an organization specializing in land warfare to exist, and that reason is a<BR>
> rational one.<BR>
<BR>
I think you misunderstood him. "Law of land warfare" refers to the<BR>
rules under which land warfare is conducted (mostly the result of<BR>
treaties). It has nothing to do with justifying the existence of<BR>
armies or their effectiness. Nor more so than "Law of the sea"<BR>
justifies the existence of the sea.<BR>
<BR>
Both are bodies of international law dealing with the subject in question.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:43:41 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: MTU Imperial Justice (was: IMoJ)<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>>BTW, this brings up an important point regarding oaths of<BR>
>>fealty/homage. Not only do they work both ways (that is, while the<BR>
>>underling is obligated to his liege, the lieg has equal obligations to<BR>
>>the underling), but there are two more factors.<BR>
>><BR>
>>First, being in effect "contracts" laying out *mutual* obligations,<BR>
>>they can be terminated by *either* party by claiming non-performance<BR>
>>(ie the underling can charge his liege with failing to look after the<BR>
>>underlings welfare in the manner specified and that terminates the<BR>
>>"contract" just as fast as the liege claiming the underling was<BR>
>>derelict in the underling's duties). This makes "treason" acting<BR>
>>against your liege *without* severing the tie first.<BR>
><BR>
> Said severing consisting of a ceremony. Nothing major, but enough that<BR>
> saying "I quit, now b****r off." isn't enough.<BR>
<BR>
Actually, it should "merely" take a public (published?) formal<BR>
declaration, complete with a notice being sent to the liege. <BR>
<BR>
The reason I'd go for this rather than a ceremony is that if you are<BR>
terminating the contract because your liege has been playing fast and<BR>
loose with the rules, it may not be *safe* to arrange for a ceremony<BR>
that has both of you present. <BR>
<BR>
With a formal declaration, you just can't (honorably) act against him<BR>
until you are sure he's received his copy. <BR>
<BR>
>>Second, there's the very important matter of whether or not<BR>
>>fealty/homage is transitive. That is, if I'm sworn to Baron X, and he's<BR>
>>sworn to Count Y, am I obligated to Count Y? If yes, the relationship<BR>
>>is transitive. If no, it isn't. The two possibilities result in *very*<BR>
>>different sorts of "politics", but both are arguably possible given<BR>
>>what is known of the Imperium.<BR>
><BR>
> Partially, IMTU.  If you are sworn to Baron X, then you are obligated to<BR>
> Count Y, but Baron X must pass along the orders unless he has told you to<BR>
> obey Count Y. There is nothing to stop you from obeying Count Y of your own<BR>
> accord, of course, and obedience is expected (but not required).<BR>
><BR>
> This is why the Imperial Navy swears an oath to the Emperor, directly.<BR>
<BR>
Yep! They've learned from history that it's best to eliminate *any*<BR>
"ambiguities" about loyalty right at the start.<BR>
<BR>
>>Being "honorable" can be a *real* bitch at times. :-)<BR>
><BR>
> That's why it makes for great gaming. And if you're playing GT, that's why<BR>
> it's a disadvantage (although a _reputation_ for being honourable would be<BR>
> an advantage, too).<BR>
<BR>
And a reputation for being dishonorable is a disadvantage of a rather<BR>
different sort. :-)<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:55:07 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Re : Disabling Weapons<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>> >"epileptics"  from Jerry Cornelius<BR>
>> >A set of strobe lights flicking at the frequencies that cause<BR>
>> >epileptic seizures in the majority of people.<BR>
>> <BR>
>>         I'm not sure that this has any basis in fact. Perhaps<BR>
>>         Robert could comment.<BR>
>> <BR>
> This works - sometimes - if you are epileptic. It only gives ordinary<BR>
> folk headaches.<BR>
<BR>
There's a ral world ultrasonic gizmo sold for protection against dogs.<BR>
I accidentally got the effect it uses while visiting a friend working<BR>
with an ultrasonic alarm system. I have "abnormal" hearing in that I<BR>
can hear well into the ultrasonics (I'm told this is common among those<BR>
who had asthma as children). <BR>
<BR>
Anyway, I thought I could hear the alarm transducers. So I picked one<BR>
up and brought it *quickly* to my ear. This doppler shifted the output<BR>
to a higher frequency. I thought the top of my head was going to come off!<BR>
<BR>
I've been hit in the head by a fist sized rock. It felt better than<BR>
this "sound" did. <BR>
<BR>
I assume the anti-dog device works similarly. In which case I can<BR>
understand why it makes the dog stop. I'm told that they can't use the<BR>
ultrasound gizmo on people because it apparently has nasty effects on a<BR>
small percentage of the population. Something about rupturing<BR>
anuerisms? <BR>
<BR>
Still, it'd make a nice weapon for folks who weren't too worried if it<BR>
occasionally killed someone. But it'd definitely be a *short* range<BR>
weapon. More suitable for muggings than crowd control.<BR>
<BR>
Oh yeah, after I recovered, I *slowly* brought a transducer to my ear. The<BR>
faint whine I'd heard *was* the transducers. <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:19:11 -0500 (EST)<BR>
From: Kenji Schwarz <schwarz@fas.harvard.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: The naming of things<BR>
<BR>
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Douglas E. Berry wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> At 06:03 PM 11/19/1999 -0600, you wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> >ObTrav: What kind of name is Alkhalikoi anyway?<BR>
> <BR>
> Sounds Hawaiian/Polynesian<BR>
<BR>
I don't think ~/kh/ exists in the Polynesian languages, but it does in<BR>
some of the other Austronesian languages.  It ain't Vilani.  It actually<BR>
looks sort of Tsolyani -- esp. with the final -koi element.  That would be<BR>
a little farfetched, though :).  Arabic or arabicized something, maybe?  I<BR>
have to say, I really have no idea.  I'd just as soon say it's taken from<BR>
some language that was current in, say, the fifth millenium, and which has<BR>
no traceable antecedents to the languages we know of on Terra today ;)<BR>
<BR>
Kenji<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:54:22 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
From: Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>I think you misunderstood him. "Law of land warfare" refers to the<BR>
>rules under which land warfare is conducted (mostly the result of<BR>
>treaties). It has nothing to do with justifying the existence of<BR>
>armies or their effectiness. Nor more so than "Law of the sea"<BR>
>justifies the existence of the sea.<BR>
><BR>
>Both are bodies of international law dealing with the subject in question.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I'll accept the responsibility for misunderstanding him, and I apologize.<BR>
<BR>
Even so, it's still not readily apparent how that would relate to the<BR>
practice of "rock dropping", or the usage of cheap excessive force by the<BR>
Third Imperium. Is the implication that there exists some set of rules and<BR>
treaties that the Imperium holds itself to? There are the Imperial Rules of<BR>
War, but they're "unwritten", and the Imperium itself doesn't abide by them.<BR>
If I recall correctly, the Imperium doesn't let member worlds use nukes, for<BR>
example, but it does reserve that right for itself.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:05:23 -0500<BR>
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com><BR>
Subject: Re: No longer totally OT( was Re: Totally OT but ...)<BR>
<BR>
>Ob Trav...Obvious!  Does the X-boat service *ever* fail to deliver<BR>
>their messages?  Do they maintain a monopoly on certain classes of<BR>
>message?  Are there *specific* commercial carriers of mail and small<BR>
>package in the Imperium, or are those roles subsumed into the<BR>
>operations of the various MegaCorps?<BR>
<BR>
I can think of lots of ways Xboats can fail.  How about a shipload of snotty<BR>
rich kids destroying a link in the network?  Or some spatial anomoly?  Or<BR>
random piece of space junk?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
 J-Man<BR>
 ICQ# 2843475<BR>
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.<BR>
 Email : j-man@iname.com<BR>
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:57:17 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: Re D&D and Games Design<BR>
<BR>
Funny, but I actually learned how to roleplay by using the D&D Basic and<BR>
later expert sets. Yes, we got a little monty haul, but what 7th grader<BR>
doesn't? Then  moved to AD&D from there.<BR>
<BR>
Looking at the D&D "Family Tree"<BR>
                          Chainmail<BR>
                              |<BR>
                  Little (Brown/White) Books<BR>
                              |<BR>
                  ----------------------------------<BR>
                  |                                |<BR>
               3hole Basic/Expert              AD&D 1st<BR>
                  |                                |<BR>
          Two Book Boxes (B,E,C,M,I)               |<BR>
                  |                             AD&D 2<BR>
          -----------------------                  |<BR>
          |                     |              AD&D2 w/PHBR's<BR>
      Cyclopaedia       "Huge Box" D&D             |<BR>
                                                  D&D3 ?<BR>
<BR>
I have worked down all the lines. I found the cyclopadia rules (which are a<BR>
mere reformat of the double book boxed set materials) to be a very cogent,<BR>
and easy to understand (even for a total newbie). I found the AD&D<BR>
materials guilty of being aimed at an audience who already knwos how to<BR>
game, and guilty of the conflicting rules syndrome. Since the days of the<BR>
Blue and Red books, the D&D line has been more consistent... mind you the<BR>
Known World setting (Gazateer) supplements DO contracdict the boxed rules;<BR>
they are likewise aimed at a more liberal minded group than players: GMs.<BR>
<BR>
As to "Munchkin proofing", no you'll never munchkin proof any game<BR>
(Although SFB and ASL come fairly close).<BR>
<BR>
Ob Trav: Looking at the above tree, whining about 5 editions of traveller<BR>
seems trivial... since I have most of the above D&D materials, and they<BR>
take 3 CuFt, as opposed to about 1.5 CuFt for my Traveller collection.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click<BR>
interface!"<BR>
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-<BR>
533<BR>
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com<BR>
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+<BR>
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls<BR>
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:14:54 EST<BR>
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Totally OT but ...<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/20/99 10:13:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
j-man@iname.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< When I discovered the carrier was U.S. Postal service, I understood.<BR>
 I don't know about other list members but my experience with US mail has<BR>
 been dreadful.  I always try to use UPS whenever possible as I know that if<BR>
 US mail can screw it up or lose it, they WILL.  Frankly I'm surprised anyone<BR>
 still uses them as inept as they are. >><BR>
<BR>
Frankly I've had the exact opposite experience. USPS has always been great <BR>
for me, whereas UPS has absolutely SUCKED. While UPS has much better tracking <BR>
and missing package procedures than USPS, they need it.<BR>
<BR>
My wife tells me that her company makes tens of thousands of dollars in <BR>
claims every year with them, and she told me that in many of the US states <BR>
UPS is allowed to just leave packages on someone's front door unattended (can <BR>
you say please steal me...). I've had packages arrive severely crushed, <BR>
and/or waterdamaged.<BR>
<BR>
On USENET rec.guns, everybody is bitching about how UPS employees steal guns <BR>
constantly (and is the reason UPS won't ship them via ground anymore). I've <BR>
corresponded with someone who had to send his weapon back to Smith and Wesson <BR>
for repair (it wasn't his issue weapon so the department wouldn't fix it). <BR>
When S+W sent it back to him via UPS, it was delivered to the wrong <BR>
apartment. The instructions said that the package could only be released to <BR>
the owner via ID and signature. The nitwit driver didn't bother to check the <BR>
paperwork or ID and gave the weapon to this person. The rightful owner (who <BR>
is a LEO by the way...) reported it stolen and contacted BATF as well as his <BR>
department. Both UPS and his neighbor are now in BIG trouble.<BR>
<BR>
I attribute this appalling decline in service to UPS having had their loaders <BR>
and drivers unionize and pick the Teamsters as their union. To be fair I'm <BR>
biased against unions...<BR>
<BR>
Ob Trav; Didn't Doug write something like this (union trouble in the 3I) in <BR>
JTAS 25 or 26?<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:36:54 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: The naming of things<BR>
<BR>
From: Joseph R. Dietrich <yikes@evansville.net><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>3,000 years is a long time to retain a cultural/ethnic identity<BR>
>(historically, anyway, although information technology may have now changed<BR>
>that).<BR>
<BR>
Well, 3,000 years is a long time to retain much of anything. Even those<BR>
concepts that "survive" are going to change so much that they no longer look<BR>
like they did originally.<BR>
<BR>
>How likely is it that Strephon would have anything resembling the<BR>
>appearance of a Polynesian?<BR>
<BR>
It depends. It's possible to imagine a scenario in which the variations of<BR>
gross morphology in the major and minor human races in known space might<BR>
inspire a resurgence of racialist ideas. On the other hand, it's also<BR>
possible to imagine a scenario where the opposite is true.<BR>
<BR>
>How likely is it that the human population in<BR>
>general will retain distinctive genotypes that one can distinguish<BR>
>visibly?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Extremely likely. After all, we're dealing with isolated worlds in space and<BR>
a model of interstellar travel that precludes the possibility of mass<BR>
immigration or mass exodus. Interstellar travellers might tend toward<BR>
"uniformity", but it's likely that those who are planetbound (the vast<BR>
majority of the citizens of the Imperium) would have significant differences<BR>
in gross morphology.<BR>
<BR>
>With specific exceptions  like the Sword Worlds notwithstanding, humaniti<BR>
>seems to me to have become pretty "raceless." Or is this my own<BR>
>wishful-thinking filter kicking in?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
There are certain things that Traveller avoids like the plague in canon. The<BR>
three main ones that I can think of are religion, race and ideology.<BR>
<BR>
With that in mind, it *is* possible to read between the lines. Concepts such<BR>
as  major and minor human races *do* exist in the Imperium. Make of that<BR>
tidbit what you will.<BR>
<BR>
It seems to me that there is *something* that distinguishes various branches<BR>
of humaniti from others. If distinctions in race were flattened to the<BR>
extent that is frequently imagined in sci-fi there would be no need to<BR>
distinguish between the two.<BR>
<BR>
>Do we have a situation in the Imperium where there are 11,000 x n different<BR>
>human ethnic groups, with at least one for each world and possibly<BR>
hundreds?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In my opinion, yes, at least to some degree. Planets are isolated from each<BR>
other, and travel between them is relatively expensive. In general, I think<BR>
that you're going to have far fewer racial "melting pots".<BR>
<BR>
Culture, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color (no pun<BR>
intended). It is much more likely that cultural distinctions could, and<BR>
probably would be flattened to some degree in the Imperium. That's a general<BR>
rule, but it's not going to apply in all cases. Take a look at the<BR>
astonishingly successful American entertainment business, and to a lesser<BR>
extent the British and Japanese entertainment businesses.<BR>
<BR>
>This could be really ugly, and could go a long way to explain why something<BR>
>like the Rebellion could get so nasty (I know, I know, the Rebellion was<BR>
>all just a dream).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps, but racial distinctions don't automatically mean that things *have*<BR>
to get ugly. Keep in mind that the modern notion of race (at least in the<BR>
West) is quite different than that which was held in the 16th Century, and<BR>
the 16th century notion of race. In the same vein, that conception of race<BR>
would also be different from the one that Greeks or Hebrews held in<BR>
antiquity.<BR>
<BR>
>Or do we think that social sciences and technology have advanced at pace<BR>
>with the hard sciences (given the way people behave in the canon<BR>
>liturature, I would say not -- except, perhaps, for the Zhodani)?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
That simply cannot be the case. It's easy to imagine a society in which air,<BR>
sea and land travel have been superannuated by cheap and efficient<BR>
contra-gravity devices and power plants. It's much more difficult to imagine<BR>
a society in which the discipline of history has changed its focus.<BR>
<BR>
Indeed, in real life the discipline of history has changed its focus over<BR>
the course of the last two centuries or so and there are still those who<BR>
criticize its current state as in some way invalid. To take it further,<BR>
we're heading for a really bumpy road in the next century as more and more<BR>
people will be applying such concepts as structuralism and<BR>
post-structuralism to the social disciplines.<BR>
<BR>
We're *still* feeling the fallout from, say, the psychological approach to<BR>
history, and that's been around for a century. There are still people who<BR>
grumble about feminist historical approaches and socialist historical<BR>
approaches. Now there are enough of the above theories out there, and people<BR>
are starting to place them relative to each other in the structuralist<BR>
approach to history.<BR>
<BR>
I shudder to think of what the state of social science will look like when<BR>
I'm a doddering old professor who can remember where he left his glasses!<BR>
<BR>
I'm not being critical of the new approaches in social science. In point of<BR>
fact, I'm really excited that I'm entering the field at such an exciting<BR>
time. I'm just pointing out that it's very difficult for many people to<BR>
accept the advances that have been in place for a century or more *today*,<BR>
and that it would be completely and utterly impossible to imagine the social<BR>
sciences several millenia from now.<BR>
<BR>
>Okay, I guess this is just a roundabout way of asking: how balkanized is<BR>
>*your* Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
Extremely balkanized. Balkanized to the point that it's impossible for a<BR>
single interstellar government to exist. ;)<BR>
<BR>
>Not Douglas's specifically, but anyone's. How do you see<BR>
>issues of culture and ethnicity reflected in YTU? Do you see it breaking<BR>
>down into the big three (Vilani, Zhodani, Solomani), regional (Sylean,<BR>
>Denebian, Solomani), planetary (Capitalian, Regianian, Solomani), or even<BR>
>on sub-planetary basis? Or do you expect a mix of all four? If it's a mix,<BR>
>how is it biased?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I think that the lines around the "big three" are much less distinct than<BR>
most people on the list consider them. If you use the United States of<BR>
America as a model (I apologize to those of you out there who get surly at<BR>
the idea of "Yanks in Space", but I can think of few countries that have the<BR>
same sort of mixture), there is considerable difficulty in getting most<BR>
people to consider themselves "American". Culturally and sub-culturally, the<BR>
U.S. is factionalized to the point that walking from one neighborhood into<BR>
another, or even from one *nightclub* into another is like setting foot on a<BR>
different planet.<BR>
<BR>
Hell, compared to the tradional canon view of the Traveller universe the<BR>
differences between two cliques in your average high-school are far more<BR>
acute than the differences between Aslan and Solomani. ;)<BR>
<BR>
[As an example of the scenario, the recent off-topic discussion of the goth<BR>
movement suddenly becomes on topic! ;)]<BR>
<BR>
>I would suppose that it would be mostly planetary or regional -- as recent<BR>
>discussion has reminded us, off-world travel is not for the average<BR>
citizen.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Yes. I agree. I'm working from a model that assumes that the smallest unit<BR>
of cultural currency in known space is a planet, or more commonly, a solar<BR>
system.<BR>
<BR>
>For those of you into genetic drift and the like, how differentiated do you<BR>
>think humaniti will have become (Ancient and human meddling aside)?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Dammit Joe, I'm a social scientist, not a biologist! ;)<BR>
<BR>
<I'd be fascinated to see some ideas from those who know more of this<BR>
subject than I though><BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:27:45 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: User Interface Question<BR>
<BR>
I'm rewriting GT Shipyard to be compatible with GT: Starships, which means<BR>
that improving the user interface is virtually effortless (in that I have<BR>
to rewrite/add large chunks anyway).<BR>
<BR>
So, some questions:<BR>
<BR>
1) Would it be useful to see passenger and crew accomodations listed<BR>
separately on the spreadsheet?<BR>
<BR>
2) If crew and accomodation adjustments could be done automatically (ie.<BR>
when you increase the jump drive, the number of engineers and their<BR>
accomodations are automatically increased too), would you use this feature?<BR>
<BR>
3) How important would economic data (from Far Trader) be?<BR>
<BR>
Feel free to answer even if you aren't a Mac user.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:14:43 -0500<BR>
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net><BR>
Subject: RE: Starship disabling weapons...<BR>
<BR>
At 03:28 PM 11/18/99 -0800, you wrote:<BR>
>One of my players suggested that nuclear dampers (In TNE) could be<BR>
focussed<BR>
>on the engineering section of a ship and could either reduce power<BR>
plant<BR>
>output or boost it resulting in the drives safetys shutting them<BR>
down. I<BR>
>think this may also work against the jump drives fast burn fusion<BR>
reactor.<BR>
><BR>
>What do people think?<BR>
<BR>
	Used the idea before ... if it can either enhance or suppress<BR>
nuclear reactions, it *has* to be able to affect fusion reactions.<BR>
However, you might also assume that the fusion plant itself is using<BR>
nuc damper technology to even allow fusion plants so small and<BR>
powerful. Then you have to decide if a long-distance projector can<BR>
overwhelm the local field enough to affect anything. There's a<BR>
difference between suppressing a nuclear warhead at some distance and<BR>
overwhelming a field right inside the reactor at the same distance.<BR>
<BR>
	I've always ruled this was *only* possible at very short ranges,<BR>
with powerful projectors. Thus, a highport could suppress the fusion<BR>
plant of a trader docked inside/beside it, but you couldn't use it in<BR>
combat.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -- Chaos reigns within. <BR>
      Reflect, repent, and reboot.<BR>
   Order shall return.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:45:11 -0500<BR>
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Totally OT but ...<BR>
<BR>
>I attribute this appalling decline in service to UPS having had their<BR>
loaders<BR>
>and drivers unionize and pick the Teamsters as their union. To be fair I'm<BR>
>biased against unions...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I'm not biased against unions, but Teamsters are STILL just a bunch of<BR>
gangsters/mob men.<BR>
<BR>
As to your experiences with UPS, I'm amazed.  I've had nothing but great<BR>
experiences with them with one exception - as you stated, they will leave a<BR>
package at your door (or in my case left it in the anteroom to my apartment<BR>
complex).<BR>
<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
 J-Man<BR>
 ICQ# 2843475<BR>
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.<BR>
 Email : j-man@iname.com<BR>
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:50:20 -0500<BR>
From: "DaveShayne" <daveshayne@email.msn.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>Violating it may get<BR>
>>you short-term gains, but the long-run result is generally unfavorable.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Fair enough. What are these long term gains that would be gained as a<BR>
result<BR>
>of ground warfare that wouldn't be gained through the use of cheap but<BR>
>excessive force (as in orbital bombardment) or any variation on this theme?<BR>
<BR>
  You actually gain possession of something usefull instead of a bunch<BR>
of glowing craters.  If you target the population: anybody left over is<BR>
probably<BR>
going to be less than thrilled with you.  If you target only the centers of<BR>
government/military: you run the risk of killing the people that can agree<BR>
to<BR>
whatever it is you want from them.  If you target the whole planet: you get<BR>
a<BR>
glowing lifeless ball. Which is perfect if your goal is to litter the galaxy<BR>
with<BR>
glowing lifeless balls - less perfect if you actually want usefull planets<BR>
to tax<BR>
and stuff.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>In this sense, I'm trying to head off possible misinterpretations that may<BR>
>lead people to reply by saying something like, "Well, as everyone knows you<BR>
>always need a doughboy down in the trenches and the mud." For the sake of<BR>
>discussion, let me say that I *don't* know that.<BR>
<BR>
Well if you want to control a city/country/planet somebody has to physically<BR>
be there. But if you can convince your enemy not to fight PFC Poppinfresh<BR>
doesn't necesarily have to get muddy.<BR>
<BR>
>How am I to be convinced that the Imperium (or other major interstellar<BR>
>power) won't see value in dropping big, cheap rocks on major cities in<BR>
order<BR>
>to get their way?<BR>
<BR>
Because craters don't pay taxes.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>This is the ultimate reason why it is very unlikely that such things like<BR>
>>near-c rocks will be regularly used as weapons. Maybe once in a while by<BR>
>>renegades, but not as a weapon of choice.<BR>
><BR>
>Well, why not? ;)<BR>
<BR>
Countries go to war mostly to impose their will on others. Unless a<BR>
countries<BR>
aim is genocide less drastic measures will usually suffice. Having to<BR>
rebuild<BR>
a conquered teritory and deal with enemies seeking revenge for attrocities<BR>
commited is a real drag on the economy and way of life.<BR>
<BR>
It's so much easier to convince your enemy that you might enhance their<BR>
radiant luminosity if they don't accept your reasonable offer of<BR>
protectorate<BR>
status, and quickly get about the business of import/export, than it is to<BR>
actually wipe them out, wait for the ground to cool, plant a fresh colony,<BR>
and then start up the import/export business.<BR>
<BR>
This is just the way I see things not holy writ or anything. But it fits my<BR>
conception of the 3I (and must other empires/kingdoms/nations I've<BR>
experienced.)<BR>
<BR>
David Shayne<BR>
<BR>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>
Old version - Build a better mousetrap and<BR>
the world will beat a path to your door.<BR>
New version - Build a better mousetrap and<BR>
some @$*% will build a better mouse.<BR>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:47:00 +1000<BR>
From: "Alan Bradley" <alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au><BR>
Subject: Re: The naming of things<BR>
<BR>
>>ObTrav: What kind of name is Alkhalikoi anyway?<BR>
><BR>
>Sounds Hawaiian/Polynesian<BR>
<BR>
It always reminded me of 'Byzantine' Greek names.<BR>
<BR>
Alan Bradley<BR>
alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:04:18 +1000<BR>
From: "Alan Bradley" <alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Disabling Weapons<BR>
<BR>
> >> Hard to organize a riot if all your megaphones stiop working.<BR>
<BR>
A couple of thoughts on this:<BR>
<BR>
1.  Riots are rarely organized.  They tend to occur in the absence of<BR>
organisation, and one of the best ways of turning a political demonstration<BR>
into a riot is to take out its organisational structure!  Of course, there<BR>
can be situations where "mere chaos" is the goal, but even so, I doubt the<BR>
instigators of this would really need much of a communications network.<BR>
<BR>
2.  Not all megaphones are electronic.  A basic TL0 megaphone consists of a<BR>
hollow cone with open ends, made of whatever material you chose, which you<BR>
shout through.  Although it's directional, it's remarkably effective.<BR>
<BR>
3.  Gimmick devices like the anti-electronics one that I seem to have lost<BR>
the reference to above only work when they are a suprise.  A bit of thin<BR>
plastic and some masking tape would adequately seal most electronic<BR>
equipment.<BR>
<BR>
4.  From what I've seen, well organised demonstrations (or "riots", if you<BR>
are on the side of the oppressive government) tend to have marshals for<BR>
crowd control, and a network of runners throughout the crowd for<BR>
coordination and communication.  In some cases, the bulk of the crowd will<BR>
be loosely associated in contingents, too, derived from various<BR>
organisations and geographical areas.  This kind of organisation would be<BR>
more likely in situations where violent responses are likely to be met.  If<BR>
you take out the electronics, you would simply force reliance on the good<BR>
old fashioned TL0 runners, and the Mark I sentients leading the crowd.<BR>
<BR>
5.  Invent a better mousetrap, and someone will invent a better mouse.<BR>
<BR>
Alan Bradley<BR>
alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1368<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37]) by air-yc05.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:12:30 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:12:16 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA82718;<BR>
	Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:11:04 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:09:41 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id TAA82390<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:09:41 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:09:41 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911210009.TAA82390@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1368<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
