<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1378</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/22/99 12:32:31 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     Monday, November 22 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1378<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: the drift of Vargr<BR>
Re: dampers and reactors<BR>
Re: Mass Destruction<BR>
OT: China's space program<BR>
Re: Two things....<BR>
RE: the drift of Vargr<BR>
Ortillery VS Gropos Long(was Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)<BR>
Re: Tourism in the Marches<BR>
Mutant Marsupials<BR>
Classic Traveller Reprints<BR>
Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:30:00 -0700<BR>
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
<BR>
Terry Carlino wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> >So I'd say the Vargr would probably just be mongrels,<BR>
> >really. I'm sure that with language and higher<BR>
> >intelligence they would have developed the same incest taboo.<BR>
> <BR>
> Not a universal result of intelligence. Remember that in Ancient Egypt<BR>
> (Right up to the First Century BCE) the Pharaoh and his sister were often<BR>
> mated, to maintain the "purity" of the bloodline.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This doesn't invalidate, or even contradict the common incest taboo.<BR>
Since the Pharoahs were seen as divine beings, the rules did not apply<BR>
to them. Thus it _ever_ is with the ones on the top of the heap.<BR>
<BR>
This is NOT to say that Vargr will necessarily be completely genetically<BR>
homgeneous. There has been a LOT of time for genetically distinct races<BR>
of Vargr to evolve and plenty of opportunity to do so, what with the<BR>
various long nights, short naps and other suchlike events throughout<BR>
known space.<BR>
<BR>
They'll not be breeds, such a Great Vargr and Chihuavargr ;-) but there<BR>
will be (and according to canon, are, IIRC, though I may be remembering<BR>
the Forbidden Canon here) distinct 'races'.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Bruce Johnson<BR>
University of Arizona<BR>
College of Pharmacy<BR>
Information Technology Group<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:36:46 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com><BR>
Subject: Re: dampers and reactors<BR>
<BR>
Bruce Macintosh writes:<BR>
<BR>
> In that case, the reactors own damper might protect it from external<BR>
> interference<BR>
> at anything but the shortest ranges.<BR>
<BR>
Which, of course, opens up the question of why you don't just put a damper box around a nuclear weapon, to shield it from external forces.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:45:00 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Mass Destruction<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> What are the possibilities for a Death Star type<BR>
> weapon in Traveller? Maybe a humungous Meson Gun?<BR>
<BR>
Well, blowing up a planet takes in the vicinity of 10^32 joules (for an earth-sized object), which is around a trillion tons of antimatter, making the idea of blowing up a planet by simple force a bit impractical.<BR>
<BR>
What you want is a ranged matter-energy converter, or perhaps a fusion catalyst (though that would be more effective for blowing up gas giants).  Either one is well above Imperial tech levels.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:59:03 -0600<BR>
From: Steve Lieb <steve@necadon.com><BR>
Subject: OT: China's space program<BR>
<BR>
> Nevertheless, it should generate a lot of inquiries and comments from<BR>
> people around the world. When they pull off their first manned space<BR>
> flight, it is my hope that both the USA and Russia, as well as the<BR>
> European Space Agency, will welcome the Chinese accomplishment with open<BR>
> arms and invite them to participate in future space missions as an<BR>
> instrument of international good will.<BR>
	[Steve replied]  or, for those of us with a little less Wilsonian<BR>
view, maybe the idea that the Chinese are planning to put a manned craft<BR>
into space within 2 years (optimistic, IMO) and a person on the moon within<BR>
10 (more realistic, perhaps?) will FINALLY get NASA and more importantly<BR>
Congress to program a more aggressive US space program?  The good<BR>
achievements in telepresence (a notable recent failure notwithstanding...;)<BR>
have really not made up for the essentially moribund US space effort since<BR>
Apollo.  How about a Mars landing by 2010?<BR>
<BR>
	The Chinese establishment has always seemed to be better able to<BR>
take a longer term view (not to overgeneralize) and I rather doubt they<BR>
would land personnel on the moon, never to come back for 30 years...<BR>
<BR>
	My CR 0.02.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:09:51 -0700<BR>
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: Two things....<BR>
<BR>
No need to go copy them, Marc is reprinting 'em.<BR>
<BR>
see:<BR>
<BR>
HTTP://members.aol.com/Traveller/T401-00.html<BR>
<BR>
Book 0-8 reprinted in one volume, at $20, a very good deal!<BR>
<BR>
iSteve wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> 1) thanks for the responses on the Ine Givar...unfortunately I don't<BR>
> posses a credit card and sending a cheque in US dollars is problematic<BR>
> for us Brits, but the archive article gave me enough background to work<BR>
> on.  Thanks again - excellent article.<BR>
> <BR>
> 2) does anyone know what the legal position is on photocopying/scanning<BR>
> out of print works?  I've tried in vain to get hold of Books 7 & 8 for<BR>
> CT, and am out of ideas.  Obviously I don't want to violate any<BR>
> copyright laws in getting hold of copies, so unless anyone has spares<BR>
> they want to part with.....<BR>
> <BR>
> Regards,<BR>
> <BR>
> iSteve<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Bruce Johnson<BR>
University of Arizona<BR>
College of Pharmacy<BR>
Information Technology Group<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:39:17 -0500<BR>
From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca><BR>
Subject: RE: the drift of Vargr<BR>
<BR>
Terry Carlino writes:<BR>
>>So I'd say the Vargr would probably just be mongrels,<BR>
>>really. I'm sure that with language and higher<BR>
>>intelligence they would have developed the same incest taboo.<BR>
>Not a universal result of intelligence. Remember that in Ancient<BR>
>Egypt (Right up to the First Century BCE) the Pharaoh and his<BR>
>sister were often mated, to maintain the "purity" of the<BR>
>bloodline.<BR>
<BR>
	Also, inbreeding is not so much of a problem in some<BR>
	species. If Vargr have always inbred, the effects of<BR>
	continued inbreeding may be slight.<BR>
<BR>
Peez<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:12:16 -0500<BR>
From: "DaveShayne" <daveshayne@email.msn.com><BR>
Subject: Ortillery VS Gropos Long(was Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)<BR>
<BR>
>From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>And can't support their own people who begin to think maybe being a part<BR>
of<BR>
>>the<BR>
>>Imperium, "arna sa bad afta all." The peasants revolt and prety soon the<BR>
>>same<BR>
>>shmos who wanted the imperium off their backs are begging for a marine<BR>
>>detachment for protection against their own people.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Really? So a world can't support itself without Imperial help. That's<BR>
>interesting, 'cause we're not doing that bad here on Terra right now. ;)<BR>
<BR>
I was responding to the specific scenario of a worlds leaders deliberately<BR>
sabotaging their own infrastructure not making a general point. If say<BR>
some political leader were to order you to destroy your source of income<BR>
in order to annoy some larger political body would you? Would your neighbor?<BR>
<BR>
>Still, there are some worlds which require technological assistance to keep<BR>
>their population alive. Of course, the Imperium wouldn't need to drop big<BR>
>rocks on them to win them over.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
If they're fanatics who'd rather die than accept Impie rule they would.<BR>
But such people are rare in the extreme.<BR>
<BR>
>>I supose it's posible if everybody on the planet is mortally opposed to<BR>
>>imperial rule this might have to be done but I don't see any planet with a<BR>
>>pop<BR>
>>greater than 2 where this could posibly be the case.<BR>
><BR>
>Well, the large number of nationalist movements, self-determination<BR>
>movements, and so on that exist and have existed in the real world seem to<BR>
>be placed in opposition to your reasoning.<BR>
<BR>
True there are Welsh seperatists. And a lot more Welsh who are more or<BR>
less happy being british. Then there are the Quebec seperatists. And twice<BR>
in a row they've voted down independence.<BR>
There are other examples, my point being that in any reasonably large<BR>
population you will be able to find a number of quislings and a lot of<BR>
people who won't care who is in charge as long as they have bread<BR>
on the table and a reasonable expectation of having more of the same in<BR>
the future.<BR>
<BR>
>>who's gonna notice." In all other situations enough people will be found<BR>
>who<BR>
>>are willing to accept Imperial rule to keep things going on a more or less<BR>
>>reasonably profitable level.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>"In all other situations..." watch those generalizations, sir! ;)<BR>
<BR>
Errata --- Please insert the word "most" in between the words "in" and "all"<BR>
in the sentence in question.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>Seriously, though, this is an awfully strange view of the way human beings<BR>
>have been, and seem to be in the real world. Granted, this is descriptive<BR>
>and not prescriptive (the problem with "human nature" is that it's<BR>
>neccesarily descriptive) but even so, what happens when you're confronted<BR>
>with a charismatic, nationalistic dictator, or ideology, or both?<BR>
<BR>
Some people become adherents of the said dictator/ideology many don't.<BR>
The trick is to kill the adherents whilst leaving as untouched as posible<BR>
those who aren't.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>In which case they're going to choose the least damaging way of convincing<BR>
>>them to accept imperial rule that they can.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Least damaging to whom? The planet or the Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
Well if the goal is integration of the planet into the imperium I'm thinking<BR>
that<BR>
these are one and the same.<BR>
<BR>
>If it's the former, dropping rocks is effectively the same as dropping<BR>
>ground troops. You're still going to lose civilians, and it's more than<BR>
>likely that you're going to decimate industrial centers. If it's the<BR>
latter,<BR>
>dropping rocks is a hell of alot cheaper and less time consuming than<BR>
>dropping marines in battle dress.<BR>
<BR>
If you don't mind who or what you hit you can just drop rocks.<BR>
If the historical record on strategic bombing can be used as<BR>
an analogy for the rock dropping you propose then it won't<BR>
be as effective as MIB and will result in a good many more<BR>
civilian deaths.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>Bribes only go so far. That's been tried at various points, and that<BR>
>frequently fails as well. How easy would it be to bribe a Hitler, or a<BR>
>Castro, exactly, or any other leader who manages to convince people, for<BR>
>whatever reason, to do things that seem amazingly non-rational in<BR>
>retrospect?<BR>
<BR>
Maybe not Hitler but how about the Krupps? Or the general staff?<BR>
Or even confronting Hitler in 36 or 37 when the wermacht was still<BR>
A small and mostly obsolete force instead of the much larger army<BR>
of 39.<BR>
<BR>
On the subject of Castro. I was going to go there but I won't.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>>>Neither does a determined populace. So, we're back at square one.<BR>
>><BR>
>>I supose. But just how determined is the populace? If the Impies come<BR>
>>in with a batron and a few regiments of marines, bribes in the right<BR>
>places,<BR>
>>and some cosmetic reforms (say renaming the taxes negative income<BR>
>>enhancements or some such) would the peasants still revolt?<BR>
>>In most cases I doubt it.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Just out of curiosity, how did we end up on the Marxist "peasant revolt"<BR>
>line? It doesn't have to be "peasants" or "proles" who are doing the bulk<BR>
of<BR>
>the revolting at all. In fact, in cases like the American of French<BR>
>Revolutions the peasants weren't even the real driving force behind the<BR>
>rebellion.<BR>
<BR>
Either the planetary leaders or the planets population intend to leave the<BR>
Imperium. If the leaders don't or if the leaders can be co-opted then<BR>
that leaves everybody else. I'm just trying to remind you that planets<BR>
aren't political monoliths. Just because a group of plotters wants to<BR>
seperate from the benevelent 3I doesn't make that the will of the<BR>
populace. And just because the working stiffs want to suceede doesn't<BR>
necesarily imply that the holders of political power will go along.<BR>
<BR>
>Actually, religious disputes, historically, have been among the least<BR>
>"dirty" wars, depending on how you look at it. This may simply be an<BR>
>accident of history, since the same force that allowed mankind to make<BR>
>really impressive weapons also happened to marginalize those religious<BR>
>institutions that would be able to make war to a great degree.<BR>
<BR>
I was thinking dirty in the sense of less likely to obey "civilized rules of<BR>
war"<BR>
rather than more deadly per se.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>Still, it doesn't have to follow that the use of a brutal terror weapon<BR>
>means that you have to turn the surface of a planet into slag and start<BR>
over<BR>
>again with a new crew of colonists.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>Oh come on, who the hell's going to doubt the Imperium's capacity to drop<BR>
>big rocks on their population centers at will? Anyone in the Imperium who<BR>
>has the most rudimentary education is going to understand that it's a<BR>
>painfully simple process.<BR>
><BR>
>Still, your "moon" scenario is just delaying the inevitable. Okay, the<BR>
>Imperium does that once, and the populace folds. The Imperium does it<BR>
again,<BR>
>somewhere else, and the populace folds. What happens if the Imperium whacks<BR>
>a moon a third time and the population says, "Nuts!"?<BR>
<BR>
Allow me to expand your reasoning here. Lets suppose that you drop your<BR>
carefully limited rocks to enforce your will. Sure this works for a while<BR>
untill<BR>
someone says "Well they always stop short of causing real damage we can<BR>
call their bluff." And sooner or later it escalates to needing to slag<BR>
planets to<BR>
prove you are willing to slag planets. and eventually you can't keep the<BR>
fiction<BR>
of a benevellent Imperium going and lots of worlds and probably quite a few<BR>
fleets rebel and the next thing you know....<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>Dresden was more or less irellevent to the outcome of the war. In<BR>
><BR>
>Was it now? I know, people can tell me how there were no real industrial<BR>
>centers there, blah blah blah...<BR>
<BR>
>Still, do you happen to have access to some information the world isn't<BR>
>privvy to? Perhaps morale levels among soldiers and civilians in Germany<BR>
>after the news got out? Can you say with certainty the bombing of a<BR>
civilian<BR>
>target - which Jens noted was where civilians were going to avoid being<BR>
>incinerated - had no effect whatsoever on the war?<BR>
<BR>
The war wasn't over untill the gropos had occupied germany. The fire bombing<BR>
of Dresden did'nt materially hasten the occupation. Ergo the firebombing was<BR>
"more or less irrellevant...."<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
>>Japan was already beaten in every sense except the actuall occupation by<BR>
>the<BR>
>>time<BR>
>>the bombs were dropped. The japanese knew this and were attempting to<BR>
>>negotiate surender terms at the time. The bomb merely pointed out that we<BR>
>>were<BR>
>>willing to kill all of them in order to get unconditional surrender.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Yes, and this message was sent in a big, atomic fireball... This further<BR>
>supports my point, actually. After all, what happened to the fence sitters<BR>
>who would (under your model) rise up and strike back at their foes as a<BR>
>result of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?<BR>
<BR>
Again at that point it was obvious that the Japanese had lost the war.<BR>
The question was at that point what concessions could they get from<BR>
the US. The bomb just convinced Hirohito that all of his people would die.<BR>
He ordered the unconditional surrender (which wasn't quite unconditional<BR>
they got to keep their emperor). If this still supports your thesis (in your<BR>
opinion) well so be it.<BR>
<BR>
>>In both cases large occupying armies were required to control the<BR>
conquered<BR>
>>teritories and we wound up spending a large sum of money rebuilding their<BR>
>>destroyed infrastructure. If both of the previous were not true we would<BR>
>>probably<BR>
>>have had another world war sometime in the sixties.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Again, you go on to support my point, since the infrastructure of both<BR>
>countries was decimated by more traditional forms of warfare. ;)<BR>
<BR>
I'm sorry but the infrastructures of both countries were destroyed by<BR>
strategic<BR>
bombing (mostly) which is closer in spirit to your rocks than to my MIB's.<BR>
Also. The point I was trying to make is that we forestalled another war by<BR>
A) Physically occupying both countries with large forces.<BR>
B) Rebuilding the destruction we had caused in our attempt to drive them to<BR>
their knees.<BR>
<BR>
The cost of these paliatives would far outweigh any monitary savings for<BR>
orbital bombardment and the cost of not occupying/rebuilding would be<BR>
the need to go back and do it twenty years later with the added bonus<BR>
that more of your enemy will be convinced that you are evil.<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: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:12:00 -0500<BR>
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Tourism in the Marches<BR>
<BR>
shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Steal^H^H^H^H^Hborrow an idea from David Weber. There's a local<BR>
> bacterium, probably entire *familes*(in the taxonomic sense) of them,<BR>
> that just *loves* chlorophyll.<BR>
<BR>
Hmmm. Good idea, but it doesn't go far enough I think...<BR>
<BR>
> Luckily these bugs are tied to the local ecology well enough that they<BR>
> don't survive well off world.<BR>
<BR>
Well, this keeps people from importing plant for agricultural purposes,<BR>
but if you accept the basic premise that it's a true garden world, then<BR>
that's probably not a big deal. Assuming Whanga has the same level of<BR>
biodiversity as Earth, which is reasonable, then there's no shortage of<BR>
possible plants to cultivate agriculturally. <BR>
<BR>
There really isn't an issue of Whanga's plant life being inedible by <BR>
humans, as the Vilani and several dozen other minor human species seem to have<BR>
made out ok by living off of a biosphere that, at first glance, would seem<BR>
incompatible. If there's something that grows on Whanga that looks like a<BR>
potato and contains a lot of something resembling starch, then chances are it<BR>
can be shugili(sp?)-ized into something edible.<BR>
<BR>
To be honest, the concept of an un-farmable garden world is about as far<BR>
fetched as you can get and I don't think I'll be able to really cook up a<BR>
complete explanation. But I can give it a whack...<BR>
<BR>
"Robert O'Connor" <robocon@ozemail.com.au> wrote:<BR>
> The obvious answer is 'eat (make edible) the local plant material and<BR>
> build orbital greenhouses for the stuff that won't grow on the surface'.<BR>
<BR>
Yup, sure - just compost everything and you don't even really need an orbital<BR>
station, though that would be nice - you just have to build a large,<BR>
self-contained biosphere dirtside. This is one thing I may just have to plain<BR>
old ignore. :)<BR>
<BR>
> >  The atmospheric taint<BR>
> > doesn't really exist, it was just put there by an early survey team who<BR>
> > couldn't think of any better explanation for the dead colony they came across.<BR>
> Maybe it does. Filter masks are worn to prevent causative spores,<BR>
> (whatever). from lodging in the airways, the only place in a human they<BR>
> can inhabit.<BR>
<BR>
Yeah, I think I will change this a bit...<BR>
<BR>
(on removing all the post-processed food):<BR>
> You don't have to with fusion power. Turn it into simple hydrocarbons.<BR>
> If abundant energy isn't available, burn it, bury it, or terraform the<BR>
> place with it.<BR>
<BR>
Yeah, true. I suppose a planet is a pretty big place, even a measly <BR>
size 6 one. I don't have the stomach to calculate how much "stuff"<BR>
there would be after a few centuries of tourism, but it would be<BR>
pretty manageable, sure. Terraforming the place with it is an interesting<BR>
idea... (ski mount Crapmore!)<BR>
<BR>
My only open question is that I wonder if the agricultural worlds of<BR>
the Imperium notice the loss of biomass over time? I mean, if you have<BR>
"Alberta-zon", the planet covered with wheat (and right-wing politicians)<BR>
that's perpetually being shipped out to feed the legions or whatever, do they<BR>
start to suffer after a few centuries? Do they notice the loss of<BR>
nutrients, minerals, etc?<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, on to the idea of an un-farmable garden world.<BR>
<BR>
The basic idea is that the planet's plant life grows fine, like Terra's, but<BR>
there exists a combination of factors that makes monocultural farming difficult<BR>
to impossible.<BR>
<BR>
For example, when you till a field on Whanga, a week later you'll have a nice<BR>
green patch of thick grass & weeds. It's difficult to farm effectively when the<BR>
weeds choke out the crops before they even sprout. (On the other hand, Whangan<BR>
potatoes would probably make a great crop off-planet... imagine crops that grow<BR>
faster than the weeds.)<BR>
<BR>
The normal solution would be to apply a selective herbicide, but wow, Whangan<BR>
plants are remarkably adaptable to herbicides and you'll run out of herbicidal<BR>
formulations pretty fast (say, in a decade or so).<BR>
<BR>
Another option might be to farm something that doesn't mind weeds, like fruit<BR>
trees, but, unfortunately, there's a mould/fungus/insect grub that tends to<BR>
spread from tree to tree quickly, wiping out the entire orchard once the fungus<BR>
taken root (so to speak). Whengan trees deal with this by using a wind-born<BR>
seed/spore distribution method that tends to keep individual plants of the same<BR>
species fairly distant from one another, except for certain species, like<BR>
non-fruit-bearing trees, which soak themselves with a natural anti-fungal agent<BR>
(which is, unfortunately again, highly flamable, making the trees a poor choice<BR>
of building materials).<BR>
<BR>
The wind-born spores would probably reach a peak seasonly, thus the atmospheric<BR>
taint. For most of the year the air would be fine, but there's this two week<BR>
period every year and that just happened to be the time when the survey team<BR>
landed...<BR>
<BR>
I didn't orginally envision any native animal life on Whenga, thus removing<BR>
mechanisms like using animals as seed carriers (via berries) as an option.<BR>
<BR>
Using the chlorophyll virus in combination with all of that would make<BR>
a nice touch, preventing existing genetically engineered plants from<BR>
being imported (no RoundupReady canola!).<BR>
<BR>
The final possibility is using plant-to-meat converters (i.e. cows) for which I<BR>
have no good defence. Maybe everything on Whenga is poisonous to cows too, I<BR>
dunno.  At any rate, the whole thig is just a handwave to explain why such an<BR>
otherwise nice planet is being wasted on casinos and grav-ball stadia.<BR>
<BR>
Ethan<BR>
- --<BR>
Ethan Henry                                        egh@klg.com<BR>
Java Evangelist, KL Group                   http://www.klg.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:21:54 +0000<BR>
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com><BR>
Subject: Mutant Marsupials<BR>
<BR>
A friend sent me this - ObTrav? Replace Australian with Spinward <BR>
Marches Colonial Fleet, Yanks with Imperial Navy and kangaroos with <BR>
tree-kangeroos....<BR>
<BR>
Enjoy,<BR>
<BR>
Dom<BR>
<BR>
- ----------<BR>
<BR>
Careless code recycling causes killer kangas --<BR>
Mutant Marsupials Take Up Arms Against Australian Air Force<BR>
<BR>
The reuse of some object-oriented code had caused tactical headaches <BR>
for Australia's armed<BR>
forces.  As virtual reality simulators assume larger roles in <BR>
helicopter combat training,<BR>
programmers have gone to great lengths to increase the realism of <BR>
their scenarios, including<BR>
detailed landscapes and -- in the case of the Northern Territory's <BR>
Operation Phoenix -- herds<BR>
of kangaroos (since disturbed animals might well give away a <BR>
helicopter's position).<BR>
  The head of the Defense Science & Technology Organization's <BR>
LandOperations/Simulation division<BR>
reportedly instructed developers to model the local marsupials' <BR>
movements and reactions to<BR>
helicopters.  Being efficient programmers, they just re-appropriated <BR>
some code originally<BR>
used to model infantry detachment reactions under the same stimuli, changed<BR>
  the mapped icon from a soldier to a kangaroo, and increased the <BR>
figures' speed of movement.<BR>
  Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting American <BR>
pilots, the hotshot<BR>
Aussies "buzzed" the virtual  kangaroos in low flight during a simulation.<BR>
  The kangaroos scattered, as predicted, and the visiting Americans <BR>
nodded appreciatively....then did a<BR>
double-take as the kangaroos reappeared from behind a hill and <BR>
launched a barrage of Stinger<BR>
missiles at the helpless helicopter.  (Apparently the programmers had <BR>
forgotten to remove<BR>
THAT part of the infantry coding.)<BR>
The lesson? Objects are defined with certain attributes, and any new <BR>
object defined in terms of an old one inherits all the attributes. <BR>
The embarrassed programmers had learned to be careful when reusing <BR>
object-oriented code, and the Yanks left with a newfound respect for <BR>
Australian wildlife.<BR>
<BR>
Simulator supervisors report that pilots from that point onward have <BR>
strictly avoided<BR>
kangaroos, just as they were meant to.<BR>
<BR>
 From June 15, 1999 _Defense Science and Technology Organization <BR>
Lecture series_, Melbourne,<BR>
Australia, and staff reports.<BR>
Item taken from _Software Testing and Quality Engineering_ magazine, <BR>
Volume 1, Issue 6<BR>
(November/December 1999)<BR>
- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------<BR>
                        MiB - Marines in Battledress<BR>
    "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"<BR>
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:21:55 -0500<BR>
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU><BR>
Subject: Classic Traveller Reprints<BR>
<BR>
Looking at MM's page on the Classic Traveller Reprints, <BR>
<BR>
HTTP://members.aol.com/Traveller/T401-00.html ,<BR>
<BR>
I'm looking forward to a chance at the entirety of the original JTAS<BR>
run - I've read about six issues, and the Best of JTAS #1 - #4, but<BR>
I know I missed a lot of good stuff. $28+shipping per 12 issues<BR>
certainly  beats the current $5-$10 per issue I'm seeing on EBay<BR>
for back issues.<BR>
<BR>
Here's hoping for the continued health of the project...<BR>
<BR>
Walt Smith<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:39:10 -0500<BR>
From: Joseph Coles <jcoles@nac.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:27:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
>From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
>Subject: Ideological Warfare<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>My favorite professor said that it was during the Crusades that people<BR>
>really began to make the intellectual leap toward dehumanizing others and<BR>
>that prior to this, even though there may have been a religious aspect,<BR>
>wars were fought mostly over territory.<BR>
><BR>
I certainly agree that really nasty warfare (salting fields, genocide,<BR>
nucs, rocks, etc.) requires de-humanization of one's enenmy. And I'd agree<BR>
that the Crusades were a fine example of this.  But I'd question whether<BR>
the Crusades were the first example.  What about Carthage, for example?  <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Joseph Coles<BR>
jcoles@nac.net<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:00:17 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Joseph Coles wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:27:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
> >From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
> >Subject: Ideological Warfare<BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
> >My favorite professor said that it was during the Crusades that people<BR>
> >really began to make the intellectual leap toward dehumanizing others and<BR>
> >that prior to this, even though there may have been a religious aspect,<BR>
> >wars were fought mostly over territory.<BR>
> ><BR>
> I certainly agree that really nasty warfare (salting fields, genocide,<BR>
> nucs, rocks, etc.) requires de-humanization of one's enenmy. And I'd agree<BR>
> that the Crusades were a fine example of this.  But I'd question whether<BR>
> the Crusades were the first example.  What about Carthage, for example?  <BR>
> <BR>
I would tend to agree with you; that's why I mentioned that it was what he<BR>
said.  But I can't remember what Carthage was about... it's being one of<BR>
those days at work, and the period of history I know best begins with<BR>
Julius Caesar and ends with the Enlightenment, at least as far as Europe<BR>
is concerned.  =)  Forgive my space brain and tell me if there was an<BR>
ideological component to Carthage or if it was one of those hundreds of<BR>
years of ethnic hatred due to close competition things.<BR>
<BR>
Kiri, who needed more sleep than she got last night.<BR>
<BR>
******************************************************************************<BR>
Kiri Aradia Morgan                                  93!  Thou Art God<BR>
tiamat@tsoft.com<BR>
<BR>
"If time passes, everything turns into beauty<BR>
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away<BR>
Everything starts wearing fresh colors<BR>
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody<BR>
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic<BR>
Desire is embraced in a dream..."              -- X-JAPAN <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:01:37 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
Joseph Coles writes:<BR>
> ><BR>
> >My favorite professor said that it was during the Crusades that people<BR>
> >really began to make the intellectual leap toward dehumanizing others and<BR>
> >that prior to this, even though there may have been a religious aspect,<BR>
> >wars were fought mostly over territory.<BR>
> ><BR>
> I certainly agree that really nasty warfare (salting fields, genocide,<BR>
> nucs, rocks, etc.) requires de-humanization of one's enenmy. And I'd agree<BR>
> that the Crusades were a fine example of this.  But I'd question whether<BR>
> the Crusades were the first example.  What about Carthage, for example?  <BR>
<BR>
While I might agree that most early wars were fought over territory, there's nothing about a war over territory which prevents it from also involving dehumanization of the enemy -- look at the Balkans.  That's basically a conflict over territory.<BR>
<BR>
As evidence for the degree to which ancient societies considered one another human or subhuman, I'd probably take a look at the cultures who were fond of enslaving other groups.  That one seems to go back about as far as any records can be found.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:30:32 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
Subject: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Anthony Jackson wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> As evidence for the degree to which ancient societies considered one<BR>
> another human or subhuman, I'd probably take a look at the cultures<BR>
> who were fond of enslaving other groups.  That one seems to go back<BR>
> about as far as any records can be found.<BR>
> <BR>
Enslavement doesn't mean that you think of your enemies as subhuman,<BR>
especially the older forms of slavery that aren't based on race or other<BR>
easily identifiable characteristics.  (Americans in particular get<BR>
confused about this because American slaves were black in a mostly white<BR>
country, which made it intellectually easier to think of them as a<BR>
different species.  Even so, they were still treated as people in many<BR>
households.  One or two slaves who lived with the family was much more<BR>
common than vast plantations, and even on vast plantations, not everyone <BR>
was Simon Legree.)<BR>
<BR>
Among the Romans, the Norse and many other peoples, slavery made you part<BR>
of a household.  <BR>
<BR>
Since the master of a household in Rome had the right of life or death<BR>
over everyone in it anyway, slavery basically only made you transferable<BR>
property and also affected your civil rights outside of the household.  <BR>
Many slaves were regarded as part of the family and people looked down<BR>
upon those who abandoned or mistreated old slaves who could no longer<BR>
work.  <BR>
<BR>
I'm not saying that slavery is OK, but when close ties continued past<BR>
manumission, as happened with many freedmen and women in some of these<BR>
cultures, and there were clearly emotional as well as legal bonds-- I<BR>
think that slavery of the sort prevalent in the ancient world cannot<BR>
really be regarded in the same light as death camps, concentration camps,<BR>
rape camps, "comfort women", nuclear warfare, and other atrocities.  <BR>
<BR>
It's wrong, but it's a different kind of wrong.  Making someone peel your<BR>
potatoes, become your concubine (different from being repeatedly brutally<BR>
gangraped and then murdered), hoe your fields, etc is rather different<BR>
from cutting them up in bizarre experiments, dashing their children's<BR>
brains out in front of them, or loading them into ovens or gas chamber<BR>
"showers".  Slaves get to live, get treated as people even if not with the<BR>
same rights, and sometimes even get freed.  Many slaves were even loved<BR>
after a fashion by their masters, though the slave did not always return<BR>
such feelings.  And while slaves were often beaten and occasionally killed<BR>
in these times, so were wives and children.  People in those eras had a<BR>
different idea of what it meant to be a human being, which did not<BR>
include immunity to corporal punishment or the right to make your own<BR>
decisions conferred absolutely somewhere between age 16 and age 25<BR>
regardless of gender, birth order, or economic situation.<BR>
<BR>
None of this is intended as a moral justification for slavery.  But if you<BR>
had a choice, you'd be better off as a slave in an ancient household than<BR>
you would be in Dachau.  Commodifying people is not the same as completely<BR>
dehumanizing them, and commodification was almost never absolute in the<BR>
ancient world because people had to spend too much time together in<BR>
households not to think of each other as human beings.<BR>
<BR>
Are their any cultures in your TU that practice slavery?  Do you believe<BR>
that slavery is economically unworkable after a culture reaches a certain<BR>
TL?  I am curious as to how people have dealt with this issue.  I am sure<BR>
that there's no slavery in the 3I, but what about other places?  Traveller<BR>
is really a space opera, and slavery is prevalent in lots of those.<BR>
<BR>
Kiri<BR>
<BR>
******************************************************************************<BR>
Kiri Aradia Morgan                                  93!  Thou Art God<BR>
tiamat@tsoft.com<BR>
<BR>
"If time passes, everything turns into beauty<BR>
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away<BR>
Everything starts wearing fresh colors<BR>
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody<BR>
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic<BR>
Desire is embraced in a dream..."              -- X-JAPAN <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1378<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-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:32:31 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:32:04 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id PAA82895;<BR>
	Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:30:57 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:30:36 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id PAA82847<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:30:35 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:30:35 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911222030.PAA82847@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 #1378<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
