<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1439</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/3/99 8:35:35 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      Friday, December 3 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1439<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: Sci fi films<BR>
Re: One of our worlds is missing!<BR>
Re Jump Drives<BR>
Subscribing Request.<BR>
Re: 3D to 2D mapping<BR>
Re: 3D Star Maps<BR>
Re: Roger Sanger . . BAD, BAD, BAD???<BR>
Cannon Fodder<BR>
RE: Some art on the web (was RE: 102 Vehicles)<BR>
Holy writings and scholars<BR>
Morons with wrenches [was sci-fi films]<BR>
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Machine<BR>
Re: 102 Vehicles<BR>
Re: "Aslan" name debate again<BR>
Re: Brilliant Lances (was Re: Hello and TNE question)<BR>
Re: "Aslan" name debate again<BR>
That ship on the SMC cover [long]<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:54:24 +0000<BR>
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Sci fi films<BR>
<BR>
At 9:51 -0500 3/12/99, Cynthia Higginbotham <cyhiggin@pipeline.com> wrote:<BR>
>You must have seen a different set of Star Wars movies than<BR>
>I did, then :-).  One of the things I liked about Star Wars<BR>
>was the fact that the high-tech equipment was frequently dirty,<BR>
>banged up, had access panels missing where some teenage garage<BR>
>mechanic was working on it, etc.  It WASN'T "gosh-wow" stuff to<BR>
>the characters in the movie, it was just everyday machinery--<BR>
>which is how it should be in a 20,000-plus-years-old starfaring<BR>
>civilization.<BR>
<BR>
The Imperial ships were nice and clean ;-)<BR>
<BR>
Dom<BR>
<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: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 01:04:02 +0000<BR>
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com><BR>
Subject: Re: One of our worlds is missing!<BR>
<BR>
At 16:17 -0500 3/12/99, Doug Berry wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> > Anybody else photocopy all the maps and tape together a wall map of the<BR>
> > Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
I did the Domain of Deneb from the DGP Maps and added in Corridor, <BR>
Vland etc as preparation for a scenario set in M0 heading into the <BR>
Marches... and I highlighted them!<BR>
<BR>
Dom<BR>
<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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:13:44 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: Re Jump Drives<BR>
<BR>
>William, what was the page reference in RSB? I hadn't noticed that<BR>
>particular source of canonical information.<BR>
><BR>
I don't have my RSB handy.. but it is in the section on tracing ships<BR>
jumping out. In the Referee's section.<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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:31:17 EST<BR>
From: KenRoney@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Subscribing Request.<BR>
<BR>
Hi all!<BR>
<BR>
I have a friend who would like to subcribe, but I've forgotten exactly how to <BR>
walk him through the process.  Can someone remind me how to do it so I can <BR>
get him on.  Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
Ken<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:47:02 -0500 (EST)<BR>
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: 3D to 2D mapping<BR>
<BR>
<Mark Peace><BR>
It would take an infinite 2d area to fill a 3d volume unless you have<BR>
places that aren't accessible in Jump space.  Assuming the 2d plane falls<BR>
through all the orbits of planets in a system, does that mean 'up' off<BR>
this plane stops jump drive working? <BR>
</Mark Peace><BR>
<BR>
Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I don't mean that jump space is actually 2D, but<BR>
that it is a "thin sheet", about a parsec or two thick that runs through<BR>
normal space in a "crumpled" fashion.  Systems might conceivably lie on<BR>
the "edge" between two ripples, but this would be exceedingly rare, so one<BR>
can micro-jump throughout the same system without worrying about this.<BR>
<BR>
<MP><BR>
Two possible problems:<BR>
1) What about the stars more than 2 subsectors 'up' towards galactic<BR>
north? Are they accessible in Jump space?<BR>
</MP><BR>
<BR>
This is a problem, and not one I see an easy solution to.  You can<BR>
increase the amplitude of the waves, but that just brings other problems.<BR>
If there are several "layers" of jump space, this has its own<BR>
difficulties.  But still, I'm more wiling to take this sort of thing than<BR>
a flat universe.<BR>
<BR>
<MP><BR>
2) This makes the distance to the galactic core much greater - again this<BR>
messes up the core expeditions.<BR>
</MP><BR>
<BR>
True, but how far did the Zhodani get, anyway? My impression is that they<BR>
did not make it a significant fraction of the distance to the core, but I<BR>
may be mis-remembering.<BR>
<BR>
Charles C.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:52:12 -0600<BR>
From: "Kurtis Rodgers" <kurtis@fastlane.net><BR>
Subject: Re: 3D Star Maps<BR>
<BR>
Ok, here's some more food for thought.<BR>
_____<BR>
<BR>
Total Destinations at J3 or Less<BR>
<BR>
Those Jump-6 numbers were pretty high, with an average of 20 destinations<BR>
per star.  J6 is pretty darn rare in the OTU though, with the balance of<BR>
even military craft at J3 or less.  High jump factors will offer huge<BR>
advantages in a 3D TU, but what are the Jump-3 totals like?  Again, the<BR>
first result column is the count of destinations available to a star at<BR>
Jump-3 or less.  The second column is the number of stars to which the<BR>
destination count applies.  The third column is the percent of the total<BR>
sample that the star count makes up.<BR>
<BR>
Destinations Star Count  Percent<BR>
- ------------ ----------- -------<BR>
1            2226        22.38<BR>
2            2610        26.24<BR>
3            1765        17.75<BR>
4            1061        10.67<BR>
5            584          5.87<BR>
6            362          3.64<BR>
7            267          2.68<BR>
8            167          1.68<BR>
9            140          1.41<BR>
10           95           0.96<BR>
11           69           0.69<BR>
12           45           0.45<BR>
13           37           0.37<BR>
14           24           0.24<BR>
15           12           0.12<BR>
16           24           0.24<BR>
17           24           0.24<BR>
18           23           0.23<BR>
19           27           0.27<BR>
20           20           0.20<BR>
...<BR>
25           31           0.31<BR>
...<BR>
30           15           0.15<BR>
...<BR>
35           10           0.10<BR>
...<BR>
40           4            0.04<BR>
...<BR>
45           1            0.01<BR>
<BR>
Well this is looking much better.  75% of the sample has no more than 4<BR>
destinations at J3 or less, with an average of 4 destinations over the whole<BR>
sample.  This compares much more favorably with the OTU.<BR>
_____<BR>
<BR>
Jump-1 Destinations<BR>
<BR>
Now let's just look at the Jump-1 numbers exclusively:<BR>
<BR>
Destinations Star Count  Percent<BR>
- ------------ ----------- -------<BR>
0            1            0.01<BR>
1            8547        85.93<BR>
2            1018        10.24<BR>
3            179          1.80<BR>
4            85           0.85<BR>
5            57           0.57<BR>
6            29           0.29<BR>
7            22           0.22<BR>
8            8            0.08<BR>
<BR>
Notice, we only have one star that you can't go anywhere from at J1, but the<BR>
average number of destinations is only 1.  Also, exactly 8 stars with 8<BR>
destinations means they're all clustered together, right?  That could be<BR>
interesting.  Actually, these numbers make me question exactly how the<BR>
Hipparcos catalog lists binaries and multiples.  I thought they were broken<BR>
out into separate tables, and only the primaries are listed in hip_main.dat.<BR>
Can anyone please confirm/deny?<BR>
_____<BR>
<BR>
Jump-2 Destinations<BR>
<BR>
These are the numbers for Jump-2, exclusively (no J1 destinations counted):<BR>
<BR>
Destinations Star Count  Percent<BR>
- ------------ ----------- -------<BR>
0            5618        56.49<BR>
1            2591        26.05<BR>
2            809          8.13<BR>
3            296          2.98<BR>
4            159          1.60<BR>
5            69           0.69<BR>
6            62           0.62<BR>
7            59           0.59<BR>
8            48           0.48<BR>
9            33           0.33<BR>
10           38           0.38<BR>
...<BR>
15           16           0.16<BR>
...<BR>
20           1            0.01<BR>
...<BR>
25           1            0.01<BR>
<BR>
Youch!  Over half the sample lacks any J2 destination at all.  This knocks<BR>
the average down to 1.  Hmm.  This definitely needs more looking into - to<BR>
make sure its not a mistake, if nothing else.<BR>
_____<BR>
<BR>
Jump-3 Destinations<BR>
<BR>
These are the numbers for Jump-3, exclusively (no J1 or J2 destinations<BR>
counted):<BR>
<BR>
Destinations Star Count  Percent<BR>
- ------------ ----------- -------<BR>
0            3395        34.13<BR>
1            2821        28.36<BR>
2            1545        15.53<BR>
3            744          7.48<BR>
4            372          3.74<BR>
5            245          2.46<BR>
6            168          1.69<BR>
7            105          1.06<BR>
8            74           0.74<BR>
9            70           0.70<BR>
10           72           0.72<BR>
...<BR>
15           38           0.38<BR>
...<BR>
20           9            0.09<BR>
...<BR>
25           3            0.03<BR>
26           3            0.03<BR>
<BR>
This is better.  Still only an average of one Jump-3 destination overall.<BR>
_____<BR>
<BR>
Based on the responses I've gotten, I'll continue to try and make sense of<BR>
these numbers.<BR>
<BR>
Kurtis<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:54:51 -0500<BR>
From: "Micheal D. Peters" <Travelleri@home.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Roger Sanger . . BAD, BAD, BAD???<BR>
<BR>
Well,  I can't speak for how much he wants for the DGP material but I became<BR>
involved with Rodger (obligatory spitting noise) a while back on a "new"<BR>
role playing project. I believe that several others on this list at the time<BR>
did as well. He seemed enthusiastic and very easy to converse with and I<BR>
dropped several major ideas and disagreed with him on several more, until I<BR>
eventually stopped recieveing emails from him, wheither because the project<BR>
died or I was just dropped was never explained.<BR>
<BR>
Prior to that, however, I recommended a couple of freind to him as artists<BR>
(they did much of the art and layout for Basement Gmaes :Forge: Out of<BR>
Chaos). Rodger started to negotiate with them after seeing some art samples.<BR>
Eventually the negotiations broke down when my friends realized that he was<BR>
negotiating for TOTAL ownership of any art, solicited or blind submission,<BR>
includeing the samples he had already recieved, and that payment was to be<BR>
made ONLY upon the first publication of the art, no matter how long it might<BR>
sit in the files.<BR>
<BR>
The bottom line was that he wanted them to do 100 + plus hours of solicited<BR>
work and whatever blind submissions they cared to send him, that would be<BR>
HIS upon reciept and that he wouldn't have to pay anything if/untill<BR>
publication. This with a track record of NEVER having published one thing<BR>
(new or purchased from DGP). Thier counter offer of a minimal payment on<BR>
reciept of solicited material and the balance due upon publication offended<BR>
him. Needless to say the deal fell through.<BR>
<BR>
This was 1 or 2 years ago. To date Rodger (You know what goes here!) still<BR>
hasn't published anything. And has a number of outstanding debts to several<BR>
people for work done for DGP and solicited by himself anfter taking over<BR>
DGP.<BR>
<BR>
Mike<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Chris Seamans <semo@pil.net><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:37 AM<BR>
Subject: Re: Roger Sanger . . BAD, BAD, BAD???<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> I would hope that Doug was exaggerating just a little. After all, the D&D<BR>
> franchise likely has a value in the tens of millions. As far as greed or<BR>
> sheer stubborn pigheadedness goes, personally I'm not going to really pass<BR>
> judgement because I don't know enough of what's going on. He did burn<BR>
Robert<BR>
> Prior, who seems to be a rather good egg, and that, in itself, is a<BR>
heinous<BR>
> crime.<BR>
><BR>
> The value of the material has depreciated already because it's available<BR>
to<BR>
> so few people.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:01:03 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: Cannon Fodder<BR>
<BR>
I have been thinking about several bits of OTU cannon which fall under<BR>
contention over the editions.<BR>
The obvious ones being T-plates vs Reaction Drives, Grids vs Coils,<BR>
Libertarian Paradigm vs Allegorical Paradigm, Marines ALWAYS in BD/only IM<BR>
SF units in BD, Pirates.<BR>
<BR>
But, the thought occurred to me that one other facet has yet to really get<BR>
grungy on the TML... Are there or are theyre not still anchients Active in<BR>
the universe BESIDES Yaskodray (AKA Grandfather)?<BR>
<BR>
We know from Twighlight's Peak that some HAVE survived... And we know from<BR>
Adv 12 that Yaskodray is still twiddling about. But did he actually get ALL<BR>
his 1st generation descendants? The ones with the "Inspiration" gene?<BR>
<BR>
Food for thought... or a flame war... or just discussion (and yes, the pun<BR>
is intentional!)<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: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:58:58 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: Some art on the web (was RE: 102 Vehicles)<BR>
<BR>
Great work Joseph!  Wish IIII knew how to use a line drawing program like<BR>
that.  I'm clueless when it come to Illustrator or CorelDraw.  All my stuff<BR>
is done in Photoshop.  Oh well, one of these days....<BR>
<BR>
Also, nice work so far on your cutter.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Joseph R.<BR>
Dietrich<BR>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 4:08 PM<BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Some art on the web (was RE: 102 Vehicles)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>BTW, it'd love to see what you're doing with it.<BR>
<BR>
Well, I'm going for a DGP pen-and-ink look. I've put up an example of my<BR>
first mostly-finished vehicle, a grav minibus. See:<BR>
<BR>
http://www.evansville.net/~yikes/travxover.html<BR>
<BR>
and click on the "Ormatii" link at the bottom of the page. I've also got a<BR>
very rough first attempt at a 3d modular cutter. I'm still cutting my teeth<BR>
on how how to texture properly (I have the hardest time with<BR>
surface-mapping on spheres).<BR>
<BR>
Ciao,<BR>
<BR>
Joseph R. Dietrich<BR>
yikes@evansville.net<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 21:30:21 CST<BR>
From: "Rick Stump" <rick_stump@hotmail.com><BR>
Subject: Holy writings and scholars<BR>
<BR>
>Not entirely true. In point of fact, for about the last two centuries<BR>
>theologians have been all over the map concerning whether or not the Bible<BR>
>is accurate or truthful. The assumption that you're making is inaccurate. <BR>
>To<BR>
>say that over the course of 200 years everyone who's had an interest in<BR>
>studying the Bible was brainwashed before they got there is something of a<BR>
>slander.<BR>
> >>>>>>>>><BR>
>Bonus points to Chris for pushing the loaded term level from "biased" to<BR>
>"brainwashed", with extra points for adding the "slander" label to<BR>
>a fellow TMLer's opinion. <weg><BR>
><BR>
>Without a personal belief that the Bible is a highly significant<BR>
>document, you will not study it rigorously enough to produce any<BR>
>insights sufficiently developed to be accepted by respected Bible<BR>
>scholars as significant. The majority of people performing these studies<BR>
>are of a religious bent, even if they are currently in a doubting or<BR>
>skeptical phase.<BR>
><BR>
>How about this: the majority of those studying the Bible have a<BR>
>spiritual bent, as those without one generally dismiss it out of hand.<BR>
>With a spiritual bent - either for or against Chrisitianity - the Bible<BR>
>has value, either as a basis for a belief system, or as a weapon<BR>
>against belief systems (including Christianity). If spiritual matters<BR>
>are unimportant, then the Bible is a historical and literary artifact,<BR>
>more valuable as a source of indirect historical/social information<BR>
>(as the Greek myths provide context to Mediterrenean cultures)<BR>
>rather than for it's limited direct historical references.<BR>
><BR>
>Walt Smith<BR>
OK, I have been out for a while and (as I parsed my digests) figured this <BR>
one would die quickly, however comma<BR>
<BR>
There are many fine religious scholars out there approaching the bible from <BR>
a number of angles. In my old department (Religion at the University of <BR>
Michigan)a great deal of the Exodus story was being studied by a specialist <BR>
in ancient Egyptian belief systems (looking for 'cross over' during the <BR>
Semitic residence in Egypt) and the Gospel of John was being studied by a <BR>
Women's Studies doctoral candidate looking for evidence of the status of <BR>
women in patriarchal cultures of the Second Temple aera and possible strides <BR>
to improve their lot. The Chair of the Department was a prof of Archaeology <BR>
and his assistant was a Comparitive Lit prof. And we (they and I) were <BR>
managing the Anchor Bible Dictionary project, where each book of the bible <BR>
was being studied by a specialist in that book, be they Christian, Jew, or <BR>
Whatever. The Book of James (about 9 pages) is an 850 page volume.<BR>
So, the bible is probably the most studied work ever. To assume that <BR>
everyone studying it is biased beyond objective reasoning fails the test of <BR>
Occam's Razor.<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav: A Scholar patron *really* wants a copy of the holy canon of an <BR>
obscure world in an attempt to prove pre-Vilani interstellar contact. The <BR>
characters arrive and learn that only someone who has undergone 30 days of <BR>
complicated purification rituals (including dietary, behavior, and hygiene <BR>
restrictions) can even touch the canon without serious backlash. And if you <BR>
want to *buy* it!<BR>
<BR>
______________________________________________________<BR>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 21:48:46 CST<BR>
From: "Rick Stump" <rick_stump@hotmail.com><BR>
Subject: Morons with wrenches [was sci-fi films]<BR>
<BR>
[snip]<BR>
>Well, remember, part of the paranoia is something that I don't think TL<BR>
>advancements are going to change. Namely, the fact that it's *very*<BR>
>hard to protect against morons whho *think* they know what they are<BR>
>doing. Such people will cheerfully ignoring warning signs, flashing<BR>
>danger lights, and even tell interactive voice systems that yes, they<BR>
>really *do* want to dump the atmosphere from cargo bay two (this while<BR>
>they are *in* cargo bay two!).<BR>
><BR>
>The problem is that the very same functions that a moron will use to<BR>
>kill people unintentionally are also functions that may be needed to<BR>
>*save* lives (or property) in an emergency. And short of the sort of AI<BR>
>Traveller doesn't have, you *can't* "limit" the controls enough to<BR>
>prevent this sort of stupid user error.<BR>
<BR>
A friend of mine who is an aerospace engineer with a major defense <BR>
contractor said a fair amount of engineering work on nuclear missiles for <BR>
subs was making them 'sailor-proof' because guys who *knew* they contained a <BR>
few pounds of glowing death would use inspection latches to open bottles, <BR>
hide food next to safety switches, etc. He said the worst was a guy caught <BR>
shorting wires to light a cigar!!!<BR>
Spacers are paranoid 'cuz out there Darwin can inflict collateral damage.<BR>
<BR>
______________________________________________________<BR>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 21:54:44 CST<BR>
From: "Rick Stump" <rick_stump@hotmail.com><BR>
Subject: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Machine<BR>
<BR>
>Glenn Goffin wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> > >> A semi-rational attitude. If you *need* the<BR>
> > >> equipment, it's not working, and you don't have<BR>
> > >> "proper" tools or instructions "bashing" it ...<BR>
> > >> *is* a reasonable response.<BR>
><BR>
> > >I've found lots of engineering PCs (and non-<BR>
> > >engineering PCs  too) bash things as a first resort<BR>
> > > ...  "Emergency  Repair  Procedure number 1" they<BR>
> > >call it.<BR>
><BR>
> > I've heard it called "percussive maintenance" -- not<BR>
> > in Traveller, but by real world engineers.<BR>
><BR>
>Ah yes, the barbaric "Tap Test", a time-honored tradition among<BR>
>engineers, particularly *mechanical* engineers where the tap was<BR>
>generally administered with a nice heavy wrench. Eventually, passed on<BR>
>to the general public with the widespread use of consumer<BR>
>electronics.<BR>
><BR>
>Okay, admit it...how many of you whack the TV/radio/etc with the palm<BR>
>of your hand to "encourage" the darn thing to work?<BR>
<BR>
When I was a warranty tech for computer hardware, Apple released a notice <BR>
that hundreds of powerbooks had defective fasteners on the motherboards and <BR>
they would shake loose; they included the fast way to see if it was the <BR>
cause of a fault and fix it until the new motherboard came in. And all the <BR>
techs took a secret glee in watching the faces of our customers as we took <BR>
the recommended action - dropping that $5,000 sucker 3"-4" flat on a hard <BR>
surface!<BR>
<BR>
______________________________________________________<BR>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:17:26 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: 102 Vehicles<BR>
<BR>
>I have finally been able to get some time to do some drawings for 102<BR>
>Vehicles, and I've noticed something: They're all stubby.<BR>
><BR>
>Forex: Many of the buses are 6 m x 3 m x 3 m, or thereabouts. Try drawing<BR>
>these out on a piece of graph paper -- heck, just block it out roughly, as a<BR>
>rectangle. These are incredibly short for their height and width (Or is the<BR>
>Imperium just full of "short buses."<BR>
><BR>
>I assume this is a an artifact of the T4 vehicle construction system.<BR>
<BR>
Yup. The "box" configuration.  It seemed like the best option.  I'd use a<BR>
bit of license.<BR>
<BR>
(I assume that you're talking about the BITS book?)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:25:24 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: "Aslan" name debate again<BR>
<BR>
>--- Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> As I've said before, _I_ still have the legal right to copy DGP<BR>
>> material,<BR>
>> because Roger Sanger hasn't bothered to inform me it's revoked. OTOH,<BR>
>> the<BR>
>> reason he ignores me is that he owes me money, which means that all<BR>
>> the<BR>
>> work I did for DGP after Starship Operator's Manual is actually mine;<BR>
>> assuming that others are in the same boat, I don't think that my<BR>
>> authorization would cover their work. Being in no position to check<BR>
>> who<BR>
>> owns which article (ie who was paid for their work) I'm probably<BR>
>> better off<BR>
>> not copying.<BR>
><BR>
>I am certain you have been asked this a million times but here goes<BR>
>one million and one. Why do you not take him to court for the monies<BR>
>you are owed, interest and court fees?<BR>
<BR>
Several reasons. It's not that much money, for one thing, less than it<BR>
would cost me to pay a lawyer. Second, Joe and I had a verbal contract for<BR>
a lot of it, so proof would be tricky (although how to prove I wasn't paid<BR>
might be tricky anyway). Third, I'm up here in Canada, he's in the US, and<BR>
that makes things even tricker. Finally, I'm happier owning the works<BR>
myself and being able to resell them.<BR>
<BR>
The fourth point helps the rest of you, because it means that some of the<BR>
DGP material may yet get reprinted.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:28:17 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: Brilliant Lances (was Re: Hello and TNE question)<BR>
<BR>
>Stick with the Battle Rider movement system.<BR>
><BR>
>The one in BL manages to combine increased complexity with reduced realism.<BR>
><BR>
>The amount of effort gone into trying to make a turning circle system<BR>
>emulate a vector movement system is amazing - especially the bit about<BR>
>having 12 facings instead of 6 and then how your ship moves along hex edges...<BR>
><BR>
>I just can't figure out why they bothered.<BR>
<BR>
Brilliant Lances isn't that tricky, once you figure it out. The rules are<BR>
just very poorly explained and organized: easily the worst GDW wrote in<BR>
that respect. When Shalom and I figured it out we were surprised how simple<BR>
it was.<BR>
<BR>
As to the facings, they are important because your facing affects both what<BR>
weapons can bear and what systems get damaged when you are shot.<BR>
<BR>
Personally, I prefer BL to BR (unless I have a large battel to play out).<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:49:54 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: "Aslan" name debate again<BR>
<BR>
>Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca> wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>> As I've said before, _I_ still have the legal right to copy DGP material,<BR>
>> because Roger Sanger hasn't bothered to inform me it's revoked. OTOH, the<BR>
>> reason he ignores me is that he owes me money, which means that all the<BR>
>> work I did for DGP after Starship Operator's Manual is actually mine;<BR>
>> assuming that others are in the same boat, I don't think that my<BR>
>> authorization would cover their work. Being in no position to check who<BR>
>> owns which article (ie who was paid for their work) I'm probably better off<BR>
>> not copying.<BR>
><BR>
>Rob, why all the pussyfooting around? Roger is obviously not in a<BR>
>"cash rich" position or he'd pay you. If he can't afford to pay<BR>
>you, I don't see how he's going to afford a lawyer. Copyright isn't<BR>
>somthing that's enforced by the police, last time I checked. And to<BR>
>top it off, if enough copyright violations occur, then he _can't_<BR>
>sue you. These rights need to be policed by the holder (correct<BR>
>me if I'm wrong).<BR>
><BR>
>Photocopy as many books as you want. If Roger doesn't come after you<BR>
>after the first few, then you have (what I believe is) a valid<BR>
>legal defence.<BR>
<BR>
Why not?  Because I don't believe that Roger owns the copyright to a lot of<BR>
the material in the books, unless I'm the only author he didn't pay. (Which<BR>
may be possible, I suppose, as I did have a deferred payment agreement with<BR>
Joe Fugate.) While I don't mind copying the stuff that is legitimately DGP<BR>
material, I wouldn't want to copy stuff that belongs to someone else.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>For heaven's sake - come the New Year I resolve to find some time<BR>
>to photocopy my DGP books until they fall apart from photodegredation.<BR>
<BR>
In which case please don't copy any of the articles I wrote (except the<BR>
legal one copy for personal use).<BR>
<BR>
That would be all the signed articles, and at least the grashfalt and cargo<BR>
container equipment sheets (I can't remember what else they published just<BR>
now, I'll have to go through my copies of the TD and MTJ for a complete<BR>
list).<BR>
<BR>
The Sydkai, at least, is being reworked as a GT starship. I'm starting with<BR>
the draft I sent Joe, and have updated it, as well as ignored the changes<BR>
that Joe made to the text.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 22:30:03 -0600<BR>
From: Dan Roseberry <rosebee@troi.csw.net><BR>
Subject: That ship on the SMC cover [long]<BR>
<BR>
Many kind TMLers wrote regarding my question on the<BR>
stats for the ship on the front of the Spinward Marches<BR>
Campaign sourcebook<<8  pages worth of snipets>><BR>
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson wrote:<BR>
>Of course, you'll have to the get the TML to decide exaclt<BR>
>how big the thing really is. Current votes are:<BR>
>     400t  1500t  20000t<BR>
 >Any more bids? Please include an explanation why, in<BR>
> less than 100 words... ;-) < [I am using HG2]<BR>
Well, I did try to condense it ;) In order of cannones/votability:<BR>
<BR>
Gunboat   GB-4206CF2-A40000-05000-0  Mcr 385.53std.<BR>
 all bear            2          4        Crew=12 TL=15<BR>
Fuel=96 Ep=48 Agility=6 Scoops n fplant  space left=77<BR>
Fills gunboat position on the Nolikian BR. Crew has<BR>
2 ton staterooms. The 77 tons left allows boat to be<BR>
configured for different roles as needed  i.e. SDB role<BR>
would have tons allocated to stores and a j-troop squad,<BR>
assault lander role would have tons allocated to 1-2<BR>
j-troop platoons (in couches) with assault capsules or<BR>
a grav tank.<BR>
<BR>
Patrol boat PB-62469E2-000000-50204-0  Mcr 496.13std.<BR>
   all bear                     1  1  1   Crew=24 TL=15<BR>
Fuel=294 Ep=54 Agility=6 Scoops n fplant MJtroops=10<BR>
space left=24<BR>
Crew includes jtroops (14 crew+10Jtroops). Space left<BR>
allows for configuring (in this case, whether to include<BR>
some kind of vehicle, lander, or assault capsules for the<BR>
squad as well as stores for the ship). I went with 600tons<BR>
because 1. I wanted jump capability 2. I believed 6-g<BR>
was mandatory  3. I needed enough space for a Jtroop<BR>
squad with assault capsules and 4. in the event that 4518th<BR>
operated independently from the IN, having a PAW available<BR>
would be very useful.<BR>
<BR>
Pcruiser PC-A2469G2-050000-80200-0    Mcr 1025.1 std.<BR>
  all bear               1         1  3      Crew=66 TL=15<BR>
Fuel=637 Ep=117 Agility=6 Scoops n fplant Mjtroops=34<BR>
KT 35type Pinnace=1 space left=32<BR>
Crew includes the 34 jtroops (32 navy+34jtroops). As above,<BR>
space left allows for configuring. The KT 35type Pinnace is<BR>
the 35 ton pinnace used on the Kinunir BC. While I decided<BR>
that the ship was somewhere in the 400-600 ton range, the<BR>
1500t vote got me to thinking about an annoyance I had<BR>
with Adv.1. There are not a lot of Kinunirs, yet there would<BR>
seem to be a need for a multi-role ship of that type. This<BR>
should be seen as an attempt to create a K2 ship with less<BR>
bells and whistles.<BR>
<BR>
20000t doesnt work for me; ymmv. I havent decided on<BR>
ship names; maybe you guys can work that out ;) I would<BR>
not mind if you double checked the designs either.<BR>
Dan Roseberry (plop101) Plop-Amelii Ship Builders<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1439<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-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:35:34 1900<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v66.4) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:35:21 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id XAA04090;<BR>
	Fri, 3 Dec 1999 23:33:50 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Fri, 3 Dec 1999 23:33:24 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id XAA04045<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 23:33:23 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 23:33:23 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912040433.XAA04045@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 #1439<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
