<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1460</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/8/99 2:01:44 AM 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    Wednesday, December 8 1999    Volume 1999 : Number 1460<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: Deadfall Ordnance and Falling Rocks<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: (Almost) Tidally Locked Worlds<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
Year Zero (Was: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...)<BR>
RE: Question<BR>
Amazon.com (was Re: GT Nobles)<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1435<BR>
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1435<BR>
Re: Star Trek<BR>
Re:  Changing Stereotypes<BR>
training soldiers to kill (was OT Flamebait: realism of war movies)<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:05:52 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Deadfall Ordnance and Falling Rocks<BR>
<BR>
Eric T. Holmes <eholmes@lanl.gov> wrote:<BR>
> Okay, I'm confused....I tried to understand this stuff some time ago and<BR>
> still haven't gotten it straight.<BR>
><BR>
> So, where can I go to get the correct formulas for calculating what damage<BR>
> a falling rock will do from space and a piece of "streamlined" deadfall<BR>
> ordnance.<BR>
><BR>
> I already know what damage a Minuteman RV , a Davy Crocket missile and a<BR>
> 280mm shell in terms of nuclear destruction.  I just want to get to the<BR>
> equivalents or the formulae.  To be honest, every time I have visited the<BR>
> Traveller FAQs, I can never seen to get the answer I want.<BR>
<BR>
I can't tell you how to calculate the damage, but I can tell<BR>
you how to calculate the kinetic energy.  Perhaps you can<BR>
calculate from that.<BR>
<BR>
E = m / 2 * v ^ 2<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 00:21:07 -0500<BR>
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
At 12:07 AM 12/8/99 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>Sounds like my old gaming group. They would go to West Point for PointCon<BR>
>(hosted by the cadets). They would regularly kick the crap out of the cadets<BR>
>in the microarmor games...:-). It also makes you think that our army is run<BR>
>by officers whose first wargame is D+D....:-) Of course, if it were<BR>
>Traveller, I would worry less...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
All I know is that our (Cornell University) paintball team routinely beats <BR>
out all the academies....  West Point typically comes in about 4th <BR>
nationally, the others are further behind...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will<BR>
                          defend to the death your right to say it."<BR>
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire<BR>
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"<BR>
                          			     -- Albert Einstein<BR>
for PGP public-key and<BR>
more quotes, http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/plan.htm<BR>
WWW Page: http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/                <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:24:11 EST<BR>
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/6/99 8:36:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
kyle3054@yahoo.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< Since people always ask for references, I refer those<BR>
 interested to Col David Grossman's excellent work, "On<BR>
 Killing", where he discusses exactly this military<BR>
 problem, and how the (US) military has tried to<BR>
 overcome it. >><BR>
<BR>
To be fair, Col. Grossman is a VERY controversial military shrink (?). I <BR>
remember reading somewhere (Naval Proceedings maybe?), and he was being <BR>
chewed up in the editorials...<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:35:49 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: (Almost) Tidally Locked Worlds<BR>
<BR>
Matthew Bond <mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk> wrote:<BR>
Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:<BR>
> >I'm working on a map/write-up for the world Velscur (1110 Egyrn/Trojan<BR>
> >Reach, X374379-3 Ni 302 Na F9 VI) and I have some questions. I'm<BR>
picturing<BR>
> >the world as approaching tidal lock, with a rotation period of several<BR>
> >decades.  This means the locals have to keep moving to remain in the<BR>
> >habitable zone, but they can manage it even with their primitive tech.<BR>
> >So...<BR>
> ><BR>
> >1. How do I calculate temperatures on the surface of such a world?  I<BR>
> >tried the formulae in "Grand Survey" for tidally locked worlds (same as<BR>
in<BR>
> >WBH, I believe) but they give me a "cold pole" temp of only -60 degrees<BR>
> >Celcius or so, if I'm doing it right.  The formula says maximum cooling<BR>
> >due to night-time is (Base+273)  *.15 for this world, giving me something<BR>
> >like -50 (assuming a Base mean temp of around 10).  Add the latitude<BR>
> >change of about -20 and I've got -70. If the planet's mean temp is 10 or<BR>
> >so, I get only -60 for the pole that's spent 50 years in darkness.  What<BR>
> >am I missing?<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Well, based on the formula you just gave, 273*Kelvin* + 10*Celcius* =><BR>
283K<BR>
> * 0.15 = 42.45 Kelvin, or -230.55 Celcius. A tad chillier than your first<BR>
> result... or have I missed something (I don't have WBH of GS...yet... to<BR>
> check)<BR>
<BR>
A decimal point.<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:49:53 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
From: <Sethkimmel@aol.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> To be fair, Col. Grossman is a VERY controversial military shrink<BR>
>(?). I  remember reading somewhere (Naval Proceedings maybe?),<BR>
>and he was being  chewed up in the editorials...<BR>
<BR>
With the exception of TV newscasters, who *isn't* controversial? I've been<BR>
meaning to read "On Killing," because a significant portion of the book is<BR>
devoted to television, video games and violence, which is something of a pet<BR>
project of mine. What interested me the most after reading reviews was that<BR>
he seems to support the "socialization" argument, which is the third road<BR>
not often taken in that ongoing debate, which usually boils down to emotion<BR>
filled cries of "ban the guns!" or "ban the shows / games!". I don't want to<BR>
start that debate again, I just wanted to give a little insight into one of<BR>
the reasons I've seen him get torn apart.<BR>
<BR>
With that being said, during Columbine, Grossman took his 15 minutes of fame<BR>
to appear on TV to support the more direct "cause and effect" position.<BR>
<BR>
So a question for the folks who have read Grossman: Does he take the<BR>
socialization route, or does he take the more direct "cause and effect"<BR>
route? I am putting some books on my Christmas wish list, and this one might<BR>
go on it.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:58:59 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
<BR>
Swordy (Colin Michael) <swordworlder@clinic.net> wrote:<BR>
> Dragon #69 (Feb '83), "Relief For Traveller Nobility", by Paul M.<BR>
Crabaugh.<BR>
> Quite good.  See, another good reason to get the CD... that reminds me,<BR>
> what's the URL for Amazon.com?<BR>
<BR>
ILSLISTD<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:21:34 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
<BR>
I feel the need to atone for my recent sin of idulgence in off-topic<BR>
postings. I will not make the excuse of "Everybody's* doing it," I will<BR>
merely flagellate myself with copies of Starship Troopers, both the book and<BR>
the film, while I *vroom* through space in my Chevy Nova.<BR>
<BR>
With my soul cleansed of the worst of my transgressions, I will begin a new,<BR>
long, and considerably more on-topic post, in which I hope to continue some<BR>
ideas that have been brought up in other threads and tie some of them<BR>
together in strange ways.<BR>
<BR>
Before I begin, I'd like to dedicate this post to Glenn "cos 90" St-Germain,<BR>
as I keep neglecting to send him email in our chain of off-list<BR>
correspondence. My apologies Glenn.<BR>
<BR>
Now, on with the geekocity, I'll begin by laying the groundwork:<BR>
<BR>
Recently, I have been introduced to (and I have devoured) Neil Postman's<BR>
excellent "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which is an excellent book that<BR>
deals with the effect of television on society. It hardly breaks the surface<BR>
of this subject, but it is an interesting introduction. Postman puts forth<BR>
the theory that the dominant medium in a society decides the form that<BR>
public discourse, everywhere, will take. The dominant medium shapes that<BR>
society's epistemology; it decides how knowledge *itself* is attained,<BR>
perceived and used.<BR>
<BR>
This is not exactly a new theory. Anyone who has taken a look at the changes<BR>
in, say, American politics between the 18th century and the present day has<BR>
had to at least suspect that this to be the case. Anyone who has had even a<BR>
little experience with McLuhan and his intellectual heirs probably has been<BR>
introduced to some version of this idea. This has turned into something of a<BR>
hot topic lately, and from what I understand, a large number of academic<BR>
types have been discussing, debating, analyzing and working over this very<BR>
concept.<BR>
<BR>
A really coarse summary goes something like this:<BR>
<BR>
In the beginning, the dominant medium of communication was speech. There are<BR>
certain things that speech is good for, and certain things that speech is<BR>
terrible for. Speech is not a fantastic medium for science, math and<BR>
philosophy, for example. Speech is a fantastic medium for persuasion,<BR>
polarized discussions, and engaging narratives. One of the examples that<BR>
Postman uses is our current understanding of pre-literate law: Two parties<BR>
are brought before the tribal chief, and he searches his internal library of<BR>
proverbs, and attempts to come up with one that fits the situation at hand.<BR>
<BR>
Then, writing comes along, and changes everything. At this point, all kinds<BR>
of things are possible which were previously impossible: rudimentary<BR>
science, the codification of laws, mathematics. Although Postman doesn't use<BR>
this example specifically, it's obvious that a new understanding of law<BR>
emerges. Now, it's possible to have laws which are set in stone, literally,<BR>
and the very concept of law goes in a completely different direction: If a<BR>
party is guilty of x, the punishment is y.<BR>
<BR>
With the advent of the printing press, things really begin to take off, for<BR>
a large number of reasons. Now it's possible to really get things rolling in<BR>
science, mathematics, philosophy, politics. One of the things that print is<BR>
really quite good at is reasoned discourse, and reasoned discourse appears<BR>
in spades. Hell, it ushers in the Enlightenment, aka the Age of Reason! To<BR>
continue with the law theme, print redefines law yet again: With the ability<BR>
to disseminate cases and decisions across a wide area, there's a strong<BR>
shift toward precedent in law (Glenn: is precedent the right concept, or am<BR>
I missing the mark here?)<BR>
<BR>
Postman goes through three more stages, telegraphy, photography and radio<BR>
(at least to some degree) before arriving at television. It goes without<BR>
saying that television has redefined politics, education, religion, music,<BR>
everything. That's what a shift in epistomology does. Law, at least to some<BR>
degree, changes again. Postman, writing in 1984, didn't have the benefit of<BR>
hindsight with regard to Rodney King, O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton.<BR>
However, I don't think he was surprised by the way that they were handled.<BR>
In the opinion of many, at least in those cases, the concept of law has been<BR>
redefined yet again toward emotivist public opinion.<BR>
<BR>
I'm not going to go into current events and opinion-mongering here beyond<BR>
saying that television is a *really* frightening change. The short version<BR>
is that our public discourse is taking the form of television commercials.<BR>
Even print media has been influenced greatly by television, in both form and<BR>
content.<BR>
<BR>
(The above may apply in varying degrees to the various countries that fellow<BR>
Travellers call home. In other words, YMMV)<BR>
<BR>
Yep, now you crotchety ol' codgers who want to see Traveller return to the<BR>
style of the LBB's have an argument, at least on a philosophical level. Of<BR>
course the economic counter-argument is extremely compelling! Maybe wargames<BR>
were victims of this epistemological shift, who knows. Actually, now that I<BR>
think about it, the rise of collectable trading card games and story and<BR>
picture-heavy RPGs makes a hell of a lot of sense.<BR>
<BR>
Still, I didn't type all that merely to spit out a punchline and offer<BR>
ersatz commentary on the state of gaming. In case anyone is willing to take<BR>
the bait:<BR>
<BR>
What does public discourse in the Traveller universe look like? What is the<BR>
dominant medium? What changes might appear as a result? Is this general<BR>
decline in the political arena one of the reasons for the fall of the Second<BR>
Imperium, and for the rise of the nobility in the Third Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
To shift gears a bit, toward the end of Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of<BR>
Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991"[1] he comments that as the<BR>
century draws to a close, certain supra-national entities are appearing to<BR>
fill in where democratic leadership seems to be failing (the recent<BR>
headline-making World Trade Organization, for example, the IMF, even NAFTA<BR>
and the European Union have non-elected bodies which are capable of deciding<BR>
certain sorts of policies). Is this the same kind of idea that leads to the<BR>
rise of the new nobility in the Third Imperium?<BR>
<BR>
To give my own take, and hopefully start something of a discussion on what I<BR>
hope others find interesting as well:<BR>
<BR>
I think that this might be an interesting direction for those of you who<BR>
want to justify the Imperial nobility beyond the traditional Asimovian<BR>
rationale (which usually appears something like, "well, a system of nobility<BR>
is really very efficient"). Perhaps the Imperium is the direct descendant of<BR>
an organization along the lines of the WTO ( or maybe the um... ITO:<BR>
Intergalactic Trade Organization?).<BR>
<BR>
Maybe, the Imperium only rules the space between the worlds. This tends to<BR>
change the concept of the Imperium in a number of ways (even though the<BR>
slogan itself *is* canon). Such organizations are already starting to rule<BR>
the trade space between sovereign nations on earth. Under this model, the<BR>
Imperium becomes extremely remote and extremely distant, to the point of<BR>
being nearly invisible, even to the majority of interstellar travellers.<BR>
<BR>
Now that I think of it, that's an interesting take on the Imperium.<BR>
<BR>
I'm stumped on the epistemological concerns of new media, but it's largely<BR>
because Traveller has been "hands off" about what they are. The Xboat<BR>
system, in a sense, is a "new medium". It's kind of like a strange mixture<BR>
between the telegraph and "a slow boat to China". Holographic projection<BR>
pops up in canon frequently. Outside of Traveller, in sci-fi in general, has<BR>
holographic projection been superannuated by "virtual reality", either in<BR>
forms like Star Trek's holodeck, Gibson's matrix, or Sterling's net?<BR>
<BR>
What might various science-fiction media be good at? What might they be bad<BR>
at? I would think that holography will be something like a super-TV, doing<BR>
what TV's good at better, and do what TV's bad at worse. Maybe not though. I<BR>
don't know, that's why I'd like to see other people chime in.<BR>
<BR>
Damn. It's late.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:33:36 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Year Zero (Was: Re: Yet Another Keith Supplements Update...)<BR>
<BR>
SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com> wrote:<BR>
> At 21:31 -0500 6/12/99, "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net> wrote:<BR>
> > > You're going away for thirteen months?<BR>
> ><BR>
> >I'm glad to know that someone else out there knows how<BR>
> >to keep time.  You know, I blame it on public schools (and<BR>
> >the advertsers).  It's just this sort of muddy thinking that<BR>
> >would lead to a *year* zero (0) in 3I.<BR>
><BR>
> You know there's a good reason for the year 0...<BR>
<BR>
Okay, I'll bite.  What is that good reason?<BR>
<BR>
> and in the UK, public schools are privately owned and run.<BR>
<BR>
Hmm, I didn't know that.  Can Johnny read?<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
___________________________________________<BR>
    The rules have changed...  Get paid to surf the web.<BR>
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BMM-972<BR>
Please tell them BMM-972 if they ask who recruited you.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________<BR>
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World<BR>
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at<BR>
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 02:51:05 EST<BR>
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com><BR>
Subject: RE: Question<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:16:42 -0600 From: Loren Wiseman <lkw@io.com><BR>
>Gentlebeings:<BR>
>The question has come up in house WRT GT Nobles: What does the fanbase<BR>
want<BR>
>to see. One suggestion is to do a collection of PCs (a la GURPS Wizards<BR>
or<BR>
>GURPS Warriors), but I find this unsatisfactory (although any such book<BR>
>will need to give the most important Imperial nobles as PCs). How much<BR>
>should e devoted to life at the Imperial court? What burning questions<BR>
>(about nobles) need to be addressed? How many angels can dance on a<BR>
>pinhead, and why does he put up with it at all?<BR>
>Loren Wiseman<BR>
<BR>
Greetings Loren,<BR>
	My ideas are as follows:<BR>
	1) A general over look for each level of Noble rank from top to<BR>
bottom. (Job description, support staff)<BR>
	2) An NPC or two for each level of Noble rank.<BR>
	3) A chapter on the Imperial moot and its role in the Imperium.<BR>
(Right of Assassination)<BR>
	4) Data files on major NPC Nobles (The Royal family, Lucan,<BR>
Margaret, Norris, The Archdukes, ect...)<BR>
	5) A chapter for races that has nobles (Zhodane, Aslan, ect...)<BR>
	6) The use of clones by high Nobles.<BR>
	7) The historical rise of the Nobles in the Imperium.<BR>
	8) Nobles in the Navy or any other Imperial service.<BR>
	9) The unreconized Nobility of worlds vs. the Imperial Nobles<BR>
(i.e.: "Sorry sir, but the rank of 'King' is not a noble title, so please<BR>
go to the back of the line.")<BR>
	10) Security for the Nobility, both in space and on planet.<BR>
	11) The secret use of psionics by Nobles. (if any)<BR>
	12) Political sucking-up to higher ranks.<BR>
<BR>
I hope this will help you.<BR>
<BR>
Clifford Linehan<BR>
cnl.rubicon@juno.com<BR>
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -<BR>
Arthur C. Clarke<BR>
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+<BR>
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy<BR>
<BR>
___________________________________________________________________<BR>
Why pay more to get Web access?<BR>
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!<BR>
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:57:48 EST<BR>
From: GypsyComet@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Amazon.com (was Re: GT Nobles)<BR>
<BR>
>that reminds me, what's the URL for Amazon.com?<BR>
<BR>
 Just as a wild guess, maybe www.amazon.com?<BR>
<BR>
GC<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:36:03 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> We're all ex-Navy in this house.  We just kept saying, "Yeah,<BR>
> the M.I. are definitely jarheads. See the screwthreads on their<BR>
> foreheads?"<BR>
<BR>
Just in case you didn't know, "jarhead" as a nickname for marine comes<BR>
from long before jars had screw threads. It's from back when *mules*<BR>
were referred to as "jarheads"!<BR>
<BR>
So it's in effect comparing the marines with mules and not seeing any<BR>
significant differences. :-)<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: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:41:41 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>>Because they always take just enough redshirts with them to draw fire.<BR>
><BR>
> Red shirts to draw fire... that reminds me of another fictional hero who<BR>
> had someone with a red shirt to draw fire...<BR>
><BR>
> Batman, dresses in black and dark gray to blend in with the shadows...<BR>
> then dresses his sidekick in bright primary colours. I think you may=20<BR>
> have found the explanation. :)<BR>
<BR>
In all fairness, Robin (Dick Grayson) used to be a circus performer,<BR>
and he designed his own outfit. <BR>
<BR>
Later, you'll note that his Nightwing outfit is *far* more sensible.<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: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:47:29 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1435<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> At 02:05 PM 12/7/1999 PST, you wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>>Alas, too many people failed to grasp the concept that the DC-X was a<BR>
>>prototype and thus *intended* to be "tested to destruction". So when it<BR>
>>tipped over and burned after a landing, they thought it was a<BR>
>>*setback*. <BR>
><BR>
> Ever see the "Unplanned Battle Damage Test" video?  A series of odd factors<BR>
> led to a buildup of hydrogen on one side of the DC-X as it was readied for<BR>
> a test.  When the engines lit, hydrogen did what it does best.<BR>
><BR>
> Of course, nobody in the control room knew about this until somebody stuck<BR>
> his head in their trailer and told them "pieces of your spaceship are<BR>
> falling off."<BR>
><BR>
> Hit the Big Red Panic Button!  DC-X immediate scans the ground for a level<BR>
> spot, goes into descent mode, and locks its legs.  Perfect landing.   With<BR>
> a pretty big hole in the side.  Damn, I love that ship...<BR>
<BR>
"loved". 'Cause it ain't around anymore... :-(<BR>
<BR>
We *need* the DC-Y (half-scale?) and if it gets built and tested we<BR>
need the full scale operational Delta Clipper. <BR>
<BR>
BTW, given Traveller reaction drives, I think DC-X style VTOL landers<BR>
would be useful for contested pickups and the like. Any mines in the<BR>
landing area get detonated before the ship touches down. :-)<BR>
<BR>
For that matter, unless you armor the hell out of them, no way are heat<BR>
seeking missiles going to be a problem (any missile that is both man or<BR>
"jeep" portable *and* that can survive going thru a fusion or HEPLAR<BR>
exhaust *deserves* to hit. :-)<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: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:53:12 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1435<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> From: Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com><BR>
><BR>
>> It won't even take that. Just enough footage of *real* spacecraft going<BR>
>> by each other in utter silence. After all, it's not that the ships are<BR>
>> *quiet*, it's that you can't hear the noises from another ship onboard<BR>
>> your ship.<BR>
><BR>
> You're making the assumption that television and film will attempt to<BR>
> accurately reflect reality. Even common, every day objects, such as cars are<BR>
> imbued with qualities that they don't have on television and in film. Sure,<BR>
> if you're Stanley Kubrick you can get away with a more realistic view of<BR>
> spacecraft, but there was little action outside the spaceship which it would<BR>
> matter whether or not there was sound.<BR>
><BR>
> That's an entirely different notion than space combat scenes on film and<BR>
> television. Silence doesn't add to the drama of space combat, just like cars<BR>
> that just sit there after they crash into a bus don't add drama to a high<BR>
> speed car chase The only way that space combat will ever be shot to be shown<BR>
> without its own *vrooms* and *booms* is if a director has a musical score<BR>
> made which highlights all of the *vrooms* and the *booms* on screen.<BR>
<BR>
I'm thinking of stuff like documentary footage and the like. Even<BR>
*news* footage. That stuff *won't* have the added sounds. <BR>
<BR>
> I would wager you that there will continue to be *vrooms* and *booms*, even<BR>
> if space travel becomes so commonplace that the majority of people are<BR>
> familiar with it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> I would wager that, but I won't, since I don't think either of us will live<BR>
> long enough to see a day when space travel is that common...<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: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:07:47 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Star Trek<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Brandon wrote:<BR>
> Despite opinions to the<BR>
>> contrary, Star Fleet is <BR>
>> _obviously_ a military organization.<BR>
> (which makes their policy of carrying families along<BR>
>> assinine)<BR>
><BR>
> Not too asinine. After all, they have "seven year<BR>
> missions," don't they?<BR>
> This is currently a problem for recruiters in the<BR>
> military: women's liberation. In the "good old days,"<BR>
> men only were in the military, and their wives<BR>
> wouldn't have careers other than as mothers, so they<BR>
> just follwed their men around to postings to obscure<BR>
> and unpleasant places. And despite stories of "Dear<BR>
> John" letters, most women did wait faithfully back<BR>
> home for their husbands and boyfriends until they<BR>
> returned from the wars.<BR>
> Women's Lib has changed this. Women have their own<BR>
> careers, and so when it comes time for a soldier to be<BR>
> re-posted, she says, "hey, this will screw up my<BR>
> career," and all too often, either the marriage or the<BR>
> military career will end.<BR>
> This I think is the real reason they're opening many<BR>
> more jobs to women in the military: maybe soldiers<BR>
> will become like civilian professions, and often marry<BR>
> within their profession. Right now, they're not, so<BR>
> much. They're just leaving.<BR>
> The military currently has no solution to this.<BR>
<BR>
They could start by radically re-writing the rules about<BR>
"fraternization". As it is, you can only *maybe* get involved with<BR>
someone of the *same* rank, but in a *different* unit. That's *way* too<BR>
restrictive if you want to keep people in. <BR>
<BR>
It's going to (eventually) have to become "anyone not in the same chain<BR>
of command" (ie you can't date someone you might be giving orders to on<BR>
a regular basis). <BR>
<BR>
> However if in the future there is an interstellar<BR>
> navy, and they go out for tours of years, I can<BR>
> certainly imagine that families will be taken along.<BR>
> Yes, they are in greater danger than staying back<BR>
> home, but if you are a gunner on deck 223 and your<BR>
> wife or husband is an engineer on deck 416, I daresay<BR>
> you'll fight damned hard.<BR>
<BR>
Well, we have *one* historical datapoint: The Theban "Sacred Bands".<BR>
The units were composed of homosexual couples. When your "buddy" is<BR>
also your SO, you aren't very likely to break and run in front of him. <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: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 01:01:22 -0800<BR>
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: Re:  Changing Stereotypes<BR>
<BR>
> From: Cynthia Higginbotham <cyhiggin@pipeline.com><BR>
<BR>
> It won't take real space travel, just a really good movie to <BR>
> change public perception.  Face it, spaceships didn't bank in<BR>
> space or go "whoosh" until AFTER "Star Wars". (BTW, in the Star<BR>
<BR>
That's not true.  Watch the opening credits of the original Star Trek tv<BR>
show after the first season.  The Enterprise zips by and makes a<BR>
"whoosh".  Gene Roddenberry explained in The Making of Star Trek that<BR>
they didn't have a whoosh in the first season because in space there<BR>
wouldn't be any sound, but the audiences were expecting that when<BR>
something flew by quickly it would make a sound, so it was jarring not<BR>
to have it, so they put it into the second and third seasons.  <BR>
<BR>
Battlestar Galactica fighters banked and rolled as if they were in<BR>
atmosphere.  Battlestar Galactica is about contemporaneous with Star<BR>
Wars; I'm not sure which came first.  <BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 01:15:10 -0800<BR>
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: training soldiers to kill (was OT Flamebait: realism of war movies)<BR>
<BR>
> From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
> Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
I've removed "OT" from the subject line, because this subject is very<BR>
relevant to anyone involved in campaigns with infantry action.  Striker<BR>
and Mercenary, like most wargames, don't reflect the "something innate<BR>
in man to make him reluctant to kill" to which Kyle and others have<BR>
referred.  <BR>
<BR>
I hope Doug Berry will add some comments about this in his Ground Forces<BR>
book.<BR>
<BR>
This thread has changed both my playing and my refereeing.  Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 09:57:41 +0000<BR>
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>>I also think that introducing some military characters would give<BR>
interesting<BR>
>>topics to write about. Imagine a military educated infantry officer in <BR>
>>heated discussion with Capt. Picard on the bridge over some officers being<BR>
>>held prisoner on the planet below.<BR>
><BR>
>Given that the Enterprise (any version) is/was primarily an exploratory<BR>
>vessel, not a warship, ther compliment of combat-trained soldiers would<BR>
>be negligible. I'm thinking a closer analogy would be the Horatio<BR>
>Hornblower stories. In which the captain (unlike, say, Picard...) wasn't<BR>
>afraid to get his hands dirty.<BR>
<BR>
Why refer to fiction?<BR>
<BR>
Aren't the the voyages of Captain Cook on the Endevour perfect examples<BR>
of the Captain deciding that his mission was exploring on shore, not<BR>
watching from the ship.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Phil Kitching<BR>
- --<BR>
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/<BR>
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.<BR>
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1460<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-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Dec 1999 05:01:44 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v66.4) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Dec 1999 05:01:22 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id EAA33725;<BR>
	Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:59:47 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:59:20 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id EAA33685<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:59:20 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:59:20 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912080959.EAA33685@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 #1460<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
