<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1466</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/8/99 10:23:48 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     Thursday, December 9 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1466<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: electronic warfare<BR>
Captain with the away team<BR>
Re: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
RE: Well guys, there goes our salvage... <BR>
The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
The will to kill<BR>
Re: DC-X<BR>
Re: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
Re: Postman, CCGs, Communications Variability (Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1461)<BR>
SEC: UNCLASSIFIED OT: To hit ratios<BR>
Re: Captain with the away team<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
RE: Hey there<BR>
the stresses of being a grunt (was electronic warfare)<BR>
re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
Ship Skipping thread revisited<BR>
Re: Deadfall Ordnance and Falling Rocks<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:50:22 -0600<BR>
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@flex.net><BR>
Subject: Re: electronic warfare<BR>
<BR>
The thing is not whether or not you can stop him talking, but whether<BR>
or not you can exploit his talking, a much easier task.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I gotta agree with this. You may not be able to stop an opponent from<BR>
talking or hear what is being said, but you can triangulate his position and<BR>
drop ordinance on him till he can't talk. That is a very simple low tech<BR>
approach to hi tech comm systems :)<BR>
<BR>
TV<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:25:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Captain with the away team<BR>
<BR>
Phil Kitching wrote:<BR>
>>Why refer to fiction?<BR>
Aren't the the voyages of Captain Cook on the Endevour<BR>
perfect examples<BR>
of the Captain deciding that his mission was exploring<BR>
on shore, not<BR>
watching from the ship.>><BR>
<BR>
Kyle replied,<BR>
yes, and Cook ended up getting eaten by Polynesians...<BR>
<BR>
Why should a Captain take risks? That's what PCs are<BR>
for:) (evil chuckle)<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 20:28:45 -0700<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
<BR>
>> Postman... I'm familiar with his work. A modern-day Luddite and<BR>
>> technophobe.<BR>
><BR>
>Well, I can't speak for any of his works beyond "Amusing Ourselves to<BR>
>Death", but he does make a very strong case, even through the use of largely<BR>
>anecdotal evidence, that television is something to fear.<BR>
<BR>
I think it's more of it being another example of the principle "90% of<BR>
everything is crap".<BR>
<BR>
>> was, if he can't keep up with the pace of technological change, he<BR>
>>should step aside and get out of the way of those of us who can.<BR>
><BR>
>Well, I haven't read the work you're referring to, but the question is, what<BR>
>if he's right?<BR>
<BR>
I don't think he is. *I* have no problem keeping up with the pace of <BR>
technological change. People younger than me (I was born in 1962) largely<BR>
are even better at it. Heck, kids today *anticipate* the changes -- to <BR>
them, technological change is part of the environment and always has <BR>
been, so they see it as normal and react accordingly.<BR>
<BR>
>> Don't overestimate the collectible trading card game market. Back when<BR>
>> Magic: The Gathering was at its peak, one CCG fan insisted that CCGs would<BR>
>> displace RPGs the way RPGs displaced wargames. Hasn't happened. Won't<BR>
>happen.<BR>
><BR>
>I don't think that it's going to happen, but I'd also have to compare the<BR>
>number of new RPGers vs. the number of new CCGers. Here in the U.S., WotC<BR>
>has a relatively strong television presence, and apparently WotC has been<BR>
>sending people out into the wilds of America to teach kids to play the<BR>
>Pokemon CCG.<BR>
<BR>
If they would have put out a Pokemon RPG (putting aside for the moment<BR>
that Pokemon doesn't lend itself to an RPG), it would also have done<BR>
well. Part of the success of the CCG is due to the fact that *anything*<BR>
associated with Pokemon is making money hand over fist. Part of it is<BR>
that CCGs are easier for the younger set (the ones into Pokemon in the<BR>
first place) than RPGs are. And card collecting seems to go with that<BR>
age group -- at that age, I collected hockey cards. Meanwhile, you don't<BR>
see a lot of adults playing the Pokemon CCG unless they're playing it<BR>
with their kids.<BR>
<BR>
Still, my acquaintances' point was that CCGs would replace/displace RPGs<BR>
entirely, the way RPGs did with tabletop wargames. (Same person who tried<BR>
to recruit me into CAR-PGa, thinking that my library science professional<BR>
background and my skill with the written word would be of benefit to her<BR>
association... she didn't take it well when I told her what I thought of<BR>
her group.) I wonder what she thinks now -- it's been several years since<BR>
we've had contact. (She moved to Seattle to take a job with WotC, of all<BR>
things!)<BR>
<BR>
>Still, I've always suspected that with the dominance of the megacorps would<BR>
>come some degree of standardization.<BR>
><BR>
>> (Speaking of which, since I got my cable modem 3 years ago, I tend<BR>
>>to watch less TV...)<BR>
><BR>
>But what if the internet starts to look a hell of alot like TV?<BR>
<BR>
I don't know about that. There's a lot more nudity on the Internet, for<BR>
starters.<BR>
<BR>
>> With 11,000 worlds in the Imperium, you'll find anything and<BR>
>>everything if you look long enough...<BR>
><BR>
>Nah. I bet you won't find lesbian Aslan pirates in comfortable shoes with<BR>
>artificially sentient computers which they use to launch near-c rocks!<BR>
<BR>
Depends on whether these computers are infested with the Virus...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada <BR>
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn<BR>
        "There is no longer any normal to be"<BR>
                                 -- Gary Numan<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:44:23 EST<BR>
From: GaryBartz@aol.com<BR>
Subject: RE: Well guys, there goes our salvage... <BR>
<BR>
To keep it fair, and a balanced game setting, maybe actual hull value [at the <BR>
time of return to the owner] plus 10%, and 10% of cargo value, at the time of <BR>
return to the shipper?<BR>
That can still be good money, without allowing the characters to become <BR>
merchant fleet princes after saving a few ships.<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/8/99 7:26:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>
owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< iSteve writes:<BR>
 >How do people handle salvage rights?  For that matter, how do<BR>
 >they work in the real world?<BR>
 <BR>
    I am also interested, as full value for lost vessels can<BR>
    make PCs very rich very quickly.<BR>
  >><BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:49:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
<BR>
It has been written by the heretic Keith Jackson:<BR>
> True, but CCGs have seriously displaced where the<BR>
> money of roleplayers is <BR>
> going.  Wargames are still being played and created,<BR>
> but nothing like the <BR>
> scale how like they were before RPGs.  There<BR>
> definitely has been a vast <BR>
> shrinking of the roleplaying gaming "industry". <BR>
> From the estimates I have <BR>
> heard, the industry is one twentieth the size it was<BR>
> ten years <BR>
> ago.  Personally, I am pointing my fingers at CRPGs,<BR>
> and not CCGs.<BR>
<BR>
One twentieth? Somehow that doesn't seem right. I say,<BR>
thank the CCGs, for they have done a service and taken<BR>
the Rule Lawyers from our games. Rule Lawyers never<BR>
roleplayed, they just wanted to know all the rules so<BR>
that they could prevent their set of statistics on the<BR>
character sheet all being reduced to zero. Rules<BR>
Lawyers for this reason were also a source of<BR>
munchkinism. But most of them have gone to CCGs, since<BR>
CCGs are nothing but rules, no imagination required.<BR>
For this reason, I always have a pack of cards, magic,<BR>
or whatever's the cheapest, in case some new player<BR>
turns out to be a Rules Lawyer or munchkin. I hand him<BR>
that (him ain't sexist, never met a female gamer who<BR>
was a rules lawyer or munchkin) and we're all happy.<BR>
<BR>
If RPGs are declining so much, why are there so bloody<BR>
many? The dream of GURPS has been realised, you can<BR>
roleplay anything, even a cowboy hunting undead, for<BR>
god's sake.<BR>
<BR>
There has been a decline, I agree, but not _that_ much.<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 04:56:32 +0100<BR>
From: Jens Rydholm <jenry023@student.liu.se><BR>
Subject: The will to kill<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant wrote:<BR>
> i think there is a guarantee - natural selection. Any<BR>
> species that's eager to kill its own species will<BR>
> never be terribly populous. If they do rise<BR>
> technologically, it'll take longer, since thinking<BR>
> types will tend not to survive!<BR>
<BR>
I agree with you here, but only if we assume that thinking (more so than<BR>
others anyway) individuals are less physically strong. This assumption,<BR>
however, sounds pretty reasonable, at least if training time is taken<BR>
into account.<BR>
<BR>
If, however, we have a race which fights on pure instinct, the situation<BR>
changes. Since they no longer need combat practice, the thinking types<BR>
will have an advantage over the less intelligent ones, even in combat.<BR>
They simply know when to pick a fight and how to stack the odds.<BR>
<BR>
I think this concept would be an interesting one for an alien race. They<BR>
would probably use their own species more or less as slaves ("or I will<BR>
kill you"), and they would have absolutely NO COMPASSION WHATSOEVER.<BR>
Wonderful for an encounter at a starport. They would surely break some<BR>
rules (perhaps by killing someone), but what happens when someone tries<BR>
to imprison them for their crime? More important, who will do the dirty<BR>
work? Surely no local policeman, although there just *might* be some PCs<BR>
handy...<BR>
<BR>
> Whether they feel the same about other races is of<BR>
> course another question, but my point is, how would<BR>
> they ever make it off planet?<BR>
<BR>
Easy. They felt a driving need to wipe out the horrible meat-eaters in<BR>
the sky. Therefore, no matter how much they hated it, they stuffed<BR>
themselves into cramped ships and took off.<BR>
<BR>
MOOOOOH!<BR>
<BR>
/Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:03:16 -0800<BR>
From: "Bruce Macintosh" <bruce.macintosh@worldnet.att.net><BR>
Subject: Re: DC-X<BR>
<BR>
>It's been suggested X-33 won the NASA competition because LockMart was<BR>
>providing more of their own resources toward the project, and because<BR>
>NASA liked some of its "sexy" technology (aerospike engines and so on).<BR>
>The fact that DC-X was originally a BMDO project rather than a NASA<BR>
>project might not have helped it either.<BR>
<BR>
>X-33 was supposed to enter flight testing in March 1999, but that's been<BR>
>pushed back to next summer.<BR>
<BR>
Possibly further back; the giant weird-shaped composite fuel tank that's<BR>
a key component of X-33 failed catastrophically in tests recently.<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand, it's more than likely that a DC-X based X-33 would<BR>
have had its own problems (noteably with weight growth and the engines,<BR>
and also with Boeing's lack of interest in reusables.<BR>
(Note that whichever company/design one, it would have been called X-33.)<BR>
<BR>
Bruce<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:12:48 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Mass communication, the nobility and epistemology (LONG)<BR>
<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> >Well, I can't speak for any of his works beyond "Amusing Ourselves to<BR>
> >Death", but he does make a very strong case, even through the use of<BR>
largely<BR>
> >anecdotal evidence, that television is something to fear.<BR>
><BR>
> I think it's more of it being another example of the principle "90% of<BR>
> everything is crap".<BR>
<BR>
Fair enough. In the beginning of his second chapter Postman points out that<BR>
crap is what television is good at. On his line the junk on television is<BR>
not the problem, the problem is that television doesn't stick to junk.<BR>
<BR>
I think that he'd agree with you that 90% of everything is crap. Even though<BR>
he is clearly in favor of the printed word, he also points out that more<BR>
crap has been printed than televised. That's not the point.<BR>
<BR>
> I don't think he is. *I* have no problem keeping up with the pace of<BR>
> technological change. People younger than me (I was born in 1962)<BR>
>largely are even better at it. Heck, kids today *anticipate* the<BR>
>changes -- to them, technological change is part of the environment<BR>
>and always has been, so they see it as normal and react<BR>
>accordingly.<BR>
<BR>
Like I said, I haven't read the work that you've written, I can only imagine<BR>
what his argument would be like from what I have read. I would suspect his<BR>
question is whether or not these people *are* reacting accordingly, and if<BR>
their reactions are beneficial to society as a whole.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, he may have had a lobotomy between 1984 and now...<BR>
<BR>
> If they would have put out a Pokemon RPG (putting aside for the<BR>
>moment that Pokemon doesn't lend itself to an RPG), it would also<BR>
>have done well.<BR>
<BR>
It depends on what locations would have picked it up. WotC's card<BR>
distribution, at least in America, is *much* wider than the distribution of,<BR>
say, TSR's product line. You'd be hard pressed to find a comic book shop<BR>
that didn't stock CCGs, and trading cards are a huge business in the United<BR>
States right now. Accordingly, there are many card-only shops. The major toy<BR>
chains also have sections for trading cards of all sorts.<BR>
<BR>
>Part of the success of the CCG is due to the fact that<BR>
>*anything* associated with Pokemon is making money hand over<BR>
>fist.<BR>
<BR>
Of course. This was one fad which I didn't expect to take off as quickly as<BR>
it did.<BR>
<BR>
>Part of it is that CCGs are easier for the younger set (the ones<BR>
>into Pokemon in the first place) than RPGs are.<BR>
<BR>
That goes without saying. The only problem with that line of reasoning is<BR>
that ages for Pokemon fandom are literally all over the map. It seems like<BR>
the franchise is popular for kids from 5 or 6 to about 16, which is a really<BR>
strange demographic. That's really fascinating because it straddles three<BR>
toy age groups.<BR>
<BR>
>And card collecting seems to go with<BR>
>that age group -- at that age, I collected hockey cards.<BR>
<BR>
Yeah, but you're Canadian! I would expect you to have come out of the womb<BR>
with a hockey stick! ;)<BR>
<BR>
Incidentally, sports card collecting among kids in the use has been<BR>
declining at an astonishing rate. The prices for card packs have been going<BR>
up sharply since the early 90s. Card companies are trying all kinds of<BR>
things to lure kids back into the fold with little success.<BR>
<BR>
>Meanwhile, you don't see a lot of adults playing the Pokemon CCG<BR>
>unless they're playing it with their kids.<BR>
<BR>
True.<BR>
<BR>
> Still, my acquaintances' point was that CCGs would replace /<BR>
>displace RPGs entirely, the way RPGs did with tabletop wargames.<BR>
>(Same person who tried to recruit me into CAR-PGa, thinking that<BR>
>my library science professional background and my skill with the<BR>
>written word would be of benefit to her association... she didn't take<BR>
>it well when I told her what I thought of her group.) I wonder what she<BR>
>thinks now -- it's been several years since we've had contact. (She<BR>
>moved to Seattle to take a job with WotC, of all things!)<BR>
<BR>
Magic is still going strong, so I think her job's safe, at the very least.<BR>
They must be doing pretty well to be able to afford afterschool advertising<BR>
time on MTV!<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:30:59 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Postman, CCGs, Communications Variability (Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1461)<BR>
<BR>
From: Keith Johnson <keithalanjohnson@home.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> True, but CCGs have seriously displaced where the money of<BR>
>roleplayers is  going.<BR>
<BR>
I would disagree with that. It's frequently claimed that CCGs are pulling<BR>
money away from RPGs, but it's significant to note that the sales of RPGs<BR>
were in decline even before CCGs came on the scene.<BR>
<BR>
>Wargames are still being played and created, but nothing like the<BR>
> scale how like they were before RPGs.  There definitely has been a<BR>
>vast  shrinking of the roleplaying gaming "industry".  From the >estimates<BR>
I have  heard, the industry is one twentieth the size it was<BR>
>ten years  ago.  Personally, I am pointing my fingers at CRPGs, and >not<BR>
CCGs.<BR>
<BR>
The industry may be smaller, but I'm not sure that the market is smaller.<BR>
TSR and White Wolf have both expanded their product lines in a big way in<BR>
the last few years. I think the cold, hard truth is that TSR (after the<BR>
purchase by WotC) and White Wolf have both been doing something right.<BR>
<BR>
I don't think that it's CRPGs which are pulling from the market. I think<BR>
that it's just computer games in general. Computer games are capable of<BR>
offering many of the same sorts of things that RPGs do. The old-fashioned GM<BR>
has been replaced by the level designer. Computer games are hassle free.<BR>
Your average kid can come home from school, get on the net and play Quake<BR>
III or Unreal Tournament for a few hours, while RPGs require much more<BR>
structure, and much more hassle.<BR>
<BR>
I'd wager money that most of the people on this list, even though they<BR>
consider themselves roleplayers, aren't currently involved in a campaign.<BR>
That's not an attack on anybody, that's merely the reality of the situation.<BR>
<BR>
> Of course, that doesn't stop me from playing Alpha Centauri.  So it<BR>
>goes.<BR>
<BR>
Fine, but remember: You have the blood of the roleplaying industry on your<BR>
hands! ;)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:02:19 +1100 <BR>
From: "Hughes, Michael" <Michael.Hughes@cbr.defence.gov.au><BR>
Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED OT: To hit ratios<BR>
<BR>
Yes, the training was off for WWII and Korea. Yes,<BR>
it's been improved now. What's happened is that armies<BR>
have faced the fact that it's difficult to persuade<BR>
men to kill, and have learned to train them to do it.<BR>
I'd agree that modern-day Rangers do have almost 100%<BR>
firers. But other armies, not so many will fire,<BR>
because of their different training. This is why 100<BR>
rangers were able to hold off 1000 Somalis in 1994:<BR>
less than 100 of those Somalis were actually aiming at<BR>
the Americans.<BR>
<BR>
There is something innate in man to make him fight,<BR>
but there is also something innate in man to make him<BR>
reluctant to kill.<BR>
<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
<BR>
I was watching a current affairs prog late night on tellie a few months agao<BR>
and the guests were an academic who had written a book on men in combat, the<BR>
other a COL from the US army, ex special forces. <BR>
<BR>
In regards to percentage hit ratios the COL remarked (to the effect of); "An<BR>
excellent in combat hit ratio is 40% for police or infantry. In a recent<BR>
school yard shooting spree, the two kids were getting rates of 80-90%"<BR>
<please don't flame on the numbers, it was some time ago>.<BR>
<BR>
When asked of why these children had 'scored' so highly, the COL put it down<BR>
to the ever increasing realism of combat simulators in arcades which had<BR>
given these children the ability to shoot at real people as they were so<BR>
much more like the targets in the game (as opposed to silhouettes). <BR>
<BR>
Pretty funky huh. <BR>
<BR>
There's a new arcade game out called sniper - a typical gun arcade box but<BR>
the weapon is a scoped rifle (you play a SWAT dude). Woah man there's some<BR>
issues with one of those suckers. <BR>
<BR>
Ob Traveller: In a high tech universe, said simulators would be hard to<BR>
distinguish from reality they'd be that good. Hit rates would probably be<BR>
very high indeed. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Michael <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:10:18 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Captain with the away team<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:25 AM<BR>
Subject: Captain with the away team<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Phil Kitching wrote:<BR>
> >>Why refer to fiction?<BR>
> Aren't the the voyages of Captain Cook on the Endevour<BR>
> perfect examples<BR>
> of the Captain deciding that his mission was exploring<BR>
> on shore, not<BR>
> watching from the ship.>><BR>
><BR>
> Kyle replied,<BR>
> yes, and Cook ended up getting eaten by Polynesians...<BR>
><BR>
> Why should a Captain take risks? That's what PCs are<BR>
> for:) (evil chuckle)<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
What about PC's on an IISS mission to "Explore this system, lads."  Does the<BR>
PC in charge of the mission remain on board while the others go down and<BR>
deal with all the dangerous encounters?  Doesn't make for an exciting night<BR>
for the leader's player I'd think if the session went for several hours and<BR>
the leader just sat there reading a Dragon mag or a comic?  For the same<BR>
reason, I think the away team in the ST universe contains senior officers,<BR>
similar rules?  But that's just me, it's not for realism as much as "fun?"<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:42:52 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
- --- Eric Henry <ehenry@newberlin.org> wrote:<BR>
> Oh okay.  I'll simply re-live the moment when i<BR>
> popped out from a window and<BR>
> walked a beautiful three round semi-automatic burst<BR>
> right up somebody's<BR>
> torso with the final round bursting like a<BR>
> cannonball splash right on their<BR>
> goggles.<BR>
<BR>
How can you have a semi-automatic "burst"? This I<BR>
think somebody else said is teh perils of paintball<BR>
and the like: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 20:46:03 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: Hey there<BR>
<BR>
And God help us all if it is ;)<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
There are LOTS of Vickers floating around. The more genealogy research I do,<BR>
the more amazed I am at how many we are. Maybe its a plot ;)<BR>
<BR>
Thomas Vickers<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:41:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: the stresses of being a grunt (was electronic warfare)<BR>
<BR>
- --- Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:<BR>
> On 8 Dec 99, at 14:07, Douglas E. Berry wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> > Oh, Rupert?  The prick-77 weighs about 20lbs at<BR>
> the *beginning* of the<BR>
> > movement.  After the first few miles, it starts to<BR>
> weigh on the order of<BR>
> > several tons.  As does the M-16, your helmet, your<BR>
> beard stubble...<BR>
<BR>
> Rupert riposted:<BR>
> I've noticed. Ever try an 81mm mortar barrel? We had<BR>
> to lug one up a <BR>
> hill after the mortar boys crapped out at the<BR>
> bottom.<BR>
<BR>
Kyle replied, well, you boys just haven't had enough<BR>
incentive in the form of a mad PTI sergeant screaming<BR>
obscenities at you from behindm or, occaisionally,<BR>
firing his rifle at you, which has one in five rounds<BR>
live (remember Totem Hill, Rupert? hehehe)<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav: will the soldiers of the future be physical<BR>
wimps because all their stuff has been miniturised?<BR>
My personal feeling is that as stuff gets shrunk or<BR>
disposed of, the Army just finds more crap for you to<BR>
lug about, amazing the useless bits of kit they foist<BR>
upon us (mosquito nets while we're on a snowy<BR>
mountain, sleeping bags in deserts, etc)<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 23:36:04 -0600<BR>
From: Dan Roseberry <rosebee@troi.csw.net><BR>
Subject: re: Well guys, there goes our salvage...<BR>
<BR>
>From: isteve@outhere.f9.co.uk<BR>
<BR>
>How do people handle salvage rights?  For that<BR>
>matter, *how do they work in the real world?*<BR>
<BR>
Got ideas on that Mars probe, eh?<BR>
<BR>
Here's a question thats confused me:  How would the 3I<BR>
characterize the difference between 'salvage rights' and<BR>
'prizes'? Do the terms overlap, or are they meant to<BR>
distiguish between craft recovered by civilians vs. craft<BR>
recovered by the military?<BR>
<BR>
Dan Roseberry(plop101) Plop-Amelii ship builders<BR>
"Never, ever, gut shoot a Tree Kraken. Ughh."<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:32:54 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Ship Skipping thread revisited<BR>
<BR>
For an interesting discussion of just how many ships<BR>
are needed for instellar trade.<BR>
<BR>
No-one seems to have agreed on even the order of<BR>
magnitude of citizens of the Imperium, but S. John<BR>
Ross in the article reckons a settled world with a<BR>
healthy economy will have a shipping traffic of two<BR>
tons (one export, one import, talking short tons, not<BR>
displacemt tons here) per person per year. <BR>
<BR>
Now I'm figuring a few things here:<BR>
1) At least half the galctic paopulation lives on<BR>
"settled worlds with a healthy economy" (since mining<BR>
worlds, barren worlds and the like will have far elss<BR>
people)<BR>
2) There's at least 1 dton of ship for every 14 tons<BR>
(ie short tons) of cargo (that is, half the ship's<BR>
bulk is cargo<BR>
3) Less than 1% of such cargo is carried by PC-style<BR>
"free traders."<BR>
<BR>
This gives us a formula for calcuating the tonnage of<BR>
PC-style ships in the Imperium:<BR>
Td = P/28/12 x 0.01 = p x 0.0233<BR>
   Td = Tonnage (dtons)<BR>
   P= Population<BR>
   /28 because of displ. tons to short tons<BR>
conversion, times 2 for import/export<BR>
   /12 because ships make on average one round trip a<BR>
month<BR>
   x 0.01 because only 1% of traffic is free trader<BR>
traffic<BR>
<BR>
Even if you population is on the down estimate side,<BR>
(say, 650 billion: a hundred million per each of half<BR>
the 11,000 worlds, forgetting Alsan, Hivers etc) you<BR>
get pretty huge numbers of free traders running around<BR>
out there; divide this dtonnage number by, say, 500,<BR>
to get the number of ships. (You get from this 1300<BR>
million)<BR>
<BR>
_This_ is why I say, mortgages don't work so well in<BR>
traveller. Too easy to just fly a long way away. Think<BR>
of debts on cars - so long as you don't mind leaving<BR>
the country forever, it's easy to skip out. Most<BR>
people, of course, don't want to leave their home<BR>
forever. But then, most people aren't Travellers <grin><BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:03:03 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Deadfall Ordnance and Falling Rocks<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<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>
><BR>
>>Jason wrote:<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>
> Note that for that to do you any good, you need to know the velocity the<BR>
> rock arrives with.<BR>
><BR>
> To first order, it arrives with roughly orbital velocity: 10 km/s. Punching<BR>
> through<BR>
> the atmosphere might cost ~1 km/s for a "non-streamlined" rock. The launching<BR>
> ship could easily add 18 km/s by using its drive (5 minutes at 6 G) to adjust<BR>
> trajectory before launch.<BR>
<BR>
Both the velocity loss due to atmosphere *and* the ship adding velocity<BR>
only apply if the rock weighs a *lot* less than the ship!<BR>
<BR>
> Then, to compare to nuclear weapons, recall that 1 kg of TNT is about<BR>
> 4x10^6 joules of energy. (note: I may be misremembering the exact number<BR>
> and hope that someone will correct me if I am.)<BR>
<BR>
1 megaton = 4.2e15 joules (exact, as it's a *defined* value)<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>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1466<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-zc02.mx.aol.com (rly-zc02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.2]) by air-zc01.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Dec 1999 01:23:48 1900<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (v66.4) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Dec 1999 01:23:29 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id BAA84226;<BR>
	Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:22:47 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:22:15 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id BAA84168<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:22:15 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:22:15 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912090622.BAA84168@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 #1466<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
