<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1506</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/16/99 4:38:47 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    Thursday, December 16 1999    Volume 1999 : Number 1506<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: That reminds me ... (was Re: Gossip and porno ...)<BR>
Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Re: Re Laws affecting Space Travel from the US [OT]<BR>
Re: That reminds me ... (was Re: Gossip and porno ...)<BR>
Re: technology advances<BR>
Re: AHA! (Inspiration strikes!) (Was: Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire)<BR>
Re: Re Laws affecting Space Travel from the US [OT]<BR>
Re: Dino Killers Revisited<BR>
Re: (Way OT and possible Flamebait)<BR>
Hack, coff, die...<BR>
Re: US Constitution [OT]<BR>
Re: US Constitution [OT]<BR>
Mars exploration<BR>
Re: (Way OT and possible Flamebait)<BR>
Re: The Royal Australian Space Navy<BR>
Re: Silly Traveller<BR>
Re: laws, shmaws! space belongs to the People!<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:01:52 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: That reminds me ... (was Re: Gossip and porno ...)<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Joseph R. Dietrich <yikes@evansville.net><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 1:51 AM<BR>
Subject: That reminds me ... (was Re: Gossip and porno ...)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> This topic reminds me of my first Traveller game. One of my players -- a<BR>
> merchant -- made his fortune by speculative trade in pornography and other<BR>
> sexual "aids" with belters, miners, and other isolated groups of men and<BR>
> women with few options for local entertainment.<BR>
<BR>
Hey!  My old group did this too!  Did we have a laugh when the Ship's<BR>
Captain PC bought the goods without the rest of the party's knowledge, but<BR>
it was inadvertantly laid upon one of the other players (the party 2IC) to<BR>
describe the products to a potential NPC buyer (the Ship's Captain player<BR>
was called away at that moment for over an hour)... unfortunately, said<BR>
player was one of the shyest (in r/l) people you could ever meet!  He<BR>
handled it well though and we wondered how he knew so much about such<BR>
stuff...??<BR>
<BR>
     <snip><BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> This was before I discovered Traveller was supposed to have a "PG-13"<BR>
> rating or less from the Motion Picture Association of America. ;-)<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Well, it can have any rating, but all RPG's I have ever been involved in<BR>
have "censor rating" adjusted by the players involved.  I've mastered and/or<BR>
played in various games, teen games where adult situations were mellowed<BR>
(thought there was one imaginative 14 yo lad that was quite descriptive of<BR>
interactions betwixt he and his in-game love interest!) for image purposes -<BR>
like the GM didn't want to be seen as being to heavy in content with minors<BR>
in case their parents didn't like it (which I suppose is every GM's call<BR>
and/or responsibility?), to very adult games where, in one, a female<BR>
player's PC was a "love slave" to the entire crew - and she was quite<BR>
descriptive - and another campaign where that particular woman, another<BR>
woman, and one of the male players were (in their terms), "Whores in Space!"<BR>
<BR>
Well, the last two were extremes and not the norm I suppose, but it points<BR>
out the fact that it's pointless to "Rate" an RPG in such ways (although it<BR>
may be required), as the nature of the beast (RPG's) is it's adaptability.<BR>
In fact, I wasn't even aware that CT was PG13 myself, and I've always run<BR>
games with an adult bent...<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:29:58 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> I vote for axes.<BR>
> They migh not break down doors, but beware the Zho swine who gets in my way.<BR>
> Even better, How about Chainsaws?<BR>
<BR>
In zero g, a chainsaw is too dangerous to anybody around the weilder.<BR>
Who will be spinning wildly due to the action/reaction laws. :-)<BR>
<BR>
Axes are *only* useful for chopping, and if you get close to an<BR>
axe-weilder, he can't hit you with it.<BR>
<BR>
A sword, especially a cutlass, can be used both to stab *and* to slice<BR>
(draw cut). Both make closing with the weilder inadvisable. <BR>
<BR>
And while they won't be much use against armored personnel, against<BR>
folks in regular vacuum suits a cutlass is a real terror weapon. <BR>
<BR>
A stab wound can be patched, though peraps with some difficulty. What<BR>
do you do with someone who has taken a *slash* across the front of his<BR>
suit, resulting in a 1-2 foot *gash* spewing air?<BR>
<BR>
Also, if blows glance off controls panels, a sword is more likely to<BR>
leave them intact. An axe tends to ruin the panel. <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, 16 Dec 1999 02:41:14 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Re Laws affecting Space Travel from the US [OT]<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>>I know of no law - In the US at least - that restricts any private<BR>
>>individual<BR>
>>(or corporation for that matter) from engaging in space launch.<BR>
>>The reasons "private enterprise" hasn't gotten into the space game<BR>
>>on a free lance basis is that nobody can figure out how to do it<BR>
>>less expensively than the "ineficient government bueraucracy."<BR>
><BR>
> Actually, there are restrictions in place: Government agencies may ignore<BR>
> the FARs, but private corporations may not; if it flys in the US, is not<BR>
> owned by a federal government agency, and carries people, it falls under<BR>
> the FAA. Anything with an enclosed cockpit needs a type certificate from<BR>
> the FAA.<BR>
<BR>
Only for *production* models. Why do you think so many "kit planes" and<BR>
homebuilts are registered as "experimental"? The rules are a *lot* looser.<BR>
<BR>
> The FAA doesn't issue type certs for rockets, at least according<BR>
> to the last set of FAR's I have seen ('92). Once it breaks 28 (IIRC) miles,<BR>
> it isn't subject to the FAA anymore, but getting to 28 miles without<BR>
> violating some FAR is going to be amusing...<BR>
<BR>
And according to the laws Congress passed (enabling legislation)<BR>
because of the Space Treaty, the *commerce* department makes the rules<BR>
for spacecraft, not the FAA. <BR>
<BR>
The biggest difference between the "Space Treaty" and the various<BR>
international agreements about aviation is one thing. But it makes a<BR>
*huge* difference. It was almost certainly included (by the USSR) with<BR>
the express intent of making *private* space ventures as hard as<BR>
possible.<BR>
<BR>
Under the aviation treaties, while the governments do things like<BR>
license and certify operators and vehicles, the liability for anything<BR>
that goes wrong rests with the people who did it.<BR>
<BR>
Under the space treaty, the liability rests with the *goverment* of the<BR>
people who did it. <BR>
<BR>
That makes the "proper" laws a bureaucrats dream, and an entrepreneur's<BR>
nightmare. Because it give the government an *unassailable* reason for<BR>
holding veto power over everything you do. <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, 16 Dec 1999 06:20:28 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: Re: That reminds me ... (was Re: Gossip and porno ...)<BR>
<BR>
On 12/15/1999 22:01, The Roc wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> Well, it can have any rating, but all RPG's I have ever been involved in<BR>
> have "censor rating" adjusted by the players involved.  I've mastered and/or<BR>
> played in various games, teen games where adult situations were mellowed<BR>
> (thought there was one imaginative 14 yo lad that was quite descriptive of<BR>
> interactions betwixt he and his in-game love interest!) for image purposes -<BR>
> like the GM didn't want to be seen as being to heavy in content with minors<BR>
> in case their parents didn't like it (which I suppose is every GM's call<BR>
> and/or responsibility?), to very adult games where, in one, a female<BR>
> player's PC was a "love slave" to the entire crew - and she was quite<BR>
> descriptive - and another campaign where that particular woman, another<BR>
> woman, and one of the male players were (in their terms), "Whores in Space!"<BR>
Er...shouldn't that be "Star Whores"?????<BR>
> <BR>
> Well, the last two were extremes and not the norm I suppose, but it points<BR>
> out the fact that it's pointless to "Rate" an RPG in such ways (although it<BR>
> may be required), as the nature of the beast (RPG's) is it's adaptability.<BR>
> In fact, I wasn't even aware that CT was PG13 myself, and I've always run<BR>
> games with an adult bent...<BR>
<BR>
Now THAT brings back memories for ME! Back in 1989 I ran a Star Trek (FASA)<BR>
RPG game at a con where three Starship captains -- one Fed, one Klingon and<BR>
one Romulan -- were stolen from their ships by a mysteriously powerful being<BR>
and sent them on a quest to find the most mystical object for their race and<BR>
to bring them back to the being.<BR>
<BR>
For the Fed (human): The Holy Grail<BR>
For the Klingon:     The Sword of Kahless<BR>
For the Romulan:     The Cloak of Greatness (wearer could turn invisible<BR>
                     at will)<BR>
<BR>
Early in the quest, the three captains encountered a small village where<BR>
they were captured by the locals and taken before their leader, the<BR>
"Mistress of Tabu" (sic).  Ah...you can see where this is going can't you?<BR>
She answered their most pressing questions, but then demanded payment. Since<BR>
they didn't have money, she pointed to the Romulan and said "You! Romulan!<BR>
In here...NOW"!<BR>
<BR>
Never thought I'd see a player's face turn GREEN! :) :)<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Josh<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:15:48 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: technology advances<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Is there a "small business set aside" in reality? If<BR>
> not, petition your congressmen!<BR>
<BR>
Yes, I'm pretty sure there is. The trick is that many contracts avoid<BR>
it by being set up such that there's no place *for* a small business to<BR>
do anything.<BR>
<BR>
It's rather like the way they avoid "competetive bidding" by writing to<BR>
specs for the item to be purchased in such a way that only the desired<BR>
vendor *can* meet them.<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, 16 Dec 1999 03:21:38 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: AHA! (Inspiration strikes!) (Was: Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire)<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> wrote:<BR>
> Jason T. Barnabas <cybernaut@netzero.net> wrote:<BR>
>> > Not necessarily.  Space, after all, is not flat.  If the ship<BR>
>> > failed to make the turnover, then perhaps it got<BR>
>> > redirected by one or more of the dips (gravity wells) in<BR>
>> > the road.<BR>
>><BR>
>> At anything remotely *approaching* c it'd take a *dangerously* close<BR>
>> pass to a black hole to chjange course significantly.<BR>
><BR>
> How many times have I been told that it is impossible to<BR>
> develope speeds anywhere near the speed of light?<BR>
<BR>
We do it everday in the big particle accelerators.<BR>
<BR>
It's *possible*. It's just not *practical* for an object with a mass<BR>
worth mentioning. <BR>
<BR>
>> > Coincidence is the stuff that legends are made of.<BR>
>> > Maybe it even made a great circle and the ship made the<BR>
>> > turn-over it missed the first time around!<BR>
>><BR>
>> The universe doesn't *have* a great circle as a possibility unless it<BR>
>> is *closed*. Currently that looks kinda unlikely.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
> I didn't mean a great circle like you find on a spherical<BR>
> body I just ment a very large one.<BR>
<BR>
Ok. In the future, keep in mind that "great circle" *does* refer to a<BR>
closed geodesic on a surface, space, hyperspace, etc. <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, 16 Dec 1999 02:50:10 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Re Laws affecting Space Travel from the US [OT]<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>> >I know of no law - In the US at least - that restricts any private<BR>
>> >individual (or corporation for that matter) from engaging in space<BR>
> launch.<BR>
> <snip><BR>
>> Actually, there are restrictions in place:<BR>
><BR>
> And once there,  you fall under UN rules preventing anyone but a soverign<BR>
> nation that is a member of the UN from exploiting any resources.<BR>
><BR>
> Does anyone else remember the controversy in the US when your government<BR>
> signed that ?<BR>
<BR>
I remember the controversy. I also seem to remember that it was loud<BR>
enough that we *didn't* sign *that* treaty. <BR>
<BR>
> There's a great little story from (I think) Jerry Pournelle about the first<BR>
> commercial exploitation of space being carried out by a group with lots of<BR>
> money and power that didn't care about breaking the law :.<BR>
><BR>
> The Mob.<BR>
<BR>
Heck, dig up a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's short "I Remember Babylon".<BR>
It has a deal that'd go over *great* these days. In essence, a DBS<BR>
setup (direct broadcast satellite) that, being outside US territory can<BR>
ignore US censorship laws. And Saudi laws, and Iranian laws, and...<BR>
<BR>
They don't charge for it (after all, scrambling the signal defeats the<BR>
purpose). They make their money off of advertising. <BR>
<BR>
AAnd also, they didn't really *care* about making money, since in this<BR>
case it was a plot by the KGB to corrupt the US. As they pointed out in<BR>
the story, can you just *picture* the US trying to argue *in favor* of<BR>
censoring "international broadcasts because the country they are aimed<BR>
at doesn't approve of the content? Not while Voice of America and Radio<BR>
Free Europe still exist! We'd get laughesd out of whichever forum we<BR>
tried the argument in!<BR>
<BR>
And jamming a signal from space isn't terribly practical. <BR>
<BR>
There was a similar story in Analog 10 or 15 years back about "Radio<BR>
Free Luna". There were moonbases belonging to various governments, and<BR>
some enterprising souls managed to buy, trade for, or salvage enough<BR>
gear to build their own habitat. At first they survived by doing "odd<BR>
jobs" for the other bases. They they hit on the idea of doing radio<BR>
broadcasts to Earth. Stuff like news *without* the spin various<BR>
governments give, uncensored records, stuff like that. <BR>
<BR>
They survived by being scrupulously *neutral, and not *quite* being<BR>
annoying enough for the folks on earth to go after them (or the bank<BR>
accounts they use to buy supplies with advertising money). The other<BR>
folks on the moon *officially* have little to do with them.<BR>
<BR>
Unofficially, nobody on the moon can be bother about that sort of<BR>
thing. Kepping things running ok is more important than following the<BR>
rules earth sent up about who you can get parts from or who you can<BR>
allow to supply labor on jobs. <BR>
<BR>
I don't recall if the story mentions it, but a setup like that on the<BR>
moon would have some marked advantages. The antenna is best laid out as<BR>
a set of radials, not a tall tower. So that saves on materials *and* is<BR>
easier to build. <BR>
<BR>
The high power stages of the transmitter will (of course) use tubes,<BR>
since semiconductors just don't handle those power levels. Being in a<BR>
fairly decent vacuum, you can just step out side in a suit to build the<BR>
power tubes. Build a shack around them, seal it, and pump it out to<BR>
required quality of vacuum. It can be pretty flimsy since the<BR>
difference between the .001 atm "dirty vacuum" around a base and the<BR>
.000001 atm "high quality vacuum" the tubes want isn't going to exert<BR>
measurable force on the walls. :-)<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, 16 Dec 1999 06:38:46 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Dino Killers Revisited<BR>
<BR>
On 12/16/1999 02:09, William F. Hostman wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> <serious Query, not flamebait><BR>
> Having just rewatched TLC's Asteroid Impact, the following occured to me...<BR>
> <BR>
> Options for a dino-killer type imminent impact:<BR>
> Shatter<BR>
> Divert<BR>
> <BR>
> Shattering keeps getting trounced here based upon 100 impacts of 100m is no<BR>
> better than 1 impact of 1500m of rock.<BR>
> <BR>
> Diverting is energy intensive.<BR>
> <BR>
> Would not shattering, especially at times from impact on the order of 5-10<BR>
> weeks, if done with sufficient force, scatter most off a direct impact? And<BR>
> if sufficient force is used, would one not be able, especially with<BR>
> TTL10-12 capabilites, to deliver sufficient force repeatedly enough to<BR>
> reduce the impacts below the atmosphereic deep penetration thresholds?<BR>
> <BR>
> So, is not shattering in essence ALSO diversion AND reduction below threat<BR>
> size?<BR>
<BR>
Only one small problem with that. It's called the Outer Space Treaty. It and<BR>
the LTBT (and probably the CTBT) would have to be modified to specifically<BR>
allow the deployment of nukes in cislunar space for asteroid defensive<BR>
purposes.<BR>
<BR>
Does anyone remember METEOR?<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Josh<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:42:36 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: Re: (Way OT and possible Flamebait)<BR>
<BR>
On 12/16/1999 03:12, Steven Hudson wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>> From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" <jimpeta@primus.com.au><BR>
>> Subject: Re: (Way OT and possible Flamebait)<BR>
> ....<BR>
>> World War One was a true obscenity, at the Somme the British lost 60,000<BR>
>> men in the first day and the final butchers bill was 620,000 dead Allies and<BR>
>> 450,000 dead Germans. This doesn't take into account the gassed, maimed or<BR>
>> insane. Those six months really proved that mankind is a disgusting<BR>
> <BR>
> AFAIK, those are the casualty figures; dead would be about a third of that.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
What about WWII? Total lives lost...combatants and non-combatants...was<BR>
what, 50 MILLION?!<BR>
- -- <BR>
Josh<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:03:49 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Hack, coff, die...<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
><BR>
> > Hi Folks<BR>
> >  I am working up a new campaign scenario and I would like some opinions.<BR>
> > At TL13/14 could you brew up a chemical toxin that would trigger only if<BR>
> > an individual had an elevated level of some trace mineral in their body.<BR>
> > A example would be a group using lead in their water supply<BR>
> > infrastructure or another group exposed to some industrial byproduct<BR>
> > unique to a particular type of industry.<BR>
><BR>
> We'd need our resident MD to confirm it, but I'm fairly sure that we<BR>
> can do that *now*.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Or use the old GM's story/plot telling element and say that in YTU, it most<BR>
certainly is possible and go ahead... it really doesn't have to be justified<BR>
scientifically.  Some wonderful spy and fantasy stories/books/movies have<BR>
this kind of thing :^)<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:35:08 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: US Constitution [OT]<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> On 15 Dec 99, at 15:31, Moody, Danny M. wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> Absolutely untrue!  The Supreme Court itself, many, many times have stated<BR>
>> that denying cert means nothing at all - except that they didn't want to<BR>
>> deal with the issue.<BR>
><BR>
> Maybe so, but by not hearing cases dealing with a particular issue, the <BR>
> Supreme Court is allowing whatever it is that is being appealed against <BR>
> to continue.<BR>
<BR>
Well, you have to keep in mind that they *can't* hear everything that<BR>
gets appealed to them. It's simply not possible.<BR>
<BR>
> In the case of gun control by refusing to hear 2nd amendment cases the <BR>
> Supreme Court is allowing state and federal gun control laws to exist <BR>
> and be enforced regardless of thier constitutional legality. <BR>
><BR>
> It strikes me that this is a weakness in the US system - if the Supreme <BR>
> Court won't hear cases the constitution can be ignored.<BR>
<BR>
Well, it's possible for Congress to write laws with a clause that says<BR>
that if there's a challenge to the law, it gets "fast tracked" to the<BR>
Supreme Court. They did that with the ill-fated Communications Decency<BR>
Act a few years back. And the SC basicly told them that they weren't<BR>
*allowed* to regulate speech that way. So Congress hasn't put that<BR>
clause in the recent attempt to replace the CDA (which has the exact<BR>
same flaws the SC threw out the first one over!). Which means it'll<BR>
take years of court battles before *it* fets thrown out. <BR>
<BR>
And then there's the case where appeals of different cases involving<BR>
the same law lead to different rulings in two different Federal<BR>
Circuits (or is it Districts?). Anyway, then the SC has to get<BR>
involved. <BR>
<BR>
Another factor is that if you *win* your case in a lower court, you<BR>
can't appeal. And the State and Federal prosecutors aren't about to<BR>
appeal cases that might get laws they want to keep thrown out. <BR>
<BR>
So just about every time someone can afford the time and legal talent<BR>
to challenge many of the gun laws, they win in a lower court, and the<BR>
government declines to appeal. Usually, this happens at a low enough<BR>
level that it doesn't affect the standing of the law outside some very<BR>
limited geographical area.<BR>
<BR>
Here's an example of the kind of nonsense that's gone on. The BATF<BR>
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) has to process applications<BR>
for the "tax stamp" that is needed to own certain types of weapons. <BR>
<BR>
At one time, they got the cute idea of stopping all transfers and<BR>
purchases of such weapons by declining to accept the forms (or maybe it<BR>
was by declining to *print* any). <BR>
<BR>
This got challenged in court, and made it up pretty far before the<BR>
court ruled that if they weren't going to allow people to apply for the<BR>
stamps, then they couldn't then turn around and prosecute people for<BR>
not having the stamps!<BR>
<BR>
As I understand it, the feds declined to appeal that to the Supreme<BR>
Court (good thing for them, since the SC would have been able to hand<BR>
them their heads on a platter *without* having to rule on whether or<BR>
not requiring the stamps is a violation of the 2nd amendment). <BR>
<BR>
The BATF just started processing the paperwork again, rather than risk<BR>
what could happen if someone *else* appealed.<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, 16 Dec 1999 03:27:39 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: US Constitution [OT]<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Leonard wrote:<BR>
>> Since then the court has *refused* to hear any<BR>
>> appeals involving the<BR>
>> second amendment. <BR>
>> Though it seems a *strong*<BR>
>> possibility that the court<BR>
>> wants no part of this mess.<BR>
> Frankly, I don't blame them. But it seems to me that<BR>
> part of letting yourself be appointed to the Supreme<BR>
> Court means being willing to get into a "mess". When I<BR>
> joined the Army I didn't act surprised when they sent<BR>
> me to combat. The SC is there to deal with messy<BR>
> issues. If they were simple and clear-cut all the<BR>
> time, you wouldn't need the SC.<BR>
<BR>
Yes, but refusing to deal with a mess because you can't see anything<BR>
you can do that won't make things *worse* is legitimate.<BR>
<BR>
>> And convince all the<BR>
>> fringie militia types<BR>
>> that it realy *is* time for a revolution, since the<BR>
>> Constitution is<BR>
>> being ignored.<BR>
<BR>
> If they're refusing to hear cases on aspects of it,<BR>
> isn't that "ignoring" it? It's easy to imagine people<BR>
> getting carried away and revolting, but would it<BR>
> genuinely happen? I understand there were the same<BR>
> objections to ending apartheid in the south in the<BR>
> 60s, that it'd lead to violence. Some fringe types<BR>
> started singing dixie. In the end, people died, but<BR>
> there was no civil war no.2. How is this different?<BR>
<BR>
It probably isn't. <BR>
<BR>
>> And again we'll have major sections of<BR>
>> the population<BR>
>> ready to revolt.<BR>
<BR>
> What exactly do you mean by "revolt"? Actual armed<BR>
> uprising? Or just lots of whingeing and picketing?<BR>
<BR>
We actually have groups (most calling themselves "militias") that are<BR>
already organizing and planning for armed revolt. Whether or not they<BR>
can carry it off is another matter. Most stay (barely) within the laws.<BR>
Every so often, one will slip up (or get tricked) and violate some<BR>
federal law and get shut down.<BR>
<BR>
> I don't see a vaguely worded important law being<BR>
> ignored forever. At some point, your Supreme Court<BR>
> will have to rule on it. I don't say it's a bad thing,<BR>
> bearing arms. But nor is it a good thing, your people<BR>
> murdering one another, and armed groups threatening<BR>
> insurrection (in Commonwealth countries, you couldn't<BR>
> have private militias, they'd be thrown in jail just<BR>
> for assembling with arms and talking about the<BR>
> possibility of revolution). If a law is bad, you can<BR>
> change it. You've done it before (think of alcohol<BR>
> prohibition, think of emancipation, etc). Why not<BR>
> again? <BR>
<BR>
Well, part of the problem is that the law *isn't* vaguely worded. At<BR>
least in my opinion, the folks claiming it is are really straining both<BR>
common sense and the rules of English. <BR>
<BR>
> I say that if your own Supreme Court is too scared to<BR>
> face these issues, then they are obviously the issues<BR>
> that most need facing. The most pressing issues are<BR>
> always the most frightening in their consequences, the<BR>
> most important decisions, the hardest.<BR>
<BR>
Oh, I agree. And there's still the hope of creating the type of<BR>
situation where they *have* to rule. <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, 16 Dec 1999 21:13:44 +1100<BR>
From: David Healey <dhealey@giant.net.au><BR>
Subject: Mars exploration<BR>
<BR>
On 15/12/99, Anthony Jackson said :<BR>
<BR>
>Well, truth is that there are a number of private groups which are doing<BR>
work on commercial launchers; a number of groups think they _can_ make<BR>
money at the private launch business, and most likely NASA would be happy<BR>
to let them do so.<BR>
><BR>
>None of this relates to mars exploration, of course.  There's no<BR>
commercial reason to go there.<BR>
<BR>
Yet ....<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:47:42 +1100<BR>
From: David Healey <dhealey@giant.net.au><BR>
Subject: Re: (Way OT and possible Flamebait)<BR>
<BR>
On 15/12/99, Seth said :<BR>
<BR>
<Me><BR>
> Wasn't the bloodiest hour of combat in history at Chancellorsville or was<BR>
> it The Seven Days ?  Something like 5000 dead in an hour ?  Or is my<BR>
> failing memory leading me on ?  IIRC, the bloodiest *day* was Day 1 of The<BR>
> Somme. >><BR>
</Me><BR>
<BR>
<Seth><BR>
>I think 7000 died in 15-20 minutes at Cold Harbor...<BR>
</Seth><BR>
<BR>
That's the one I was looking for.  Cheers.  Couldn't remember which one it<BR>
was.  Anyhow, someone pointed out that the most violent acts (in terms of<BR>
casualties and visciousness) are perpetrated (in war) against those most<BR>
similar to us.  The scale of casualties by Americans against Americans in<BR>
the ACW would tend to support that argument, methinks.<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:12:39 +1100<BR>
From: David Healey <dhealey@giant.net.au><BR>
Subject: Re: The Royal Australian Space Navy<BR>
<BR>
On 14/12/99, Kyle Schuant said :<BR>
<BR>
>I wonder if the HMASS Melbourne would be better<BR>
>piloted than the HMAS Melbourne was (which Aussie<BR>
>ship, for ten points, sank three ships in its career,<BR>
>two Aussie and one USA?) <BR>
<BR>
An extra ten if you can name the HMA Ship damaged by a US missile and where ?<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:15:34 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Silly Traveller<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> SethKimmel wrote:<BR>
>> supposedly I'm a Cohen (I find it hard to believe<BR>
>> the genealogy is still <BR>
>> uninterrupted from Aaron...), so I can open it...:-)<BR>
>> <BR>
> hehehe willing to bet your life on it?:)<BR>
> My middle name is Aaron, but I wouldn't touch the thing.<BR>
<BR>
Well, I think *intent* may be a factor here also.<BR>
<BR>
"Black magic is a matter of symbolism and intent."<BR>
	- Master Sorceror Sean O'Lochlainn<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, 16 Dec 1999 04:20:55 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: laws, shmaws! space belongs to the People!<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Some wise man wrote:>>And once in space,  you fall<BR>
> under UN rules preventing anyone but a<BR>
> soverign<BR>
> nation that is a member of the UN from exploiting any<BR>
> resources.>><BR>
><BR>
> Well, I'd be inclined to hop on that ship, land on<BR>
> that asteroid, start hauling it back to earth and say,<BR>
> "sue me, Secretary General. Come and get me!" And moon<BR>
> him from orbit.<BR>
<BR>
The way it works is that under that treaty, the asteriod is "common<BR>
property of all humanity" or some such. So you could drag it to earth,<BR>
refine out the metals, and when you tried to sell them, they'd just<BR>
confiscate them. And thank you for so graciously contributing to the<BR>
betterment of humanity.<BR>
<BR>
> As for local laws, I daresay that if some private<BR>
> company managed to, say, put a shipload of idiots with<BR>
> more money than sense into space, well, they'd have<BR>
> enough money from ticket sales to pay the government<BR>
> fines fifty times over.<BR>
<BR>
Not if the government sets the fines at more than they made. Which they<BR>
can AND WOULD do. And they'd throw everyone involved in jail as well. <BR>
<BR>
Remember, since it is the *government*, not the company, that would<BR>
have to pay the damages if that ship knocks out some important<BR>
satellites, or crashes and wipes out a good chunk of a city, they are<BR>
*not* going to settle for a mere "slap on the wrist" for ignoring their<BR>
rules.<BR>
<BR>
Also, due to the way the treaty works, the government could (and likely<BR>
*would*) fine the *passengers* as well. Because *they* are guilty of<BR>
"conducting space activities" without permission too. <BR>
<BR>
So the passengers would turn around and sue the company. More likely,<BR>
they'd have been told in advance that they'd be arrested upon landing<BR>
if they took the trip. Which would severely reduce the passenger pool.<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 #1506<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-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v67.6) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:38:47 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v67.6) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:38:30 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id HAA18093;<BR>
	Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:38:10 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:37:39 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id HAA18005<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:37:38 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:37:38 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912161237.HAA18005@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 #1506<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
