<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1557</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/22/99 5:14:37 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    Wednesday, December 22 1999    Volume 1999 : Number 1557<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: England<BR>
Re: Rebellious Attitudes<BR>
Re: Tramp Freighters<BR>
RE: England<BR>
Re: Re USMC<BR>
Re: How much should a starship cost<BR>
Re: Terra and the US in IY 1110 (was various) now race war flame<BR>
Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
Re: War of 1812<BR>
Re: [OT] What does this have to do with:  War of 1812<BR>
Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
Re: FGMP<BR>
Re Subsidies<BR>
Re: England<BR>
Re: In Jokes<BR>
Re: Scumbags<BR>
Merry Christmas<BR>
Re: 3 words, and Homeworld (was Re: Travshorts IV)<BR>
Re: technology advances<BR>
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1555<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:55:41 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: England<BR>
<BR>
Trevor, Peter <Peter.Trevor@rb.cwplc.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
>[...I]f you  ask  a  politician  if<BR>
> Britain has a constitution they reply "yes", but ask anyone  else<BR>
> and they say "no".  Of course its easier for the  politicians  to<BR>
> change the constitution if its not written down.<BR>
><BR>
> I once heard someone argue that Britain was  freer  than  the  US<BR>
> 'cos in the US you only have the freedoms listed in laws, whereas<BR>
> in Britain you are free to do anything you want unless there  was<BR>
> a law proscibing it.  Personally, I don't buy it.<BR>
<BR>
That's good, because most of the "laws" (I put that in<BR>
quotes, because they are not really laws, only codes) in<BR>
America would be patently illegal (contrary to the the uS<BR>
Constitution) were it not for the Supreme Courts'<BR>
decisions that in said codes (the "law") words like "shall"<BR>
and "must" can mean "may" in order to avoid<BR>
unconstitutionality of the code in question.  The Bill of<BR>
Rights of the uS Constitution specifically reserves all<BR>
rights not specified to the people or the several states.<BR>
<BR>
To the person that knows this, most of the codes simply<BR>
do not apply.  You have to defend your rights; however,<BR>
when has that not been true?<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, 22 Dec 1999 15:56:00 -0800<BR>
From: "Jason T. Barnabas" <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Rebellious Attitudes<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Steven Hudson <shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 2:31 AM<BR>
Subject: RE: Rebellious Attitudes<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> >From: "Moody, Danny M." <DMoody@bridge.com><BR>
> >Subject: RE: Rebellious Attitudes (was: RE: the north american union)<BR>
> ...<BR>
> >> I take it this means you are anti-Fed?<BR>
> ><BR>
> >Nope - I just want my government to follow the laws - just like I have<BR>
to.<BR>
> ><BR>
> >Is that so wrong?<BR>
><BR>
>   Hasn't the USG made a habit out of illegal action since the<BR>
mid-nineteenth<BR>
> century or so? It's certainly not a very recent trend, in any case.<BR>
<BR>
If you study The War of Northern Agression (commonly<BR>
called the American Civil War), you will find that the root<BR>
cause was just this and not primarily "slavery" per se.<BR>
The slavery issue was just what the spin doctors wanted<BR>
everyone focused on.<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, 22 Dec 1999 16:03:50 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Tramp Freighters<BR>
<BR>
Daniel Phelps writes:<BR>
<snip description of tramp freighters carrying 'used' cars, etc><BR>
<BR>
Somehow, I doubt those vehicles are worth 20-30 million dollars each.<BR>
<BR>
There's also a reasonable 'tramp' trade in trucking; a lot of truckers own their own rigs.  That's probably the closest modern equivalent to a Traveller free trader, though again, a semi-truck is a whole lot less expensive than a traveller starship (its still a pretty major investment, however).<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:16:05 +0000<BR>
From: Mark Watson <markw@antares.demon.co.uk><BR>
Subject: RE: England<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Glenn Goffin wrote:<BR>
>>From: Mark Watson <markw@antares.demon.co.uk><BR>
><BR>
>>The last successful invasion of Britain was the <BR>
>>German invasion of the Channel Islands in 1940, which<BR>
><BR>
>>they held for the rest of WWII. England as a whole<BR>
>has<BR>
>>not been conquered by a foreign power since 1066 <BR>
>>(William of Orange notwithstanding), nor have any of <BR>
>>the subsequent British Unions involving England.<BR>
><BR>
>Well, let's not forget the Argentine invasion of the<BR>
>Falkland Islands, which I understand are treated as an<BR>
>integral part of Britain, just like the Orkneys and<BR>
>Channel Islands.  <BR>
><BR>
You understand wrong. The Falklands are a Dependent Territory with their own<BR>
government. The Channel Islands are actually part of the (defunct) Duchy of<BR>
Normandy, and the Queen's authority derives from that title. The Channel<BR>
Islands has its own government (actually two, since it's divided into Jersey<BR>
and Guernsey). Unlike the Falklands, it is considered part of the EU, at least<BR>
for trade. And unlike the Falklands, they're part of the British Isles.<BR>
<BR>
Orkney is an integral part of Scotland and the UK - part of local government,<BR>
members in the UK and Scottish parliaments, etc.<BR>
<BR>
>That the invasion was not successful can be credited<BR>
>-- as usual -- to the United States.  They'd still be<BR>
>speaking Spanish in the Falklands if the United States<BR>
>hadn't violated its treaty obligations to Argentina<BR>
>and its own Monroe Doctrine to supply the British with<BR>
>intelligence in the form of intercepted communications<BR>
>and space imaging.  <BR>
><BR>
I doubt it, though it might have been more difficult to retake the islands. If<BR>
the US had actively opposed the British action as they did in Suez that would<BR>
have been a different matter. <BR>
<BR>
M<BR>
- -- <BR>
Mark Watson, markw@antares.demon.co.uk<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:46:16 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Re USMC<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> This is simpler in the OTU, of course, since the Navy Rules All. BUt does<BR>
> each branch have it's own aerospace components?<BR>
<BR>
My take is that the Army has COAC units, plus the occasional<BR>
"interplanetary" transport. For example, they'd *definitely have their<BR>
own transport for getting betweem Terra and Luna. Ditto for getting<BR>
between Regina and the other moons of that gas giant. <BR>
<BR>
They *might* have ships capable of moving between planets in systems<BR>
where there are significant populations (or resources!) on other<BR>
planets in the system. And they'd *definitely* have them in systems<BR>
where the mainworld (or any significant world) is a "belt".<BR>
<BR>
They likely get into arguments with the Navy about the stuff that's<BR>
capable of crossing significant fractions of an AU, staying in space<BR>
for weeks, and *especially* any such that have ship-to-ship weaponry. <BR>
<BR>
The Army will usually win by pointing out that since they can't count<BR>
on being able to have the Navy take them with them when the Navy<BR>
decides to bug out (pardon me, "execute a strategic withdrawal"), they<BR>
need the non-jump ships just to be able to mover their troops around<BR>
the system, especially to consolidate them if the system has that big<BR>
an enemy presence. <BR>
<BR>
The marines have ground support craft (COACC, except from orbit *down*,<BR>
instead of the ground *up* :-)<BR>
<BR>
And the navy probably isn't interested in "lunar shuttle" type<BR>
spaceships, nor ground-to-orbit craft. So they'll have interplanetary<BR>
ships and starships. <BR>
<BR>
There's still stuff to argue about. But I think the above balances<BR>
needs against "turf" reasonably well. <BR>
<BR>
And it means that there are niches for weird things like the small<BR>
armed "tramp" freighter that belongs to the Imperial Army and is used<BR>
for commando insertions and various small supply runs that the Navy<BR>
can't be bothered with. <BR>
<BR>
Likewise, the navy has some COAC type vehicles that *they* use for<BR>
various things. <BR>
<BR>
In both cases the services "ignore" these "violations" as long as they<BR>
are kept low key and don't seem to be a trend.<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, 22 Dec 1999 16:02:31 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: How much should a starship cost<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Leonard Erickson writes:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> I rather expect that a "tramp freighter" is worth considerably than<BR>
>> you'd think (and I'm talking about the current sea-going type). So<BR>
>> perhaps we need to reconsider our overly romantic view of tramp<BR>
>> freighters. <BR>
><BR>
> What current sea-going tramp freighters?<BR>
<BR>
Not all cago ships are owned by big multi-nationals. There are still<BR>
small independents out there. Mostly operating between smaller ports<BR>
with irregular (ie non-scheduled) cargoes. <BR>
<BR>
Sound familar?<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, 22 Dec 1999 15:21:17 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Terra and the US in IY 1110 (was various) now race war flame<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> We may actually build a state of the art cool nifty base on the moon<BR>
> with artifical gravity etc. but they will just throw up 10 lower tech<BR>
> ones with 20x as many people. So what if their bases are buried<BR>
> instead of having nifty domes and they have to bounce around instead<BR>
> have having nifty artifical gravity they still out number the<BR>
> "U.S./European" bases 20 to 1<BR>
<BR>
Until someone *invents* artifical gravity, *everyone* will have to<BR>
settle for the normal gravity (1.62 m/s^2, about 16.5% of Earth's,<BR>
about 16.2% of the Traveller 10 m/s^2 "g").<BR>
<BR>
And *nobody* is going to build "domes". Not with anything remotely<BR>
resembling current tech. Doing so is suicidal. First, and foremost,<BR>
because you *need* several *meters* of "dirt" above you to stop<BR>
radiation from things like solar flares. On earth, we've got a thick<BR>
atmosphere, and in *low* earth orbit, we are below the "radiation<BR>
belts" where the charged particles from solar flares are trapped by<BR>
Earth's *very* strong magnetic field. Luna has neither atmosphere nor<BR>
magnetic field.<BR>
<BR>
You also want that dirt as *thermal* insulation. Surface temps on the<BR>
moon "only" change over a range of about 300 C during the course of a<BR>
"month" (local day). <BR>
<BR>
And finally, it provides protection against the occasional meteor. The<BR>
odds of getting hit by anything big enough to cause even a slow leak<BR>
are small. Yet we've had *two* much bigger rocks hit houses in the<BR>
*same town* in the last 10-15 years. So the precaution is a good idea.<BR>
<BR>
The *serious* designs I've seen for lunar bases all use a prefab "hut"<BR>
built much like a Qounset hut. Most figure that you'll scrape the<BR>
regolith (lunar "dirt") away until you hit more or less bare rock (1 to<BR>
6 inches of regolith, most likely. But don't quote me on that. :-).<BR>
Then you build the hut and dump all that regolith back on top, plus<BR>
more scraped from a wide area around it. <BR>
<BR>
The other design is based on the assumption that there *has* been<BR>
significant volcanic activity on the moon. They are hoping to locate<BR>
some lava tubes. If such are located, this would give you pre-made<BR>
"tunnels" several meters across (up to at least 10). go inside a ways,<BR>
brace any weak spots, and set up the huts there. You'll have *meters*<BR>
of rock overhead, and all without digging. <BR>
<BR>
It'll be a long time before we are up to doing much digging into lunar<BR>
rock, thus these are the choices.<BR>
<BR>
BTW, the Young Astronauts program, working with the L-5 society started<BR>
work on a "test" base in some lava tubes in southern Oregon. As far as<BR>
I know, even though the "L5 Society" part of the partnership has<BR>
changed names over the years as various pro-space groups merged, it's<BR>
still there and they still try ideas out. <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, 22 Dec 1999 16:08:21 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Okay, just to be fair ... one of my Trav players won 1st place in<BR>
> the UK M:TG championship and a free ride to the  US  championship<BR>
> in Seattle (a few years ago).  Mere days before he left he looked<BR>
> in his atlas and was stunned when he saw where Seattle was ... he<BR>
> thought it was near New York.<BR>
<BR>
Nah, Seattle is only about as far from New York as New York is from<BR>
whatever part of the UK he was from. :-)<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, 23 Dec 1999 13:24:45 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
On 22 Dec 99, at 0:24, Nick Bradbeer wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Is it really so important to attach 'won' and 'lost' labels to a war?<BR>
> There's really no such thing - there's just the state you're in before it<BR>
> starts and the state you're in when it's over. All else is spin for the<BR>
> plebs.<BR>
> <BR>
> Of course, there's the matter of national pride....<BR>
<BR>
No, No, I'm sure that everyone here is in this for the purest of <BR>
motives - discovering and disseminating the Truth.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:16:26 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] What does this have to do with:  War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>> Okay, just to be fair ... one of my Trav players won 1st place in<BR>
>> the UK M:TG championship and a free ride to the  US  championship<BR>
>> in Seattle (a few years ago).  Mere days before he left he looked<BR>
>> in his atlas and was stunned when he saw where Seattle was ... he<BR>
>> thought it was near New York.<BR>
>> <BR>
> When I taught Freshman History at the University of Kentucky as a TA<BR>
> seemingly eons ago, I gave a quiz.  I took a blank map of Europe with<BR>
> country boundaries drawn in but no place names and asked students to find:<BR>
><BR>
> London<BR>
> Paris<BR>
> Rome<BR>
> Athens<BR>
> Istanbul not Constantinople  ^_-<BR>
><BR>
> The quiz was worth 10 points.  1 point for getting the city in the right<BR>
> place and 1 point for getting it in the right COUNTRY.  You'd be amazed<BR>
> how many 2's and 3's I gave.<BR>
<BR>
No I wouldn't. I love maps, and I'm used to discovering that people<BR>
don't even know where things in the US are. <BR>
<BR>
There's a type of painting that several magazines (New Yorker, for one)<BR>
sell. It's a *highly* distorted map (the scale is logarithmic or<BR>
worse). <BR>
<BR>
For example, the one from the New Yorker shows Mahattan and the various<BR>
buroughs. By this point you are 1/4 to 1/3 of the way across the map.<BR>
Then it shows New Jersey and the rest of new york state. And crammed<BR>
into the last few inches are the Midwest and the West Coast....<BR>
<BR>
It's accurate in that it *perfectly* displays the *perceptions* of many<BR>
people. <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, 22 Dec 1999 16:09:47 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] War of 1812<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> My father met a honeymooning couple from England while he was<BR>
> on layover at John F. Kennedy international airport in New York City.<BR>
> The pair had just arrived, and were very excited about their next two<BR>
> weeks. They'd be staying in New York City, of course, but they had<BR>
> planned day trips to the Grand Canyon (in Colorado), the Mardi Gras<BR>
> celebrations (in New Orleans), and some siteseeing in San Francisco<BR>
> and Florida. They hadn't decided on whether they wanted to take<BR>
> a riverboat ride on the Mississippi River yet, but they were thinking<BR>
> of a day trip to the Colorado Rockies for their first skiing experience.<BR>
><BR>
> They didn't believe him when he mentioned how many thousands<BR>
> of miles these "day trips" would take.<BR>
<BR>
It's a good thing Russia isn't a popular destination for that sort of<BR>
tourist. Consider the hop from St. Petersburg to, say, the Caspian.<BR>
Then the hop to Vladivostok. From there, it'd be shorter to go back to<BR>
England by flying the rest of the way around the world!.<BR>
<BR>
> The biggest difference between an American and an Englishman:<BR>
> an American thinks a hundred years is a long time, an Englishman<BR>
> thinks a hundred miles is a long way.<BR>
<BR>
The US *is* big. But Russia is *huge*. The main part of the US is 4<BR>
time zones across. Russia is *nine*. Maybe more, I'd have to check. <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, 22 Dec 1999 15:38:34 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: Re: FGMP<BR>
<BR>
>>Not to second guess you or anything, but let me get this straight. Two<BR>
>>characters in *BD* encountered each other in an *engineering access<BR>
>>crawlspace*? And one of them fired an FGMP *several* times?<BR>
><BR>
>An FGMP does 12d6, right? <g><BR>
<BR>
Under CT, it is 16d, halved at VL, and quartered at Extreme.<BR>
The PGMP-14 does 12.<BR>
Under MT, damage of PGMP's and FGMP's seems to equal the TL. Pen Climbs<BR>
with TL and switching from Plasma to Fusion.<BR>
<BR>
Under TNE, according to the Mk1 Md1 (Not the rulebook in force when I ran<BR>
the game, that were under a Mk1 Md0). Also shows a pen of 0.5-2-4.<BR>
<BR>
No ideas under T4.x/t5/GT. Can't find the<BR>
<BR>
William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click<BR>
interface!"<BR>
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-<BR>
533<BR>
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com<BR>
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+<BR>
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls<BR>
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:51:31 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: Re Subsidies<BR>
<BR>
>There was also an American by the name of James (his<BR>
>first name escapes me just now, it might have been<BR>
>Henry) who built the only profitable trans-continental<BR>
>railroad (Pacific Northern, IIRC) all by himself without<BR>
>government subsidies.  After running rail from coast to<BR>
>coast, Mr. James started building a fleet to trade with<BR>
>China.  Just as he was getting his shipping line profitable,<BR>
>the US gov. stepped in and declaired it to be a monopoly.<BR>
>He sold off his ships and retired on the profit.  Who knows<BR>
>what might have happened if the gov. goons had left him<BR>
>alone?<BR>
><BR>
The railroads paid a pittance for their rights of way. Sure, individuals<BR>
could homestead for nothing, but even the railroads recieved indirect<BR>
subsidy, inthe form of negligible land-costs, little to no taxation, etc.<BR>
<BR>
As for his "Monopoly", it would probably have made a tidy profit.<BR>
Monopolies are not technically illegal in the US... they are only illegal<BR>
when they prevent the rise of competition by unfair buisiness practice. For<BR>
a *LONG*time, US Steel Corporation was a monopoly, due to the lack of any<BR>
desire for doing buisiness with smaller suppliers. Likewise, IBM had a<BR>
monopoly on Miniframes for a while. Not a problem, since IBM didn't try to<BR>
prevent other companies from creating/selling  miniframes.<BR>
<BR>
William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click<BR>
interface!"<BR>
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-<BR>
533<BR>
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com<BR>
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+<BR>
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls<BR>
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:53:13 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: England<BR>
<BR>
On 22 Dec 99, at 22:29, Matthew Bond wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> <BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
> <snip><BR>
> >butts kicked in wars with people you used to hire as mercenaries<BR>
> <BR>
> >--Glenn<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> errr.... no I'm stumped... enlighten me<BR>
<BR>
Until after the American Revolution it was British practice to employ <BR>
German mercenaries to do their fighting for them. A number of german <BR>
princes supported their lifestyles by hiring out their subject to die <BR>
for the brits.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:53:13 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: In Jokes<BR>
<BR>
On 22 Dec 99, at 15:05, Leonard Erickson wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Anyway, if you try, you'll probably *know* when you get it right<BR>
> because all of a sudden it's *easier* to move than in any other posture<BR>
> except our "normal" one. <BR>
<BR>
It's also quite a quiet way to move, as long as you dan't stand on dry <BR>
twigs, of course (or anything sharp).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:58:30 -0000<BR>
From: "Matthew Bond" <mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk><BR>
Subject: Re: Scumbags<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Jason T. Barnabas <cybernaut@netzero.net><BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Date: 22 December 1999 23:59<BR>
Subject: Re: Scumbags<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Steven Hudson <shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca> wrote:<BR>
> >From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk><BR>
> >Call me ignorant (because I am, living way out of the CON US), but surely<BR>
if<BR>
> >all firearms were illegal, then finding any kind of gun means you can peg<BR>
><BR>
>   Yes, but there are clearly numerous cases (at least in rural areas)<BR>
> where having a long-arm available is very reasonable. In cities you<BR>
> have to decide whether society is safer with plentiful firearms as a<BR>
> home-defence issue or with the option removed, or whether the debate is<BR>
> even to be framed in those terms - a political decision that I can accept.<BR>
<BR>
The problem is that if you eliminate the possibility of<BR>
private ownership of weapons, then the responsibility of<BR>
guarding the populace would fall on the sholders of the<BR>
LEOs and the US Supreme Court has ruled loud and<BR>
clear that cops do NOT have such a responsibility.<BR>
- --<BR>
Jason<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----------------------------------------<BR>
By guarding the populace, do you mean "preventing them from escaping" or<BR>
"protecting them from danger", as I was under the impression that most of<BR>
the US LEO's go by the motto "to protect and serve".... Does the USSC know?<BR>
<g><BR>
<BR>
Matt<BR>
<BR>
Matthew Bond<BR>
mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk<BR>
www.akira.swinternet.co.uk/strom.html<BR>
- --------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
"To strike a man who insults you is one thing...<BR>
...To run him through with a sword is quite another!"<BR>
- --------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:03:35 -0000<BR>
From: "Peter  Scarrott" <peter@myhelliconia.freeserve.co.uk><BR>
Subject: Merry Christmas<BR>
<BR>
Merry Christmas to everyone, I hope that you all get whatever your conduct<BR>
deserves :-)<BR>
<BR>
Am going away from the computer for Christmas so am sending this now.<BR>
<BR>
Peter<BR>
http://www.myhelliconia.freeserve.co.uk<BR>
peter@myhelliconia.freeserve.co.uk<BR>
<BR>
IMTU: tc+ tm tn++ t4- ru+ !3i+ c+ jt- au- ls ta- hi++ ith++ va+ as- so  zh+<BR>
vi-<BR>
      And life is harsh and rarely fair.<BR>
<BR>
"I came, I saw, she conquered." (The original Latin seems to have been<BR>
garbled)<BR>
  Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love (By Robert.Heinlan)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:59:42 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: 3 words, and Homeworld (was Re: Travshorts IV)<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Anyway, here's the ObTrav part: If you *have* seen the game, what is your<BR>
> take on the sensor interface for 3d space? Do you see a navigator on a<BR>
> Traveller starship using something similar, although possibly holographic?<BR>
> Or would it be much more overwhelming. Personally, I think that the<BR>
> interfaces would strive to keep information overload to a minimum, but be<BR>
> customizable so that the navigator could delve for more and more<BR>
> information by simply pulling down a menu or hitting a hot-key.<BR>
><BR>
> Also, how do you envision gunnery stations? A simple mouse-click interface<BR>
> or the equivalent (click click click! Those Vargr raiders are coming in too<BR>
> fast!) or a more hands-on joystick model (ooh, gotta adjust for windage!!!).<BR>
<BR>
The "Mageworlds" books have an interesting bit. One side uses 3d "tank"<BR>
type displays. Symbols, text boxes that can be pulled up, etc.<BR>
<BR>
The other uses "surround" displays, with "glyphs" as the<BR>
representations. Color-coding for some info, gylph details for others<BR>
(think "chinese characters"). By "surround", I mean that you stand in<BR>
the middle, and are surrounded by a seamless array of displays.<BR>
<BR>
It's noted that the "tank" displays tend to make commanders "detached"<BR>
from their units because they are "looking in from outside", while the<BR>
"surround" displays make the commanders a bit *too* involved because<BR>
they are "in the center, looking out".<BR>
<BR>
While "tank" type displays are what most folks think of, "surround"<BR>
displays are buildable *now* (though they'd be expensive). <BR>
<BR>
As for "interface", keep in mind that while it hasn't reached consumer<BR>
gear yet, "heads up" displays mounted to project into your eyes an uses<BR>
simple IR sensors to pinpoint what part of the image you are looking<BR>
at. That's the "cursor". With a few buttons you can do zoom, select for<BR>
exanded info display, 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: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:23:09 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: technology advances<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Leonard Erickson wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> In mail you write:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> >> Being that this list isn't XXX rated, and most of you *really* don't<BR>
>> >> want to know, I'll refrain from listing any possiblitities.<BR>
>> ><BR>
>> > Oh, come on, Leonard -- this isn't an *entertainment* list, either; it's<BR>
>> > *science*.  Inquiring minds and stuff like that.  It's all about the<BR>
>> > search for truth and technical advantage.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Sorry, but it'll take more than that for me to risk permanently<BR>
>> squicking members of the list. <BR>
>> <BR>
> Ladies and gentlemen, I bring your attention to the beginning of the end.<BR>
> The TML is on its last legs.  Leonard has declined to give a<BR>
> scientifically-informed, technically accurate answer to a question.<BR>
><BR>
> I will begin looking for a fresh host immediately; I advise you all to do<BR>
> the same.  Don't be the last rat off this sadly sinking ship.<BR>
<BR>
Kenji, are you *volunteering* to be a test subject for some of these<BR>
"possibilities"? Say the one involving removal of certain organs<BR>
("Don't worry, we can replace them later. If you give us good enough<BR>
reasons."). Or how about about the one where we relocate certain organs<BR>
to an "inconvenient" location ("well this way it won't be distracting<BR>
you as much....")?<BR>
<BR>
Playing "Mad Scientist" is *fun*... at least as long as you aren't too<BR>
attached to your victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsubjects.<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, 22 Dec 1999 20:10:28 EST<BR>
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1555<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 99-12-22 18:29:06 EST, you write:<BR>
<BR>
<< >Of course, as an ersatz defense of the sci-fi industry, I could point out<BR>
 >that there's a long history, dating back to the pulp era, of "cover<BR>
 >misrepresentation", which I've always found amusing to some degree. It *has*<BR>
 >been getting better over the last few years, however.<BR>
  >><BR>
<BR>
Sometimes this is because the cover artist never sees the book in question. <BR>
Sometimes they get the manuscript to work from, and read it, and pay <BR>
attention to it. And sometimes . . .<BR>
<BR>
And of course, there's always "We got this painting, and it's got two guys <BR>
and a spaceship on the front . . .what more do you need?" or "Get on the web <BR>
and find something second rights that sort of fits.<BR>
<BR>
LKW<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1557<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-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:14:36 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:14:12 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id UAA01351;<BR>
	Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:13:42 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:11:10 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id UAA01201<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:11:10 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:11:10 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912230111.UAA01201@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 #1557<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
