As someone once said.......FLAME ON
The following message includes a note from GDW (guess they are tired
about being flamed personally). But first I want to get two cents in
on a couple of things.
To make a long message short:
FIRST OFF, the last couple of bundles have included some FLAMES,
personally I'm not particularly interested in watching gamers flame
each other about good GM/Player vs. bad GM/Player, I've heard it all
before, and especially since I have to pay for the Internet access,
I don't appreciate bandwidth taken up by wasted words (even if I didn't
pay, I don't appreciate the wasted storage). SO IF YOUR GOING TO FLAME
each other keep it PRIVATE.
Secondly, I'm tired of hearing about the same complaints about
Traveller or MT (new ones are okay). What I would be interested in seeing
is fixes, or helpful suggestions and I haven't seen as many of those
as I would like to see.
And as for a third generation of Traveller, considering that the
game is nearly as old as D&D (or AD&D to you younger guys <grin>), a third
edition is perhaps not out of line, especially as the second was somewhat
incomplete (to phrase it one way at least).
========================= GDW MESSAGE =========================
Item 7187179 92/05/14 20:58
From: GDW.SUPPORT Loren K. Wiseman
To: B.BORICH Bryan J. Borich
Bryan,
Could you send the following note to Steve Higginbottham on TML?
Steve,
As it happens, I am a GDW employee, and I know what a neutrino is
(and I don't think its an itty-bitty neutron).
Do you make a habit of calling people you haven't met idiots, or
is this something you reserve for GDW alone?
Loren K. Wiseman
Thanks
=END=
========================= END MESSAGE =========================
OTHER MESSAGES,
Catie Helm,
I believe it was you that mentioned a write-up on a race called
"Racoonoids", I might be interested in such an article (name would
definitely have to be changed though, too Space Operish to me).
<CYBERTECHNOLOGY> Most game systems nowadays presume the the technology
use the brains normal existing nervous system pathways (as do some modern day
prosthetic devices).
Now about 16 years I do recall reading articles that talked about direct
brain/computer hookups that did not use the existing pathways. They tended
to presume it would be easier to map the brain out and develop the equipment
to hook in. At that time they expected the technology to be available around
the mid 90's. About the only technology that I am aware of that currently
exists is the wristwatch pagers and credit card radios (providing the
communications pathway to the computer database) and some work done
use old apple computers to help paraplegics walk. But no direct brain
interface yet (although those developments are about 2-3 years old too).
About the only possible problem with cybertechnology is that
Nanotechnology might quickly replace it in part.