From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Martin Ostergaard [MAOS@int.tele.dk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 7:46 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general > particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO > MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. This was experimentally proven in Yes, instantaneous, just one teensy weensy little problem, you still need to observe this effect, and the observation can only occur if you have some sort of primer that has to be synchronised and is only transferable at sublight speeds, hence, relativity still holds up, sure you have instant communication, but you have no idea what its communicating until the primer arrive in both places at the same time. You cant beat the speed of light. BUT its thought that the speed of light (henceforth referred to as 'c') is a barrier, and that particles exist that always exist above c. Ofcourse this has no practical use. Also near c velocities is generally a bad idea since you have to accelerate your spacecraft, which would take time if any organic material on board (humans;) were to survive the forces. As stated earlier in the thread, look up relativity and quantum mechanics, find out that even if things are seperated by space it can still be close if you travel in a straight line in more than 3 dimensions. Wont go into this now ;) Get this book instead: Stephen Hawking: A brief history of time Excellent beginning information that most people will be able to understand. -Martin From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of William Timmins [wtimmins@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:40 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general >From: John Stanley >I guess the reason I was asking in the original >question, is because even though we have gone to the >moon, have learned how to harness the atom, and can >store vast amounts of information in relatively small >areas, our science is still pretty much in it's >infancy as compared to the age and vastness of the >known universe. So my question was really saying, how >do we really know light is fastest ? Sure, it works >with our math, and our math works for the things we've >proven using our math (lost anyone?) In short, it's not math. We know light is the fastest because of a large amount of evidence. Part of the evidence is that we've never observed anything move faster than light. Evidence completely supports Relativity being true. And if relativity is true, NOTHING can move faster than light. I don't know for certain, but I expect that a good 25% of our electronics technology is affected by relativity, and wouldn't work as it does if relativity were wrong. Again, there are resources that explain why, if you feel up to it. -=Will ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Frank Frey (SOK) [ffreyiii@luna.cas.usf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:46 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general Greetings, Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is? Frank Frey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The only difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad!" Salvador Dali ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Tal Meta [talmeta@cybercomm.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:57 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general "Frank Frey (SOK)" wrote: > > Greetings, > > Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is? 186000 (-1 foot) per second. -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Martin Ostergaard [MAOS@int.tele.dk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:08 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general William Timmins wrote: > By this interpretation, it seems that by affecting one particle, you > instantaneously cause an effect to occur with the other particle. This > suggests that state information can travel instantaneously... which is a > potential problem, for all the previous discussion about FTL. Well, QM and Special Relativity does not agree with eachother, so youre right, but there is another option before we jump to the many worlds conclusions... super string theory, this is a likely candidate for a unified theory that can account for both QM and SR effects at the same time. -Martin From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Martin Ostergaard [MAOS@int.tele.dk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:13 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general "Frank Frey (SOK)" wrote: > > Greetings, > > Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is? I know this was not meant seriously, but now that you mention it, I would just like to blather on some more ;) A black hole is something with so much gravitational pull that even light cannot escape, this _must_ mean that within the event horizon of a black hole, light is sucked in faster than light... chew on that kids ;) I know, its a paradox.. just thought Id annoy everyone.. sorry.. its OT and all that too.. *sob* -Martin From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Frank Frey (SOK) [ffreyiii@luna.cas.usf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:13 AM To: Martin Ostergaard Cc: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The only difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad!" Salvador Dali ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Martin Ostergaard wrote: > "Frank Frey (SOK)" wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is? > > I know this was not meant seriously, but now that you mention it, Oh yes it was. The principles of Dualism will not allow Light to be faster than Dark. The principle of Nihilism will even go so far as to allow that Dark is faster than Light. You may take comfort in your Science if you wish but you can't outrun the Dark. > I would just like to blather on some more ;) A black hole is > something with so much gravitational pull that even light cannot > escape, this _must_ mean that within the event horizon of a black > hole, light is sucked in faster than light... chew on that kids ;) > I know, its a paradox.. just thought Id annoy everyone.. sorry.. > its OT and all that too.. *sob* > > -Martin > > Frank "Where's My Medication?" Frey From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Jean-Loup Sabatier [sabatier@saint-etienne.tt.slb.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:23 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general From: Philip A Posehn > Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot > begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one > particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO > MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. Two entangled particles with superposed states |HV>-|HV> (H = horizontal and V = vertical) created by an EPR source (EPR stands for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) keep their orthogonal polarizations in any case. This was generalized by Bell later for 3 other states : |HH>+|VV>, |HH>-|VV>, and |HV>+|HV>. You can NOT measure the polarization of a particle without destroying it (but however you CAN measure it). You can use this Bell states to transmit informations : there was the Innsbruck experiment (reported by American Scientific a couple of years ago) using this effect to tramsit information. You emit a photon pair A and B (entangled), with orthogonal polarization received on Xa and Xb. Xa emits a 3rd photon, C, with a known polarization, and tries to communicate this polarization to Xb. For this purpose, you send this photon C to a beam splitter (a semi reflective mirror) giving a photon pair being in one of the four Bell states described above. In the same time, B is being modified to keep its polarization orthogonal to A. This new polarization can be measured. But to know the value of the polarization of C, you have to compare the B new state to the Bell state of the two photons measured on Xa. So, you have to communicate this two measurements to Xb by conventionnal means (slower than light speed). So, at the time, there is no infringement to the relativity. But at least, it validates the principle. I'm sorry that's not very clear, and my english vocabulary is very bad about physics. C U Jean-Loup From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David.Clements [David.Clements@astro.cf.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:28 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Martin Ostergaard wrote: > William Timmins wrote: > > > By this interpretation, it seems that by affecting one particle, you > > instantaneously cause an effect to occur with the other particle. This > > suggests that state information can travel instantaneously... which is a > > potential problem, for all the previous discussion about FTL. > > Well, QM and Special Relativity does not agree with eachother, so Not correct. Its QM and *general* relativity that have a problem, special is just fine. > youre right, but there is another option before we jump to the > many worlds conclusions... super string theory, this is a likely > candidate for a unified theory that can account for both QM and SR > effects at the same time. Many Worlds is a philosophical interpretation, while sueprstrings, and its descendent, the N-brane, is a full scale mathematical theory. I haven't loked into it, but I'm sure that you could have Many Worlds with superstrings, just as easily as you have it with normal QM. In a sense you're asking why the wave-function collapses, with the philosphy, and what the wave function would be, with the string theory. Dave From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Jason R. Armstrong [gerwalkveritech@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:50 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: Damn Near Everything I don't have one single topic to discuss, just some free time before I have to sleep, perchance to wake up and fuck up my midterm evaluation tomorrow. Hence, I'm going to cram my message with everything I can think of. After tomorrow's fiasco, I won't have time to write, as I'll have flipped and begun killing everyone I come across, Howard Unruh-style.:) First- Mr. Farnell, as if you needed to be told; "Angel" is ....just....fucking....great! AAAAhhh. There, I've peed my pants. The tiny things I _don't_ like about it, are completely overshadowed by the fun and pretty things that are good about it, of which there are too many to list. My favorite-est part is the "Carcosa Court" flashback, though it is in hot running with Ruth's description of the power-outtage, and the description of the intestine-trick (though I'd been primed for that from the mail/ICE CAVE messages concerning same). My only pet peeve that sticks out (right now) was the "after" scene at the compound, when Our Heroine is wandering around with the alleycannon. For some reason, it struck me as...too cinematic? I don't know why; I keep pinging on Geena Davis, and some movie or other. Not exactly useful criticism, though, so forget it for now. The story is muchissimo tasty. Which brings me to my next thing, stories versus novels. I just read _RULES OF ENGAGEMENT_, by Senor Tynes. And damn, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, or as much as I wanted to. There were so many good things within the story, but they seemed to be really good things put together for the sake of fleshing a novel around them. This is to say, the framework of the story seemed _apparent_. Sometimes, particularly with the Nancy bits, it seemed very much like exposition being pushed as narrative thought, description being used to very obviously clue the reader in as to "what's actually happening" . Of course, that's what it _is_ for, but it didn't have the smoothness that makes it seem less obvious, the smoothness that allows for a reader to accept the trick, allow it to be "natural". Having gotten that out of the way, the parts that I like are fuckin' magic, they really are. I just wish I felt like they meshed as an actual _novel_. Perhaps it's because the DG thing seems to work best for me in short stories, abrupt little shocks. I mean, the very same things I love about Tynes' writing are there in RoE, that are in "... Father's Son", and "The Passage Through"; but I just felt dissatisfied with RoE, whereas his short stories (including his personal website non-DG stuff) fuckin' WORK. Maybe it's the subject matter, for me, you know? Sixteen pages of craziness is great, but 120+ pages seems forced, hacked, easily-seen-strings-and-glue-on-the-margins. Maybe it's got zil to do with whoever authors it; would I feel the same if "Tiger" was a novel? Or "lesserdark"? I try to imagine; but I _can't_ see these stories as bigger than what they are now. It just wouldn't be the same, not at all. Maybe that's it; I have some aversion to the "gamer novel". But I don't think it's just that....damnation. I'm terribly sorry, Mr. Tynes; I wish I'd liked it more. I've marked out the passages and chapters that I do like. What was a novel, has become, for me, a cool assemblage of disparate story-fragments. And I love it that way; just not when they're together. Next subject; the various physics wonks/Glove Cleaner's commentaries on Gates and physics-well, shitfire. I've had to save it all, it's lumping up in my mail because I just keep READING and RE-READING it. Somebody else check this, if you could, who's got all the messages saved. Does much of what's said...sound like it could be spoken, perhaps lectured out, perhaps be part of (an admittedly highbrow, nerdy) discussion, say, in a story? I see what's being said here as possible fill in several ongoing discussions between characters, in the presence of "that Gate phenomenon" they're up to their eyes dealing with. Guys ,I think you're creating a noticeable part of a script, without even trying. Not that I think I'll try and make a story around it, or anything. For all of my critique about story frameworks, my attempts at same have brought new meaning to the term "obvious stringing-together". Sigh:) Last thing-the DU stuff, specifically Mr. Farrow's retorts concerning it's toxicity. It's an interesting argument, yes. But the _probable_ chemical hazards of a substance, and the real-world effects that _occur_, are not always easily lined up with even years of documented use. And this is not always because of the assumed "cover-up" or what-have-you. It's just that, sometimes, things that are pretty much confirmed in the lab, are not then checked very quickly in Real Life to any degree of efficiency, for any number of reasons. No, maybe the DI's aren't hacking like old men from apparent lesions on the lungs; but that may be because they're assumed to be suffering from the emphysema that their 20 years of smoking may have caused. And nobody looks into it any further; I mean, who would want to volunteer for that kind of testing anyway? Lung cancer, heavy-metal poisoning of the aveoli, does DI Joe give a fuck what the difference is? Will he ask for someone to look into "all possible root causes" of same? Probably not until things have gotten very bad...and that could be many, many years after any one was looking into the toxicicity blah blah blah. And sometimes, things just don't act _probable_, you know? My dad, as a youth on the farm, was around benzene-variants that were later proved to be UNBELIEVABLY toxic. He actually used this shit to clean out open cuts, as well as degrease machines, what-have-you. Why hasn't he died, or had mutant shrimp jump out of his dick, or whatever? Well, I don't know. (knock on wood that something isn't just around the corner, I suppose). But the fact that there is no apparent or immediate effect of a toxic substance, doesn't mean that the substance is any less dangerous. Aaah, goddamn, too OT. I'm shutting up for now. "No more alcohol It's a Kool-Aid Substitute. No more heroin, your Death is not glamorous. No more ruling class You're a bunch of silly kids, ha ha ha No more bitter tears, You haven't paid for them. Hurt wastes your energy- Suffering wastes energy- Your emotions are nothing But politics. So get control-" Embrace, "No More Pain" xJAYx ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Edgar Riceboro [rlyehswimmer@angelfire.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:09 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: sing baby sing like a bird On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:00:34 Tolga Yanasik wrote: >I'm curious about; >What kind of drugs and chemicals are used in -illegal- interrogations >and with what effect ? How should be the questions asked ? A valid question, but the answer depends on how much time you have to interrogate your subject. Among the most reliable (and longest lasting) ways is to have your subject become addicted to a narcotic (preferably something nice and ready, like heroin/smack) over a period of days or weeks (depends on your subject). After a time, you can (in theory) train their body to become used to the substance, you then have the option of holding the substance back and using the pains of withdrawal to get the info you want. Not recommended for the hard synth stuff like crack or coke, as these can damage the brain right off the bat (or worse yet, immediate Len Bias style death). There are more conventional drugs like sodium-pentathol and scopolamine, which are rumored to be fast acting (but not necessarily safe for the subject)but I couldn't tell you offhand how best to use them. You can bet, however, that the interrogator of your subject must constantly repeat the questions, providing leads and false conclusions in an effort to jog the subject into either confirmation or denial. They should also be backed up by a team or note takers, researchers, and lots of good recording equipment (a polygraph might not hurt either). -ER Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of MattRuane@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:04 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Bleedover to Fading Suns, etc. It seems the twin issues of Delta Green and the larger Cthulhu Mythos have bled over and into the Fading Suns mailing list. On going issues and topics include: the fate of the GOOs and various mythos races in the Fading Suns universe, using DG as a sourcebook for conspiracy in a FS campaign, how to swipte well written material, what really is a jump/stargate and how can it be used to some Azathoth, Nyarlathotep, etc., the effects of a Hound of Tindalos on a space ship, and much, much more. I can't recommend the Fading Suns game more for use as a perfect setting for a Futuristic Deep Space/Space Opera game, especially a game that relies heavily on the occult and the mythos. Think Pendragon in space and adventures should spring to mind, and there is the possibility of converting any good Chaosium CoC adventure into an equally good FS adventure. Just add some retro tech, some futuristic whazzits and doohickeys from the FS game, and tada, you have an evening's entertainment. Check out: Fading_Suns_Games@onelist.com, or www.onelist.com/fading_suns (I am not sure the Web address is perfectly correct) Now this has me thinking. Its easy enough to throw the Cthulhu Mythos into Elric!, but what about Pendragon? How does it all fit into an Arthurian/Judeo-Christian settting? What about making the Picts, remote lost Highland Pictish tribes, Tcho-Tcho instead? (Stealing from Howard and Lovercraft alike). What about using the Pendragon setting for Mythos adventures....any ideas out there? him back to his drip feed permanently attached to his arm and thrust deep into his veins> Matt From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of David.Clements [David.Clements@astro.cf.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:15 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Bleedover to Fading Suns, etc. On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 MattRuane@aol.com wrote: > Now this has me thinking. Its easy enough to throw the Cthulhu Mythos into > Elric!, but what about Pendragon? How does it all fit into an > Arthurian/Judeo-Christian settting? What about making the Picts, remote lost > Highland Pictish tribes, Tcho-Tcho instead? (Stealing from Howard and > Lovercraft alike). What about using the Pendragon setting for Mythos > adventures....any ideas out there? Dredging around in the vaults, one might also be able to use Ringworld as a basis for SFnal CoC gaming. Maybe the Ring *wasn't* made by the Pac after all? Maybe the Slavers are more Cthulhoid than we thought? Dave (sadly lamenting the loss of his Ringworld stuff when moving from Germany) From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Jonathan Turner [j.turner@irishnews.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:52 AM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Anti-gravity The Shan have cracked it!!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_692000/692968.stm From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of William Timmins [wtimmins@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:53 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Bleedover to Fading Suns, etc. >From: MattRuane@aol.com >Now this has me thinking. Its easy enough to throw the Cthulhu Mythos into >Elric!, but what about Pendragon? How does it all fit into an >Arthurian/Judeo-Christian settting? What about making the Picts, remote >lost >Highland Pictish tribes, Tcho-Tcho instead? (Stealing from Howard and >Lovercraft alike). What about using the Pendragon setting for Mythos >adventures....any ideas out there? I've been kicking around the idea of Cthulhu: Iberia for a while. Essentially, 11th or 13th Century Moslem-dominated Spain. Given the arabic influences in the Mythos, the advanced culture of the Moors, and so forth, it might be interesting... I had some ideas of Moorish knights riding forth to slay dragons (baby cthonians). Heh. -=Will ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of William Timmins [wtimmins@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:34 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Dark Matter, Fractal & Chaotic Gates Huh. The site I mentioned before (http://planets.netnation.com/FTL_intro.html), is very handy. I have a splitting headache from the 3rd section and tensors, but the last section is VERY useful to go over the overall FTL-paradox part, AND some great, consistant, ways to resolve paradox. To sum up quickly, the first is that FTL/teleport/Gate doesn't actually connect points in our universe, but parallel universes. You don't get paradoxes because if you change things in time, you aren't in the universe you had information on. This also suggests that you can 'rerandomize' your universe. Second is my favorite. A conjecture of Hawking, too. Basically, via quantum mechanics, paradoxes don't happen because they have 0 probability. Paradoxes are 'out of phase' in wave-forms... so just don't happen. This is the typical 'everything just works out' sort of time travel. Everything works out because the timelines that don't disappear (sort of) Third is a bit confusing, so I won't go over it. Fourth is that there is that FTL uses a special frame of reference that is constant. This prevents any paradoxes due to FTL. It also means that some FTL trips are limited if you are moving relative to that special frame. This hinges on that special frame of reference having NO connection to our physical laws in any way we can observe. There may be a way to shift from one to the other, but space-time can't function as it does if it is directly tied to a special frame of reference. Anyhow... pick and choose! Actual answers... Gates could pass through the Yog-Sothoth frame of reference, or paradoxes weeded out... Conceivably, more than one of these could be true! Heh. -=Will ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:32 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general > -----Original Message----- > > And before anyone starts swelling up in umbrage, I want to gently remind > >everyone that we *were* talking about how to play with Gates in a fictional > >setting. I mean, no one here is afflicted with the sort of hubris that > >blandly assumes it *knows* how the "real" universe works. I guess that's true: and I think the "Physics" mavens here on the list don't want to offend: but the trouble is that modern Physics is _so_ wierd that the Mythos elements just scream out for comment. Consequentially, I guess we get over-confident, over-didactic, because the way we see it we are finding the Mythos through science and that's just so wonderful. A game? Yes. But Science is _so_ wierd, and the stench that comes off it is _so_ familar. The Mythos lies on the "other side" of science. We believe that understanding science is one way of understanding the Mythos better. Do you expect us to be reasonable? Believing _that_? The only argument that would convince me is this one. The things inside our heads are compelling us to try to share them with you. But if we are offending you - well, that shows we are being unskillful. So we will be more cunning in future. The Glove Cleaner From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:20 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general ----- Original Message ----- From: Tal Meta > "Frank Frey (SOK)" wrote: > > Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is? > > 186000 (-1 foot) per second. 186000 times the square-root-of-minus-one miles per second The Glove Cleaner From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Popeyesays@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:42 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Bleedover to Fading Suns, etc. In a message dated 3/28/00 12:58:16 PM Central Standard Time, wtimmins@hotmail.com writes: << I've been kicking around the idea of Cthulhu: Iberia for a while. Essentially, 11th or 13th Century Moslem-dominated Spain. Given the arabic influences in the Mythos, the advanced culture of the Moors, and so forth, it might be interesting... I had some ideas of Moorish knights riding forth to slay dragons (baby cthonians). Heh. >> REad the Gonji Sadowara series of books - 16th century samurai exiles himself and goes to Europe - meets this society and a plane by extra-planar evil wizards to gain sway over this earth - "Fortress of Vedun" is the first I have read five - they are hard to find however, but worth the search. Author T. C. Rypel. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of box_nine@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:51 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: OT-Physics in general Andy wrote: Consequentially, I guess we get over-confident, over-didactic, because the way we see it we are finding the Mythos through science and that's just so wonderful. I think the issue was more one of "That can't work by the normal laws of physics!" vs. HPL's notion that at present we foolishly assume we understand the physical laws of the universe. Certainly, looking at the discussion of gates I'm not about to complain about physics discussion. On the other hand, we're keeping the King in Yellow. It's bad enough humanities budgets are getting slashed, you're not taking our eldritch deities. Steven Kaye English major From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andrew John Farrow [andrew.j.farrow@btinternet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:01 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: sing baby sing like a bird > What kind of drugs and chemicals are used in -illegal- interrogations > and with what effect ? How should be the questions asked ? drugs- any thing - a - non lethal , well non lethal in the time frame of the interogation b- garunteed to lower victims will power and resistance . questions - hard and fast , emphisised w/- electric shocks and sharp blows . to vital areas . effect - messy . but you did say ILLEGAL . ps- if victim * must* survive tone down all effects . yours - andy . From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of PM [mermoud@easynet.fr] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:05 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Jean-loup stand up > Come to mind : Amerloques, Ricains (both derived from "Americain"), > or the usual "Yankee" though this one isn't used much nowadays. >> > Is that the best they can come up with? Don't make me a good example ass far as this goes. I've never been such inclined to find terms for PLENTY of people. I MUCH prefer thinking about terms for SOME very targeted people. Another french guy may give you plenty of such terms used here and there which didn't come to mind when I replied. BTW : Noone use "Merkin" and noone would use it (unless I can start a trend ;-) ============================================= Patrice Mermoud (Paris - France) mermoud@easynet.fr ============================================= From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Daniel M Harms [dmharms@acsu.buffalo.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:08 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Alternity / Dark Matter / Wizards of the Coast News On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Richard Pace wrote: > There's two licenses -- the D20 trademark license and the OGL >license. D20tm is designed to allow other games producers to create >D&D supplements so it's useless as a basis for a new RPG unless all >you are doing is creating a D&D variant environment with new classes >and races. > The OGL is for creating new RPGs. You could essentially recreate >the D&D PHB for your new RPG but you wouldn't be allowed to use the > D20tm. Technically, yes, that's correct. See below. > Well, that's always been possible, but I think the intent is for other games > manufacturers to use the OGL D20 mechanics instead of creating yet another new > system of mechanics. The OGL version of the D20 mechanics doesn't require > experience points or classes by the way. I didn't say it did. I said you couldn't create characters or gain experience without the basic d20 product. The license states that clearly. > > And in my belief, any system, no matter what it's called, that requires > > a D&D book for play is D&D. Maybe D&D in funny clothing (and > > there's nothing wrong with that), but it's D&D. > That's essentially correct, but it doesn't apply to the OGL. At this point, it does. Maybe in the future, things will change, but right now this is how it operates: In theory, anyone can create an OGL product using the license. To this date, the only license based on the OGL is the d20 license. As it stands, you couldn't play with the d20 system without owning a copy of a 3rd edition Player's Handbook. Perhaps the Open Gaming License will come to encompass many games in the future, and won't be focused on the d20 system. Maybe a d20 book will come out which doesn't require the PHB, as requirements are relaxed. But these are all speculative. In its present incarnation, the Open Gaming Foundation, as I see it on its public face (I can't speak to what's going on on its mailing list), is an attempt to push WotC product under the guise of philanthropy to the gaming community. And until I start seeing signs that it will actually accomplish something else, I intend to treat it with considerable skepticism. Yrs., Daniel From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:22 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: Tynes' stuff ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason R. Armstrong > I just read _RULES OF ENGAGEMENT_, by Senor Tynes. And damn, I > didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, I had much the same experience. Let me say again, Tynes' King In Yellow stuff is superb. But the DO story in "Alien Intelligence" seemed to me to obey the rules of Hollywood morality. You know: 1) the hero can't kill unless his woman is threatened 2) the hero can't kill a child deliberately (so the DO's kid has to be shot by mistake) As for RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - In the prison bits I thought I was reading "The Green Mile". However, . Let me say again, Tynes' King In Yellow stuff is superb. Tynes' King In Yellow stuff is superb. Tynes' King In Yellow stuff is superb. I _really_ can't say that too often. The Glove Cleaner. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:28 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Dark Matter, Fractal & Chaotic Gates ----- Original Message ----- From: David.Clements > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Andy Robertson wrote: > > > To make such a network more plausible: > > > > 1) Fractal scaling - Cosmic phaenomena can not be pre-adapted to > > human needs, Therefore gates must come all sizes. If there is no favoured > > size there must be a self-similar scaling between them. > > The laws of physics may actually give you a favoured > scale. One of the current ideas is that this is the planck scale, about > 10^-35 m (IIRC), where Heisenberg uncertainty gets large enough to break > down the structure of space. At this level the vacuum is thought ot be a > seething mass of wormholes forming and reforming continuously. > Good points - and I actually had the quantum vacuum in mind when I drew this hypothesis. However is there any way the very small Plank length can give us a scaling for macroscopic objects? If Gates can let through human beings - - - I mean, does the size of an atom give a "scaling" for the sizes of ice crystals? .. Maybe it does .... From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:31 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Fractal & Chaotic Gates as GOO nervous system? ----- Original Message ----- From: Davide Mana > Greetings. > I HATE this list when things like these happen.... > The Glove Cleaner (quite appropriately) writes > > >Now, doesn't this link back to Will's thoughts about the Gate-network being > >"the skeleton of a GOO"? > > > >If a skeleton - _why_not_a_nervous_system_? Could this be how adepts can > >influence gates to travel? > > Gimme time! We will be very interested in any evidence you produce: our speculation is cheap, your experiments far more valuable; but time, alas, is short - for all of us. The Glove Cleaner From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:00 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Dark Matter, Fractal & Chaotic Gates ----- Original Message ----- From: William Timmins > Huh. The site I mentioned before > (http://planets.netnation.com/FTL_intro.html), is very handy. Made me respect alt.startrek.whatsit.com a bit more > Anyhow... pick and choose! Actual answers... Gates could pass through the > Yog-Sothoth frame of reference, or paradoxes weeded out... > Conceivably, more than one of these could be true! Heh. > > -=Will I tend to go for the "paradoxes weeded out" answer, combined with the cheat I describe below. 1) The only central problem is that FTL travel in one inertial frame is travel back in time in some other frame, however you slice it. 2) But if the FTL travel is linked to a pre-existent network of gates then you _have_ a priviledged inertial frame - the framework of the Gates. 3) This is probably linked by gravitation/inertia to the general background of matter, (Mach's principle & all that). On this basis, you are not free to change the "inertial frame" of the gate - because the gate is like an enormous tree stretching between the stars. By moving this "entry point" around you are just wiggling the tip of the tree's branch. So travel through the gates _usually_ does not cause time displacement. Of course it _may_ do so sometimes - agents may arrive unpredictably early or late - but these displacements are _in practice_ not such as to allow closed timelike loops because the gate-trees are arranged that way. (What arranges them? They fight it out!). Travel back in time is still _theoretically_ possible if you get up to some decent fraction of C in the real world, hop off, and dive through a gate without slowing down. This rarely happens in practice, so the paradox-censoring mechanisms (AKA Quasars - much more common in the past when the Gates hadn't gotten their current gentleman's agreement worked out) rarely have to come into play. (and the Gates don't like it, you know - it hurts them. They get cross). Close one eye and squint, think of the square root of -1, and you can convince yourself it makes sense. The Glove Cleaner << I'm itching to drop this discussion and talk about killing something. Daddy, do I have a sick mind? >> From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:05 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: Re: Mythos and the future of the universe ----- Original Message ----- From: > >Darwin victorious over Einstein! > > Or perhaps any universe with any real degree of permanence develops similar structures - cue various SF novels and stories suggesting the possibility of 'seeding' universes. Otherwise, you get zones with varying physical laws, a la Vernor Vinge's FIRE UPON THE DEEP. > "develops similar structures" .. in the broadest sense ... --- *** --- What we are fiddling with here is very speculative: but it does tie in with "The Mythos" on one side and some of the wilder Cosmological speculation on the other. These speculations go something like this: 1) Take the history of Earth's life-system as an analogy. 2) Life developed very soon after the Earth formed (about 400 million years max). The Earth is 4500 million years old but for the first 3800 years there was only microscopic life and it was low-energy, anaerobic, dull, quiet, safe. 3) About 700 million years ago something learned to photosynthesise. This allowed it to capture sunlight. 4) It also produced oxygen - a deadly poison to everything else. 5) The photosynthesiser throve, much of the rest of the ecology was poisoned. 6) The atmosphere became 20% pure poison 7) New creatures of enormous size, complexity and power (compared to bacteria) evolved to breath the poison. For 3800 years life has no effect - it's around, but it's sleeping, a sideline. Then suddenly it bootstraps itself into a commanding position, transforming its environment rather than simply riding it. That bootstrapping does not stop - it accelerates endlessly. --- *** --- Cosmologists speculate that the universe now is like the Earth was before Photosynthesis: and that the universe in the _future_ may be like the Earth after Photosynthesis. That is to say, that life will, everywhere, take control of the physical substratum of the universe and reshape it. They also speculate that this is _inevitable_ - that any universe that has physical laws that allow life to exist will eventually, inevitably, come totally under the control of that life. This may sound stupid, but, once life starts to spread between the stars exponential growth makes a nothing of interstellar size: and given enough time, everything that is possible _must_ come into being. A link related to this is Feeman Dyson's paper at http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt (This is Dyson as in Orion Project Dyson, Dyson Spheres, father of web maven Esther Dyson. Not Dyson as in cyclonic vacuum cleaners) --- *** ---- We religiously chant "we are as bacteria to the Great Old Ones". IMHO the evidence of GOO/Mythos activity shows that our relegation to the relative position of bacteria is, literally, underway. The whole universe is undergoing a transformation analagous to the ancient "greening" of the Earth. The EndTimes - as the colonisation of one more puddle. Moreover this transformation _is_accellerating_. We call them the Great Old Ones, but their days of glory are still to come. Whether they originally developed as protean genetic libraries, webs of strain in space, replicating memetic information on cybernetic networks, resonances of plasma in space, or other things beyond speculation, (or came here from elsewhere) they are still developing and still drawing farther and farther away from us ..... That is how I see it. And that is where my brain refuses furthur extrapolation. If it's any comfort - some of the Earth's original pre-oxygen inhabitants survive: as sub-structures within our cells, mostly, but some do eke out an existence in the depths of the Earth or the sea. The Glove Cleaner From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Duran Goodyear [dug96@hampshire.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:37 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: DG: a question for the informed... So, I was wondering if anyone out there had knowledge of, or access to the aptitude tests that the military gives it's enlistees/officers. Specificly the job aptitude test that they analyse to decide what job you should go into. Me and some freinds were interested in what those tests looked like, and were hoping to take them with out actually joining up... thanks ______________ duran goodyear www.alphex.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of William Timmins [wtimmins@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:40 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Mythos and the future of the universe >From: "Andy Robertson" >We religiously chant "we are as bacteria to the Great Old Ones". > >IMHO the evidence of GOO/Mythos activity shows that our relegation to the >relative position of bacteria is, literally, underway. > >The whole universe is undergoing a transformation analagous to the ancient >"greening" of the Earth. > >The EndTimes - as the colonisation of one more puddle. > >Moreover this transformation _is_accellerating_. We call them the Great >Old Ones, but their days of glory are still to come. Whether they >originally developed as protean genetic libraries, webs of strain in space, >replicating memetic information on cybernetic networks, resonances of >plasma >in space, or other things beyond speculation, (or came here from >elsewhere) >they are still developing and still drawing farther and farther away from >us >..... > >That is how I see it. And that is where my brain refuses furthur >extrapolation. > >If it's any comfort - some of the Earth's original pre-oxygen inhabitants >survive: as sub-structures within our cells, mostly, but some do eke out an >existence in the depths of the Earth or the sea. > > > >The Glove Cleaner > Not to sound foolishly hopeful, but what if WE are the photosynthesizers? We do seem dramatically different than a lot of the other Mythos races and beings, in many ways. Perhaps we presage a universe of solidification, moving away from the chaotic fluid realities beyond. Or perhaps we are a random mutation, nothing more. Combine this with the strange relationship of Nyarlathotep and the Dreamland Gods... the Dreamland Gods are related to us, somehow, and limited, but the big N seems to be cultivating or protecting them. Why? Maybe N wants to change the universe, and humanity, in some (ultimately horrific) way is the means. Perhaps humanity has some influence on the universe which will seed it for other beings. Or perhaps we (and others like us: Yithians, Shan, Mi-go) ARE the poison. We are the debris, shit, and exhalations of Azathoth and his ilk. We will accumulate, slowly changing the environment for orders of beings we cannot conceive of. -=Will ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Appelion@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:17 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Depleted Uranium In a message dated 3/26/00 2:50:33 PM, andywrobertson@clara.co.uk writes: >not > >explicitly war-weapon related chemicals (if that's what you mean). [Cough, COUGH!] Dioxin [COUGH~!] Agent Orange [COUGH, cough....] Haven't you ever read Zodiac*? (No) Covalent Chlorine is a biggie. Xavier * Neil Stephenson. Don't have an ISBN 'cuz lil' bro has the book. From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Appelion@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:21 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: On Gates and similar matters In a message dated 3/26/00 9:08:27 PM, msb216@is7.nyu.edu writes: >Keep in mind that many of the creatures who might use the Gates don't see >in >the visible light spectrum, or may see in dimensional levels that we can't >imagine. > But I'll bet they have different versions of the spell. After all, if they see microwaves, they can't read the Necronomicon, can they now? Xavier Compare to Niven's GP hulls. "Let's hope none of the Puppeteer client species can see gamma rays..." Xavier From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of John Petherick [jpetheri@cyberbeach.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:25 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Bleedover to Fading Suns, etc. At 01:53 PM 3/28/00 EST, you wrote: >>From: MattRuane@aol.com >>Now this has me thinking. Its easy enough to throw the Cthulhu Mythos into >>Elric!, but what about Pendragon? How does it all fit into an >>Arthurian/Judeo-Christian settting? What about making the Picts, remote >>lost >>Highland Pictish tribes, Tcho-Tcho instead? (Stealing from Howard and >>Lovercraft alike). What about using the Pendragon setting for Mythos >>adventures....any ideas out there? > > >I've been kicking around the idea of Cthulhu: Iberia for a while. >Essentially, 11th or 13th Century Moslem-dominated Spain. > >Given the arabic influences in the Mythos, the advanced culture of the >Moors, and so forth, it might be interesting... > >I had some ideas of Moorish knights riding forth to slay dragons (baby >cthonians). Heh. > >-=Will Or for a complete mixing of game systems, I've idly wondered about "Ars Cthulhu" combining CoC and Ars Magica. Considering that much of the back story of Ars Magica includes "Old Ones" and a mythical Golden Age, it could work. Although, if you obey the strict "paradigm" view of Ars Magica, most Mythos beasties would be viewed as either members of the Unseelie Faerie Court or infernal beings. The fact that they are magically resistant to damage, and have abilities beyond human ken wouldn't be quite as mind-numbing as in modern day CoC. Also, beings resistant to puncturing or normal damage could be easily incinerated, electrocuted, drowned, teleported, etc. by magi. It would require some reworking of insanity rules, but it might explain what those Criamon magi are REALLY glimpsing when they gain insight into the Engima. What about it? A possible Pagan / Atlas joint venture? ********************************************************************* John Petherick, CIH jpetheri@cyberbeach.net From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Andy Robertson [andywrobertson@clara.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:10 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Mythos and the future of the universe ----- Original Message ----- From: William Timmins > > Not to sound foolishly hopeful, but what if WE are the photosynthesizers? We > do seem dramatically different than a lot of the other Mythos races and > beings, in many ways. Ha ha. Are they afraid of us? Or are we afraid of them? But Despair is Carrion Comfort. You are right - I should refuse to make a religion of wanhope, or totally to surrender to it. And, I know that it may seem odd, coming from a Glove Cleaner, but I agree, that _we_don't_know_ Imagine O imagine! Our hands at their throat! From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of Richard Pace [rpace@idirect.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:02 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Alternity / Dark Matter / Wizards of the Coast News Daniel M Harms wrote: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Richard Pace wrote: > > > > And in my belief, any system, no matter what it's called, that requires > > > a D&D book for play is D&D. Maybe D&D in funny clothing (and > > > there's nothing wrong with that), but it's D&D. > > > That's essentially correct, but it doesn't apply to the OGL. > > At this point, it does. Maybe in the future, things will change, but > right now this is how it operates: > > In theory, anyone can create an OGL product using the license. > To this date, the only license based on the OGL is the d20 license. > As it stands, you couldn't play with the d20 system without owning > a copy of a 3rd edition Player's Handbook. That is one way of looking at it. Another way is to see that D&D is the first product using the OGL D20 mechanics. Very soon the D20 reference document will be released and production will start on a few OGL games (at least I've been contacted by would-be OGL developers with the purpose of my doing work for them when the official OGL and D20tm status announcements are made). It will be true that you cannot play D20tm material without the PHB, but that's the stated intent of the D20tm license. > Perhaps the Open Gaming License will come to encompass many games > in the future, and won't be focused on the d20 system. That's the premise. > Maybe a d20 book will come out which doesn't require the PHB, as requirements > are relaxed. Unlikely -- as far as not requiring some sort of WotC players' hand book, Star Wars may well fall into this category as well. Part of the carrot to get hasbro and WotC to go along with Dancey's OGL plan is to maintain some sort of control over D20tm and the D&D supplements. > But these are all speculative. In its present > incarnation, the Open Gaming Foundation, as I see it on its public > face (I can't speak to what's going on on its mailing list), > is an attempt to push WotC product under the guise of philanthropy to > the gaming community. And until I start seeing signs that it > will actually accomplish something else, I intend to treat it > with considerable skepticism. Well, if nothing comes of the OGL -- if no one uses it to manufacture new games, then no one benefits from it, not even WotC. Despite the confusion from the bad Dancey interview, the intent is pretty clear. D20tm to allow other publishers to create D&D supplemental materials that WotC cannot make a substantial profit creating themselves and thereby supporting sales of the D&D PHB. OGL to allow other companies to create new games that are D&D friendly and reduce the likelihood of new products directly competing with D&D (no new Palladium Fantasy, for example). This is pretty far afield of anything on topic, I'd be happy to continue this off-list if you're interested. Richard -- I've added over twenty more images of my artwork to my gallery for your viewing pleasure! - http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/ From: owner-dgrpg@delta-green.com on behalf of LizardRoi@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:19 PM To: dgrpg@delta-green.com Subject: Re: DG: Re: Tynes' stuff In a message dated 00-03-28 16:25:37 EST, you write: << ----- Original Message ----- From: XXXXXXXXXXXX
> I just read _RULES OF ENGAGEMENT_, by Senor Tynes. And damn, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would,< I had much the same experience. Let me say again, Tynes' King In Yellow stuff is superb. But the DO story in "Alien Intelligence" seemed to me to obey the rules of Hollywood morality. You know: >> and so on. I don't know, is it just me, or does this seem a little insensitive in a message posted publicly to a list that is also read by the person that wrote the work being critiqued? Now, Mr. Tynes might have a thrilling dialogue with you one-on-one, and for all I know might enjoy the input or offer some insight into the creative process that led to his choices. As with the other Pagans, I can see no reason for him to have any self-esteem issues so long as he remains clothed. :-P If this had been an actual review, I don't think this would bother me. In fact, I might even agree with some of the observations. But, if I thought Brian de Palma was lurking on this list I wouldn't use his movies for examples of missed opportunities or IMHO failed approaches to story elements and such. I'd put Coppola or someone else under the microscope. I'm not trying to embarass anyone here, and I am not claiming anyone is being rude. No one was. Just do an Empathy check. If your creative work was out there, how would you prefer your constructive criticism, on- or offline? Mark "Thumper" McFadden