• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Fixing Joe Fugate's "MegaTraveller Ship Design Example"

D

DonM

Moderator
Moderator
Marquis
Yes, it's extremely well written, and yes, it's got severe problems.

I've started in to trying to fix it, preserving as much as possible, by adding in other items Joe Fugate wrote, mostly comments in the Traveller Q&A articles of TD 19 and 21.

However, for the life of me, I'm stumped on one thing: For the frozen watch, he calculates "5", and then multiplies it by 88. Where's the 88 come from? Any ideas? :confused:
 
Yes, it's extremely well written, and yes, it's got severe problems.

I've started in to trying to fix it, preserving as much as possible, by adding in other items Joe Fugate wrote, mostly comments in the Traveller Q&A articles of TD 19 and 21.

However, for the life of me, I'm stumped on one thing: For the frozen watch, he calculates "5", and then multiplies it by 88. Where's the 88 come from? Any ideas? :confused:
 
Yes, it's extremely well written, and yes, it's got severe problems.

I've started in to trying to fix it, preserving as much as possible, by adding in other items Joe Fugate wrote, mostly comments in the Traveller Q&A articles of TD 19 and 21.

However, for the life of me, I'm stumped on one thing: For the frozen watch, he calculates "5", and then multiplies it by 88. Where's the 88 come from? Any ideas? :confused:
 
Yet another error.

The 88 segments should be 75 segments.

The text states that there are 75 crew segments.

Of course, this now throws off the frozen watch calculations.

5 crewmen x 75 segments = 375 frozen watch, not 440.

Which now throws off the medical section.

Medical: (359/120) + (375/20) = 22 not 25.
 
Actually, I've got a corrected version... (I think...)

And Harry -- I already caught that error.

I'll see about posting it up after I finish cleaning up the "article".
 
Actually, I've got a corrected version... (I think...)

And Harry -- I already caught that error.

I'll see about posting it up after I finish cleaning up the "article".
 
Actually, I've got a corrected version... (I think...)

And Harry -- I already caught that error.

I'll see about posting it up after I finish cleaning up the "article".
 
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook
 
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook
 
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook
 
Originally posted by Swiftbrook:
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook
Click to expand...
I wonder how far something like fair use extends here... critical review would seem to be a valid use otherwise you could never publish a critique. Now, is going through and correcting the errors in an original work a critique? I'd say so.

Now, can one publish it as it appears here, more or less as original with different numbers? Or does on just have to do the nearly unintelligible thing and say "on page 3 of the article, line six, where it lists the EMS weight, the figure xxx.xxx needs replaced with yyy.yyy"? I suspect that would be totally free and clear of any issues, but clear as mud. This version of what I would call a critique is a bit more dubious, but to stretch a point, I'd still call it a fair use. (But IANAL at all... nor am I familiar with the pertinent law in the pertinent jurisdictions...)
 
Originally posted by Swiftbrook:
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook
Click to expand...
I wonder how far something like fair use extends here... critical review would seem to be a valid use otherwise you could never publish a critique. Now, is going through and correcting the errors in an original work a critique? I'd say so.

Now, can one publish it as it appears here, more or less as original with different numbers? Or does on just have to do the nearly unintelligible thing and say "on page 3 of the article, line six, where it lists the EMS weight, the figure xxx.xxx needs replaced with yyy.yyy"? I suspect that would be totally free and clear of any issues, but clear as mud. This version of what I would call a critique is a bit more dubious, but to stretch a point, I'd still call it a fair use. (But IANAL at all... nor am I familiar with the pertinent law in the pertinent jurisdictions...)
 
Originally posted by Swiftbrook:
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook
Click to expand...
I wonder how far something like fair use extends here... critical review would seem to be a valid use otherwise you could never publish a critique. Now, is going through and correcting the errors in an original work a critique? I'd say so.

Now, can one publish it as it appears here, more or less as original with different numbers? Or does on just have to do the nearly unintelligible thing and say "on page 3 of the article, line six, where it lists the EMS weight, the figure xxx.xxx needs replaced with yyy.yyy"? I suspect that would be totally free and clear of any issues, but clear as mud. This version of what I would call a critique is a bit more dubious, but to stretch a point, I'd still call it a fair use. (But IANAL at all... nor am I familiar with the pertinent law in the pertinent jurisdictions...)
 
Actually, my intention, once this forum has pointed out any glaring errors, is to ask Mr. Fugate for his formal permission. I have Mr. Sanger's permission. I suppose I should note that in the file


While the copyright is Roger's, the IP (in my mind) remains Mr. Fugate's.

Yes, I get along with Roger Sanger. I may disagree with him from time to time, but I've always been polite about it. And I've never delved into certain events -- it distracts from gaming.

So, here's the purpose -- fix the article so that it works, and get the legitimate permission of all involved.

I'm asking this forum to tweak it. And I'll ignore further postings on copyright (and I'll add something to the file about Roger saying I can... I have that "reference" around here somewhere...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
MT Only: A MegaTraveller Starship Design Example edited by Don McKinney
2
Replies
28
Views
7K
snrdg082102
S
Back
Top