If you are worried about fighters in a FT game (or you know your opponent is
using soap bubble carriers) try using my caterphract (PDS CLE) or carbine with
AFSML`s designs. Add a couple of these to your task force, and if positioned
right (and your opponent doesn`t expect them) they eat fighters. Highly
amusing the first time I used them (we were using rules that meant opponents
didn`t know what the enemy had until after the ship opened fire).
This discussion about cat/dog aliens reminds me of a comment I heard a
while ago, in that we humans are actually pitiful species. we are weaker,
slower,
poorer scences, less natural weapons/defences than any equaly sized
species around at the moment. If we could give a natural efficient preditor
(dog/cat/gorrila etc) our one advantage (inteligence), we could create a
better soilder than a human.
> Bif Smith wrote:
> This discussion about cat/dog aliens reminds me of a comment I heard a
Actually, we can see very well and can run further, which on the savannah is
better than faster, than our intended prey. Primitive man hunted by running
the prey into the ground, because while the prey was faster, it could not run
out of
G'day Bif,
> I heard a while ago, in that we humans are
As we have no REAL idea how and why man evolved large and complicated brains
in the first place (there are lots of competing theories, but little
consensus) its kind of hard to say what would happen if we "gave" it to
another animal. More than likely over a fairly short period (in evolutionary
time) the animal would lose many of the "weapons" its started with, because it
didn't need them anymore as they now use tools. Even as
far back as a 100,000 years ago humans were so effective at hunting and tool
making that they had pretty much brought about the extinction of every large
terrestrial mammal on Earth <bar the elephants....they mustn't taste nice
enough;)>. Neanderthals ran down their food (or chased it off cliffs etc which
was easier then stabbing it to death with their thrusting "spears") and were
quite efficient carnivores, with a diet composed of
95%+
meat. Homo sapiens was pretty fleet of foot too, but they developed the
throwing spear and so got the edge, they were also nomadic not territorial and
had a diversified diet of grains, roots, insects, meat, scavenged carcasses
etc. So humans are efficient predators, it was unpredictable environments that
meant we had to have the ability to store fat in good times, not inefficiency.
As for how other kinds of animal would act given sentience that's debated to,
but the only serious work ever done on "selective breeding for intelligence"
in other mammals (in Soviet Russia) suggests that they would probably converge
on or way of doing things anyway (due to a shared mammalian base).
Sorry if this turned into a biology lecture.... and don't let it put you
off indulging in "lets dream up an alien", that's one of my favorite past
times;)
Cheers
Beth
> On 4-Apr-01 at 21:22, Beth Fulton (beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au) wrote:
There is some evidence that the throwing spear predates H.Sap. I've also seen
some evidence that claims Neaderthals were not primarily meat eaters. (If you
ask f or sources I have a rather large stack of magazines to go through:)
> Sorry if this turned into a biology lecture.... and don't let it put
So what did you think of Grendels in Legacy of Heorot? Think we could come up
with aliens with supercharged blood?:)
G'day Roger,
> There is some evidence that the
The last I heard it was still a bit of a toss up, though they were pretty
defnite H. Neth never used them.
> I've also seen some evidence that
I was going off the series of coprolite studies published in Science and
Nature (latest one about a month ago I think), but I wouldn't mind seeing what
your list has to say <probably best to send that off list though as
this is heading OT at FTL speeds;)>
> So what did you think of Grendels in
Sorry I don't know anything about them.
> Think we could come up with aliens
Definitely!;)
Cheers
Beth
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:15:55 +1000, Beth Fulton
<beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
> Sorry I don't know anything about them.
They are an interesting critter, in an otherwise unremarkable book.
To point out something mentioned earlier, yes, it would be nasty to put
intelligence in a big predator. One of the reasons it didn't happen here is
that those big predators spent a lot of time eating enough protein to keep
their bodies going.
Primates, however, had a lot more "spare time". Chimps and other primates have
complex social orders and have complex play sessions. They spend considerably
less of their time gathering food and eating than most other animals.
One advantage in primates is their digestive system. Humans can, lets face it,
eat a lot of different stuff! Cats, however, are almost entirely carnivores.
Dogs (wolves) are omnivores, but can't handle the same degree of change in
their diet as humans.
The big cats are territorial, which is good considering that high population
density is not a good thing in a primate that needs so much food. Canines
(wolves, hyenas, foxes) are more social, but don't have the same food
requirements, and they are omnivorous (okay, not sure about hyenas, but I know
wolves are). Primates, however, are far more social. This social aspect seems
to be important, tied with the "free time".
In other words, big cats with intelligence would be a nasty critter... but you
won't find big cats with intelligence.
As for humans being physically weak, humans have amazing stamina. A human can
travel further than a horse. You'd be hard pressed, in fact, to find a land
animal with the physical stamina of a human. For obvious reasons, most are
built for short bursts of speed. A human could physically take on a wolf, too.
A wolf pack, no. But an individual wolf versus a fit, prepared human? Could
be. In spite of those claws on the wolf, a human can be pretty nasty. We
underestimate the power of the human jaw as we don't use it for fighting.
Once, of course, we put the intelligence and tool use to work, we can't be
beaten. Not on this planet, anyway.
G'day Allan,
> One of the reasons it didn't happen here is
I beg to differ.... one of that main reasons that they fast big cats in zoos
on a regular basis is because meat is a rich source of food....its hunting
success not diet portions that take up the time. Even then the big cats
actually spend a lot of their time sitting around.
> Primates, however, had a lot more
Actually its on a par. And the existing evidence shows that by swapping from
primarily herbivorous to primarily carnivorous diet it allowed the early
hominids to get rid of one large energy consuming organ (the majority of the
intestines) and allowed the development of another one (the brain)
and freed up time - herbivores have to eat ALL the time, carnivory and
scavenging take up a lot less time. It doesn't take as long to digest meat and
you get more out of it for smaller portions.
> One advantage in primates is their
Given half a chance dogs are actually as flexible as we are, they just can't
always collect it for themselves (then again our dog climbs the nectarine and
plum trees and picks all the raspberries and strawberries before we can get to
them).
> The big cats are territorial, which is
That's largely true, though I wouldn't have said it quite that way;)
> Canines (wolves, hyenas, foxes) are
And they're more successful when they work as a team. Its not so easy to
split the two aspects. Lions are big cats, but their rate of success goes up
by orders of magnitude when they work as a pride. Within reason breeding
success scales with pack size, the more spare bods off doing something the
better the whole.
> Primates, however, are far more social.
Well the higher primates, I'd hardly call a Bushbaby a real socialite and for
that matter Orangs aren't that social either really;)
> This social aspect seems
Once again its not that clear cut, its a bit of a chicken and the egg problem
in many ways. Though in primates there's enough evidence that alliances aren't
all just for food.
> In other words, big cats with intelligence
Theoretically you could, but they would probably be toned down in many ways
with regard to the behaviour expressed (though that can depend on the
definition of intelligence used).
> In spite of those claws on the wolf,
We also carry a lot more bugs in our saliva.... I know which animal I'd rather
be bitten by in the long run;)
Cheers
Beth
> --- Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
> >So what did you think of Grendels in
You're a biologist... I've always wondered what a biologist would make of that
book.
Hell, I'll ship you my copy if you promise to read it
and e-mail me your opinion of the biology.
G'day John,
> Hell, I'll ship you my copy if you promise to read it
Thank you for the very kind offer John, but if I could have the author title
and ISBN (if possible) I can probably dig it up somewhere down here (for all I
know it already resides in Derek's portion of our many bookcases).
Thanks
Beth
> --- Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
It's by Jerry Pournelle (and a co-author, IIRC). I'd
give you the ISBN but my copy is in a box in transit to Texas.
> It's by Jerry Pournelle (and a co-author, IIRC). I'd
That's OK give this lot half an hour and I'll not only have the author, ISBN
and publisher details but 7 posts of spoilers and a whole thread arguing its
worth;)
In other words can some nice body give me the details John can't furnish
please;)
Beth
> John wrote:
> Beth wrote:
Try:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0671695320/mindseyefictionA/104
-022
7010-8452768
http://www.sffworld.com/authors/n/niven_larry/reviews/legacyofheorot.htm
l
> At 10:24 4/04/01 -0700, you wrote:
> --- Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
No need the state library has a copy, I've just reserved it for Beth. I've
read it and mentioned it to her previously <BETH: obviously when I wasn't
listening;)> but she's the typical scientist type, mind like a sieve [had a
big discussion about the biology too:)]. Also noticed another book 'The
Dragons of Heorot' placed that on reserve too, the wonders of the internet:)
> On 5-Apr-01 at 01:27, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:
Just as an opposing viewpoint, IMNSHO this is the best collaboration book
Niven and Pournelle, with or without anyone else, have written.
This is not opposing to John, who apparently likes it, but to whoever
complained earlier.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
<books@jumpspace.net> writes: <snip>
> So what did you think of Grendels in Legacy of Heorot? Think we could
Adolescent males.
> On 5-Apr-01 at 21:10, Glenn M Wilson (triphibious@juno.com) wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
> <books@mail.state.fl.us> writes:
LOL, point to Roger!
I meant the average adolescent male has "supercharged blood" but usually only
around adolescent females... It's amazing how fast you can make a fool of
yourself around women between the ages of 13 and 30... well 13 and 130
probably.
Gracias, Glenn/Triphibious (American Mongrel) You don't have to be
French to be
a 'frog', or even human! Nektons - Real Marines! (Die, Ralnai, Die!)
Starguard,
Dirtside 2, Ratner's Space Marines and Full Thrust/FB1. Resistance is
everything!
> On 7-Apr-01 at 00:31, Glenn M Wilson (triphibious@juno.com) wrote:
> I meant the average adolescent male has "supercharged blood" but
Nope, I gave up making a fool of myself with women around the age of 13. I
realized that they are, contrary to popular belief, not a seperate species but
they do have their own culture. I just treat women as people whom I don't need
to be afraid of but for whom I must question my male cultural assumptions and
I get along well.