Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Rusty Witherspoon
(12 Feb 2018 19:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Tim
(12 Feb 2018 23:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Cian Witherspoon
(13 Feb 2018 00:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Cian Witherspoon
(13 Feb 2018 00:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Tim
(13 Feb 2018 00:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level Cian Witherspoon (13 Feb 2018 01:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Phil Pugliese
(13 Feb 2018 00:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Tim
(13 Feb 2018 00:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Phil Pugliese
(13 Feb 2018 07:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Cian Witherspoon
(13 Feb 2018 08:01 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Phil Pugliese
(13 Feb 2018 18:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
RiftRoamer
(15 Feb 2018 15:38 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Caleuche
(15 Feb 2018 17:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Bruce Johnson
(15 Feb 2018 21:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Phil Pugliese
(15 Feb 2018 21:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Greg Nokes
(16 Feb 2018 08:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Phil Pugliese
(16 Feb 2018 22:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Richard Aiken
(27 Feb 2018 03:07 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
shadow@xxxxxx
(21 Feb 2018 04:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Rupert Boleyn
(13 Feb 2018 08:33 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Phil Pugliese
(13 Feb 2018 18:28 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] The meaning of world tech level
Bruce Johnson
(13 Feb 2018 23:03 UTC)
|
I tried the best I could. So, it's up to 20 weeks for an order to go through. I would estimate double the shipping costs, plus manufacturer agent fees, broker fees, import/export taxes, spread over the total shipment, added to the cost per unit. Call it maybe 5-10%. Actually, this is a great point in favor of the model where low tech worlds provide materials to the high tech ones, in exchange for finished goods. THis leads to a steady state of low-tech worlds not building up their industrial infrastructure because it's easier to just ship the desired items in. On 2/12/18, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:16:58PM -0800, Cian Witherspoon wrote: >> I'm about to get real snarky here: > > I can tell. > > >> Way to not get the point of the model. > > I got it, but disagreed that your analogy was useful. Adding > completely arbitrary distance ratios to it doesn't help at all. > > If you're going to try to quantify it, use the fact that in your > analogy, New York stands for some system that doesn't manufacture the > high-tech goods. Beijing stands for a star system that does > manufacture the goods. Almost all systems in the OTU have TL C+ > systems of decent population within at most ten jumps, so making a > 56-jump analogy is ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous. > > > - Tim > ----- > The Traveller Mailing List > Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml > Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com > To unsubscribe from this list please go to > http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=DZZu00eGt8rDmt14P7liTVEolKKLZVUJ >