Armageddon Reef

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:17:29 -0000, Ben H <cataphractlance.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Oct 31, 6:36 pm, "David Rorer" <dro....RemoveThis@fuse.net> wrote:
>> > supposedly the phoenecians went out into the real oceans. we know
>> > they were in england way back and they could well have made it all the
>> > way round africa. those central american legends of the bearded gods
>> > returning sound somewhat familiar too.
>>
>> The Phoenicians supposedly sent a fleet clear around Africa, but the fleet
>> hugged the coast. The trip supposedly took three years because the fleet
>> pulled on shore to sow and harvest a crop when it grew short of supplies.
>> The Phoenicians also traded with Britain for tin, but they did not use
>> galleys for the purpose, instead a form of roundship.
>>
>> Galleys are warships, the rowers take up too much space to allow for any
>> cargo therefore its range of action is severely limited.
>
>And remember, the combined fleets had friendly anchorages much of the
>trip. _And_ they had galleons, if not war galleons, for resupply.
>

they may have had round ships of a sort but no way did they have
galleons. those ships didn't come along for more than a thousand
years after the phonecians were gone.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Nov 1, 8:32 pm, Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDon... DeleteThis @shaw.ca>
wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:17:29 -0000, Ben H <cataphractla... DeleteThis @gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 31, 6:36 pm, "David Rorer" <dro... DeleteThis @fuse.net> wrote:
> >> > supposedly the phoenecians went out into the real oceans. we know
> >> > they were in england way back and they could well have made it all the
> >> > way round africa. those central american legends of the bearded gods
> >> > returning sound somewhat familiar too.
>
> >> The Phoenicians supposedly sent a fleet clear around Africa, but the fleet
> >> hugged the coast. The trip supposedly took three years because the fleet
> >> pulled on shore to sow and harvest a crop when it grew short of supplies.
> >> The Phoenicians also traded with Britain for tin, but they did not use
> >> galleys for the purpose, instead a form of roundship.
>
> >> Galleys are warships, the rowers take up too much space to allow for any
> >> cargo therefore its range of action is severely limited.
>
> >And remember, the combined fleets had friendly anchorages much of the
> >trip. _And_ they had galleons, if not war galleons, for resupply.
>
> they may have had round ships of a sort but no way did they have
> galleons. those ships didn't come along for more than a thousand
> years after the phonecians were gone.

I was referring to the navies of Corisande and its ilk.
If the Phoenicians could do that sort of thing _without_ galleons,
then Corisande certainly should be able to do it with galleons along
for resupply and friendly harbors to keep the galleons well stocked.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:59:02 -0000, Ben H <cataphractlance RemoveThis @gmail.com>
wrote:


>> they may have had round ships of a sort but no way did they have
>> galleons. those ships didn't come along for more than a thousand
>> years after the phonecians were gone.
>
>I was referring to the navies of Corisande and its ilk.
>If the Phoenicians could do that sort of thing _without_ galleons,
>then Corisande certainly should be able to do it with galleons along
>for resupply and friendly harbors to keep the galleons well stocked.

sorry. poste in haste repent at leisure as they say.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:22:16 -0400, Don Sample <dsample.DeleteThis@synapse.net>
wrote:

> I've never heard of a case of a free electronic copy of a book becoming
> available *hurting* sales. Most people who have released free
> electronic copies of their books have found that sales of the paper
> versions went up afterwards.

I get the electronic versions of hardbound books I already have, so
that I can read them on my laptop as I knit. The electronic versions
also allow me to have a complete collection at each of my two houses
without having to transport heavy cartons of books back and forth.
However, I consider electronic books to be inferior to printed books,
particularly for reading in bed.

Mary "Sometimes volume is a consideration"
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite.gondwana.DeleteThis@gmail.com or miliff.DeleteThis@qnet.com
Visit my new blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:22:16 -0400, Don Sample <dsample.DeleteThis@synapse.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I've never heard of a case of a free electronic copy of a book becoming
>> available *hurting* sales. Most people who have released free
>> electronic copies of their books have found that sales of the paper
>> versions went up afterwards.
>>
>
> I get the electronic versions of hardbound books I already have, so
> that I can read them on my laptop as I knit. The electronic versions
> also allow me to have a complete collection at each of my two houses
> without having to transport heavy cartons of books back and forth.
> However, I consider electronic books to be inferior to printed books,
> particularly for reading in bed.
>
> Mary "Sometimes volume is a consideration"
>
Agree that reading books in bed with a laptop is inferior to reading a
printed book. However, I'm considering purchasing a ebook reader from
http://www.naebllc.com/ when they become available. Hopefully, that
reader will be better for reading in bed.


--
*
Paul Howard
*
Need a Wizard? Call on Harry Dresden not that Potter boy. [Very Big Grin]
*
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Nov 4, 3:44 pm, Paul Howard <ppaulshow....RemoveThis@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:22:16 -0400, Don Sample <dsam....RemoveThis@synapse.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> I've never heard of a case of a free electronic copy of a book becoming
> >> available *hurting* sales. Most people who have released free
> >> electronic copies of their books have found that sales of the paper
> >> versions went up afterwards.
>
> > I get the electronic versions of hardbound books I already have, so
> > that I can read them on my laptop as I knit. The electronic versions
> > also allow me to have a complete collection at each of my two houses
> > without having to transport heavy cartons of books back and forth.
> > However, I consider electronic books to be inferior to printed books,
> > particularly for reading in bed.
>
> > Mary "Sometimes volume is a consideration"
>
> Agree that reading books in bed with a laptop is inferior to reading a
> printed book. However, I'm considering purchasing a ebook reader fromhttp://www.naebllc.com/when they become available. Hopefully, that
> reader will be better for reading in bed.
>
> --
> *
> Paul Howard
> *
> Need a Wizard? Call on Harry Dresden not that Potter boy. [Very Big Grin]
> *

I always vastly preferred reading with a Palm Zire 31 I once had, till
a twelve foot drop did at last lay it to rest.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

In article <7jjfi3hlk12rchqu6l4mtn6gkriun8i12d.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Brian McDonald <brian_knowspam.mcdonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>i do have to wonder what the proliferation of ebooks is going to do
>longterm to the authors cash flow though. right now i for instance
>buy a lot of paper books a year and use the ebooks mostly to introduce
>new readers to the authors or the odd time to catch up a book i didn't
>catch in print.
>
>the library isn't the greatest analogy for what's coming. to get a
>book from a library involved a certain amount of effort and
>inconvenience. to get a book off the net requires virtually no effort
>at all and will certainly become a far more common thing in the future
>than it is now.

Yes and no. Reading a book electronically takes more effort than reading
paper, and if you try printing a book yourself, that takes way more
effort than borrowing from the library. Especially with my library, I
can reserve books and then pick them up, so it takes little effort.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Adopt A Process -- stop killing all your children!
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

In article <Xns99DAC1E792BE4erictzoneabpeg.RemoveThis@216.151.153.66>,
TheWanderer <usenet.RemoveThis@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>(And I still read them on the Edge, but I'm looking HARD at
>the Sony E-Book Reader - sweet!)

Don't buy Sony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Adopt A Process -- stop killing all your children!
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

Aahz Maruch wrote:
> In article <Xns99DAC1E792BE4erictzoneabpeg.DeleteThis@216.151.153.66>,
> TheWanderer <usenet.DeleteThis@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> (And I still read them on the Edge, but I'm looking HARD at
>> the Sony E-Book Reader - sweet!)
>
> Don't buy Sony.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

Unfortunately, most large corporations have had ethical lapses
over the years. The Sony ethical lapse you refer above to is
unfortunately pretty typical. If you restrict yourself to only
buying product from corporations with untarnished records, the
list gets very short. Indeed, you could starve to death, since
many food production corporations have very tarnished records.

The more important criteria for the Sony Reader is whether or
not it can read non-DRM (Digital Rights Management) material.
The answer to that question appears to be "yes". By supporting
products that do not insist on DRM only material, the corporations
start to figure out that maybe DRM is not such a hot idea after
all. Thus, pretty much anything that Baen chooses to release
in their on library is readable by the Sony reader. The other
important criteria is whether or not it is as comfortable to
read as a paperback book. That decision will depend upon the
individual.

The CyBook reader also looks interesting....

-Wayne
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

--
You've gota know when to hold em,
know when to fold em,
know when to walk away,
and know when to run.
"Wayne C. Gramlich" <Gramlich RemoveThis @PacBell.Net> wrote in message
news:4733D475.8060004@PacBell.Net...
> Aahz Maruch wrote:
>> In article <Xns99DAC1E792BE4erictzoneabpeg RemoveThis @216.151.153.66>,
>> TheWanderer <usenet RemoveThis @NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> (And I still read them on the Edge, but I'm looking HARD at the Sony
>>> E-Book Reader - sweet!)
>>
>> Don't buy Sony.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal
>
> Unfortunately, most large corporations have had ethical lapses
> over the years. The Sony ethical lapse you refer above to is
> unfortunately pretty typical. If you restrict yourself to only
> buying product from corporations with untarnished records, the
> list gets very short. Indeed, you could starve to death, since
> many food production corporations have very tarnished records.
>
> The more important criteria for the Sony Reader is whether or
> not it can read non-DRM (Digital Rights Management) material.
> The answer to that question appears to be "yes". By supporting
> products that do not insist on DRM only material, the corporations
> start to figure out that maybe DRM is not such a hot idea after
> all. Thus, pretty much anything that Baen chooses to release
> in their on library is readable by the Sony reader. The other
> important criteria is whether or not it is as comfortable to
> read as a paperback book. That decision will depend upon the
> individual.
>
> The CyBook reader also looks interesting....
>
> -Wayne

Or you can do what I do and convert your ebook into a mp3 file and listen to
it. the only down side is when people get annoyed with you when ask you
something and say what? }:-p
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

"Spacy Bickerson" <somebody DeleteThis @microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:adf74$47266bde$422af39b$24515@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote in message >
>> according to the text they did hug the coasts as much as possible with
>> gravest misgivings about setting off across open water for any
>> distance.
>
> Galleys, at least the traditional ones used in the Mediterranean Sea are
> not
> suitable for use in rougher waters, of necessity they are built narrow and
> with low freeboard. Thus they are vulnerable to any kind of storm.
> Therefore
> they must be able to run to port or a lee shore should the weather turn
> bad.
> Additionally, because of the large crew they must be able to provision
> often
> and therefore must not be far from a port. Mediterranean galleys would
> travel from port to port, putting in nightly to anchor and reprovision. If
> the weather looked like it was going to be bad they would remain in port
> and
> any attempt to travel trans-Atlantic distances is simply not feasible.
>
> But then again, in print, the author can do anything he likes. Though if
> he
> forces his reader to suspend disbelief too much he loses his audience!
>


You can still get a good argument going about Roman wrecks off the coast of
South America in the history news groups. If a Roman ship got caught in the
Atlantic currents heading west that is more or less where it was going to
end up if it didn't sink first. Running out of water and food would have
been very likely. Merchant hulls could be large and not as many crew.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

"David Rorer" <drorer DeleteThis @fuse.net> wrote in message
news:79045$47291160$422af39b$8825@FUSE.NET...
> >
>> supposedly the phoenecians went out into the real oceans. we know
>> they were in england way back and they could well have made it all the
>> way round africa. those central american legends of the bearded gods
>> returning sound somewhat familiar too.
>
> The Phoenicians supposedly sent a fleet clear around Africa, but the fleet
> hugged the coast. The trip supposedly took three years because the fleet
> pulled on shore to sow and harvest a crop when it grew short of supplies.
> The Phoenicians also traded with Britain for tin, but they did not use
> galleys for the purpose, instead a form of roundship.
>
> Galleys are warships, the rowers take up too much space to allow for any
> cargo therefore its range of action is severely limited.
>

The Romans and the late Greeks also had a few super ships. Very big. Most
likely mainly moved by sails even the ones that were warships. Current data
suggests they were real.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:34:25 -0600, "deowll" <deowll.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net>
wrote:


>You can still get a good argument going about Roman wrecks off the coast of
>South America in the history news groups. If a Roman ship got caught in the
>Atlantic currents heading west that is more or less where it was going to
>end up if it didn't sink first. Running out of water and food would have
>been very likely. Merchant hulls could be large and not as many crew.
>

with a merchy you could well be shlepping a cargo of food and wine
when the unthinkable came to pass.
 >> Stay informed about: Armageddon Reef