Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Michael Orion Jackson <orion@****.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:33:49 -0500
With standardized protocols for smartgun links (name 'em link
modem protocols maybe(v.32, v.43, etc.)), the definition of "gun" could be
expanded a bit. With progressive software upgrades (I'm sure flash BIOS
would be standard by then), more things could be inegrated into the
system, kinda like adding upgrade cards to your mother board, in this case
the smartgun linkage would act kinda like a data bus (PCI, etc.).
Integrate with any pistol/smg/rifle/shotgun/LMG/etc. as a basic protocol.
Expander module would allow smartlinking your fired GL, reducing scatter
if not air-timed, and allowing you to rangefind somebody better if
air-timed. Further expander module (to SL2) would allow integration of
fire bonuses to indirect weapons from angled underbarrel GL fire to
mortars (think about this: ovewrhead spotter drone, battlelink network,
mortar with AP rounds, and a gunner whose smartlink allows a tie in to the
mortar and network... Bye-bye armor... (probably too expensive for most
shadowrats, but handy for merc games)). An expander module (i.e. software
upgrade) for riggers would allow them to "smart" every compatible weapon
on their vehicle's network. Combine this with a tac-computer expert
system on-line (like the cyber version, but in the vehicle instead of your
head to avoid a 3.5+ essence loss :) ) and that's one mean vehicle...
(Imagine this system on a Banshee...)
As a gm you could either just assume this stuff works
automatically (free downloads from manufacturer's site (for registerd
users of the cyberware, and since most shadowrats don't have a license for
their ware or a legitimate reason in the eyes of official-dom to need the
capability to smartlink a mortar, a decker wwould be most handy...)). Or
they could use them as SOTA advances, costing money to buy (like Y50-100
depending on the module, officially. Or roll an etiquette (street)
(10)/ettiquett(decking)(5) to find a warez site to dl it for free! :) ).

And hey, a rigger rigging a building could SL all the buidlings
weapons...imagine that with a tac computer and something else to help with
simultaneous firings of multiple weapons in different locations...ouch...
And a decker hacking into a buildings security node somehow could do the
same thing...double ouch to the defenders.


*****************Michael Orion Jackson******************
***********TAMS Class of 96/UT Class of 2000************
*********************Random Quote:**********************
*PERL: Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister :-)******
********************************************************
Message no. 2
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:28:52 -0300
<snip description of Smartlink Software>

I always tought all of this was already possible...
The smartlink protocol was named ADVAT v.108, I guess :) .

The Smarlink 2 was an upgrade on the old protocol, and it allowed
doing everything you said (indirect fire bonus, long range bonus, etc.).

They never did specify how to update weapons and cyber, tough.
Your idea was nice, finding a warez site to the protocols :). But
upgrading cybernetic smartlinks might require some surgery, to...

Like, find the program, and them go looking for some street doc
to transfer it to a biochip and install it... Hey, makes a nice short
aventure! :)

Bira
Message no. 3
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:43:50 -0400
> <snip description of Smartlink Software>
>
> I always tought all of this was already possible...
> The smartlink protocol was named ADVAT v.108, I guess :) .
>
> The Smarlink 2 was an upgrade on the old protocol, and it allowed
> doing everything you said (indirect fire bonus, long range bonus,
> etc.).
>
> They never did specify how to update weapons and cyber, tough.
> Your idea was nice, finding a warez site to the protocols :). But
> upgrading cybernetic smartlinks might require some surgery, to...
>
> Like, find the program, and them go looking for some street doc
> to transfer it to a biochip and install it... Hey, makes a nice short
> aventure! :)
>
I seriously doubt that. They are already moving away
from this. The newer pacemakers have a system where the doctor holds up
a magnetic paddle/wand thing over the patient's chest to send and
receive info to and from the pacemaker. You can get info like battery
remaining, any errors and so on. You can also reprogram the pacemaker to
set a different pace for the heart of something in the meat has changed.
This used to require surgery but that was REALLY risky just to make a
minor adjustment.
Message no. 4
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 18:17:59 -0300
bryan.covington@****.COM wrote:
>
> >
> I seriously doubt that. They are already moving away
> from this. The newer pacemakers have a system where the doctor holds up
> a magnetic paddle/wand thing over the patient's chest to send and
> receive info to and from the pacemaker. You can get info like battery
> remaining, any errors and so on. You can also reprogram the pacemaker to
> set a different pace for the heart of something in the meat has changed.
> This used to require surgery but that was REALLY risky just to make a
> minor adjustment.


Okay, two ways around this one:

A) It's quicker to install the chip with a 2060 surgery than with
induction-based data transfer. The sofware must be in the
multi-megapulse
range...

B) For those who don't like surgery, the induction or datajack
transfer would still only be doable in a clinic anyway (special
equipment plus medical skills required to fine-tune the program).

Bira
Message no. 5
From: Dick van de Bunt <157100db@*******.EUR.NL>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 03:26:06 +0200
Bira wrote:

>>bryan.covington@****.COM wrote:
>>
>> >
>> I seriously doubt that. They are already moving away
>> from this. The newer pacemakers have a system where the doctor holds up
>> a magnetic paddle/wand thing over the patient's chest to send and
>> receive info to and from the pacemaker. You can get info like battery
>> remaining, any errors and so on. You can also reprogram the pacemaker to
>> set a different pace for the heart of something in the meat has changed.
>> This used to require surgery but that was REALLY risky just to make a
>> minor adjustment.
>
>
> Okay, two ways around this one:
>
> A) It's quicker to install the chip with a 2060 surgery than with
>induction-based data transfer. The sofware must be in the
>multi-megapulse
>range...
>
> B) For those who don't like surgery, the induction or datajack
>transfer would still only be doable in a clinic anyway (special
>equipment plus medical skills required to fine-tune the program).
>
> Bira


The problem with all radio operated stuff is of course ECM. I think its
strange FASA didn't pay more attention to this. I'm not suggesting that
deckers could operate some one's equipment/pacemaker on remote, coded and
burst transmissions should see to that. But, what if I saturated an area
at some different wave levels, specifically those I no that are used by
the equipment. Now I won't be able to use the stuff, but nobody else can
send any info to the stuff either. Saturating a small area should be no
problem, the normally used emitters are probably not very strong, you
could block 'm easily.

If the players ever rely on drones for their reckon, hit 'm with this. This
is off course a bit heavier but it could still work. In a heavily defended
building such defenses should be possible if not common.

Off course, if people use IR all bets are off. (But why would they, it needs
line of sight and has a short range usually).

Dick van de Bunt
157100db@*******.eur.nl
------------------------------------------------------
Mos Eisley Spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum of
villainy. We must be cautious.
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi

I'm ready for anything.
-- Luke Skywalker
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:42:25 +1000
Dick van de Bunt writes:
> The problem with all radio operated stuff is of course ECM. I think its

The solution, of course, is ECCM. :) Specifically, it's possible to pick out
a meaningful signal out of a burst of static, even if the static is on the
same wavelength as the signal. The reason is that what you are looking for
is the modulation of the carrier wave, and it takes a _lot_ of static to
wipe out traces of modulation. To make the trick harder, it is possible to
filter out "random" static and retain modulation, and if the static isn't
random, it's even easier. :)

It gets to the point where it's easier to overload the receiver than it is
to jam it.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 7
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:45:34 -0500
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 03:26:06 +0200 Dick van de Bunt
<157100db@*******.EUR.NL> writes:
>Bira wrote:
>> >bryan.covington@****.COM wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I seriously doubt that. They are already moving away
>> > from this. The newer pacemakers have a system where the doctor holds
up
>> > a magnetic paddle/wand thing over the patient's chest to send and
>> > receive info to and from the pacemaker. You can get info like
battery
>> > remaining, any errors and so on. You can also reprogram the
pacemaker to
>> > set a different pace for the heart of something in the meat has
changed.
>> > This used to require surgery but that was REALLY risky just to make
a
>> > minor adjustment.

>> Okay, two ways around this one:
>>
>> A) It's quicker to install the chip with a 2060 surgery than with
>>induction-based data transfer. The sofware must be in the
multi-megapulse
>>range...

All software is generally in the multi-megapulse range :P and with
induction datajacks getting from 25 to 100 DFR I don't see how there's
any problem ...

>> B) For those who don't like surgery, the induction or datajack
>>transfer would still only be doable in a clinic anyway (special
>>equipment plus medical skills required to fine-tune the program).
>>
>> Bira

>The problem with all radio operated stuff is of course ECM. I think its
>strange FASA didn't pay more attention to this. I'm not suggesting that
>deckers could operate some one's equipment/pacemaker on remote, coded
and
>burst transmissions should see to that. But, what if I saturated an area
>at some different wave levels, specifically those I no that are used by
>the equipment. Now I won't be able to use the stuff, but nobody else can
>send any info to the stuff either. Saturating a small area should be no
>problem, the normally used emitters are probably not very strong, you
>could block 'm easily.

Yeah, but if you include an induction datajack (for smartlink the palm
inductioon pad could, IMO, work just fine) for use in updating software,
changing settings, monitering conditions, etc, you completely side-step
ECM concerns. :P At least I /think/ you do.

<SNIP>
>Dick van de Bunt
<SNIP Sig>

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 8
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:51:38 -0700
>bryan.covington@****.COM wrote:

> Okay, two ways around this one:
>
> A) It's quicker to install the chip with a 2060 surgery than with
>induction-based data transfer. The sofware must be in the
>multi-megapulse
>range...

So? Data flow is 25 Mp/s even for old style datajacks ... it would take a
couple of seconds. Why risk the expense, time, and effort of surgery?

> B) For those who don't like surgery, the induction or datajack
>transfer would still only be doable in a clinic anyway (special
>equipment plus medical skills required to fine-tune the program).

The parameters for communications equipment must be well known by any
competant decker. An induction datajack shouldn't be that hard to make.
Schematics of the equipment should be easy to come by, along with all the
protocols. I think a decker with Biotech and Biotech B/R could do it easily.

> Bira

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 9
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 20:20:05 -0300
Adam Getchell wrote:
>
> >bryan.covington@****.COM wrote:
>
> > Okay, two ways around this one:
> >
> > A) It's quicker to install the chip with a 2060 surgery than with
> >induction-based data transfer. The sofware must be in the
> >multi-megapulse
> >range...
>
> So? Data flow is 25 Mp/s even for old style datajacks ... it would take a
> couple of seconds. Why risk the expense, time, and effort of surgery?

Yes, but I'm not talking datajacks here, I'm talking direct
induction...
That would take a bit longer...

> > B) For those who don't like surgery, the induction or datajack
> >transfer would still only be doable in a clinic anyway (special
> >equipment plus medical skills required to fine-tune the program).
>
> The parameters for communications equipment must be well known by any
> competant decker. An induction datajack shouldn't be that hard to make.
> Schematics of the equipment should be easy to come by, along with all the
> protocols. I think a decker with Biotech and Biotech B/R could do it easily.
>
> > Bira
>

I think it would take a bit more than Biotech to pull this off. But I
was
only speculating here, not posting absolutes. Whatever suits you.

Bira
Message no. 10
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Standardized protocols for Smartgun links
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:23:58 -0500
>> So? Data flow is 25 Mp/s even for old style datajacks ... it would
take a
>> couple of seconds. Why risk the expense, time, and effort of surgery?
>
> Yes, but I'm not talking datajacks here, I'm talking direct
>induction... That would take a bit longer...

It's the same thing, Bira. The pacemaker in your (snipped) example is
gonna have some kind of induction datajack, because it makes more sense
than opening someone up.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Standardized protocols for Smartgun links, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.