Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Cybercom vs. "Other" (Re: New Seattle weirdness)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:38:13 -0500
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: New Seattle weirdness


> I think they're supposed to have the commlink/radio combo, but it seems
> unrealistic to me that all cops would have that. I mean, a normal radio
> works just as well in nearly all situations, doesn't it?

It does and it doesn't. First of all is the consideration of a hands-free
environment. Second, even if a subvocal mic is used, individuals with
wider-than-normal hearing ranges (ie; Low Frequency) can often times pick up
the individual's conversation from a decent range (ra; 4-10 meters).
Additionally, anything external can be taken away from the trooper far
easier... please note, that a magic fingers and/or levitate spell can be
used on external items, while cyberware cannot be (well, it *could*, but
dang that would hurt ;-).

External Radios would have the benefit of flux... but if you crisscrossed
the rules for a Vehicle Control Rig (Internal) with those of cybernetic
communications, you would open up a lot of opportunities that would bypass
this problem.

Please note, that external radios/comms gear also have (most of the time)
external controlling mechanisms. For instance, the group here recently
acquired some HUD-style battletac receivers that were rigged for voice
command only. COOL! they all thought, then one of them suddenly gets
concerned when he realizes that this means he'd have to "speak" in some
manner to use the things vs. the option of silent keypad/keystrokes and/or
datajack-style input. I was impressed however. He opted to keep both,
interconnect the things with some electronics B/R rolls and wound up with a
single unit that has all options and two receiver/transmitters that he can
use to slightly boost his transmission and reception ranges.

IMO internal vs. external has different things that need to be considered
before a choice is made. Me personally, I always thought it a good method
of keeping all the cops connected to one another and thus help them to keep
track of the party members a bit easier.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry ("K" "NeoJudas")
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)
THREEH.COM (www.threeh.com)
Message no. 2
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Cybercom vs. "Other" (Re: New Seattle weirdness)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:19:57 +0100
According to NeoJudas, on Wed, 15 Nov 2000 the word on the street was...

> It does and it doesn't. First of all is the consideration of a hands-free
> environment.

Voice-actuated systems perhaps? You switch them on before you go in, and
they only actually transmit when you're speaking into the microphone. It's
not as if that requires 2050+ technology... Add voice-recognition for
changing channels etc. and you've got basically the same flexibility as
cyberware, IMHO, but without the extra cost.

> Second, even if a subvocal mic is used, individuals with
> wider-than-normal hearing ranges (ie; Low Frequency) can often times pick
> up the individual's conversation from a decent range (ra; 4-10 meters).
> Additionally, anything external can be taken away from the trooper far
> easier... please note, that a magic fingers and/or levitate spell can be
> used on external items, while cyberware cannot be (well, it *could*, but
> dang that would hurt ;-).

I'll concede to these points, but are they really things that all cops
need to worry about all the time?

> Please note, that external radios/comms gear also have (most of the time)
> external controlling mechanisms. For instance, the group here recently
> acquired some HUD-style battletac receivers that were rigged for voice
> command only. COOL! they all thought, then one of them suddenly gets
> concerned when he realizes that this means he'd have to "speak" in some
> manner to use the things vs. the option of silent keypad/keystrokes and/or
> datajack-style input.

You can also whisper into microphones and be very hard to detect.

> IMO internal vs. external has different things that need to be considered
> before a choice is made. Me personally, I always thought it a good method
> of keeping all the cops connected to one another and thus help them to keep
> track of the party members a bit easier.

I think that any device is a tool, and you should look at which one is the
most useful. I won't deny that there are plenty of situations where
cyberware radios have the advantage over normal ones, but for corporations
that are expense-conscious (and which aren't?) the factor of cost would be
a big one as well. They'll most likely figure that, if normal radios do the
job just as well, they'll go with those. Only cops/sec guards who actually
need the cyber would have it, IMHO, unless they want to pay for it out of
their own pocket (or perhaps with some company subsidy, but I doubt they'd
all get it for free).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Bartitis -- Kei-erg!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cybercom vs. "Other" (Re: New Seattle weirdness), 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.

Thwap!