Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: haezerd@*****.com (hae zerd)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:06:04 -0800 (PST)
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

After lurking for a while I finally have a question. :)

I was wondering how cyber eyes work. Are they like little camera's that transmit a digital
signal to the brain or is the optic nerve still intact and the replacement eye just serves
to focus the image on the nerve?

If it is a digital signal wouldn't that allow you to see invisible characters or beings? I
guess I don't see the difference of seeing an image displayed on a video screen with
normal eyes versus an image captured by a cyber eye and "displayed" to your
brain. The only difference IMHO is that you cut out the middle man (video screen).

Your thoughts would be appreciated.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/a909dfdb/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
Message no. 2
From: mamos@*****.com (Mike Amos)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:18:28 -0700
Cyber eyes do not help you see an invisible person, even if they have
thermographic vision mods. The Invisibility spell works on the brain, not by
bending light or anything. This is why you need improved invisibility to
hide yourself from mechanical means of detection, (recorded to tape,
computer searches for unknown persons). This is a common debate, but I
believe if you look up invisibility in Sr3 or Mits (I forget in which it
appears) basically settles all the issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: hae zerd [mailto:haezerd@*****.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:06 AM
To: shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility



After lurking for a while I finally have a question. :)

I was wondering how cyber eyes work. Are they like little camera's that
transmit a digital signal to the brain or is the optic nerve still intact
and the replacement eye just serves to focus the image on the nerve?

If it is a digital signal wouldn't that allow you to see invisible
characters or beings? I guess I don't see the difference of seeing an image
displayed on a video screen with normal eyes versus an image captured by a
cyber eye and "displayed" to your brain. The only difference IMHO is that
you cut out the middle man (video screen).

Your thoughts would be appreciated.




_____

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet <http://rd.yahoo.com/evt07/*http://sbc.yahoo.com/>;
Access from SBC & Yahoo!
Message no. 3
From: elven@******.com (Pepe Barbe)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:47:13 -0500
At 01:18 p.m. 08/11/2002, you wrote:
>Cyber eyes do not help you see an invisible person, even if they have
<snip>
>believe if you look up invisibility in Sr3 or Mits (I forget in which it
>appears) basically settles all the issues.

Yes, this is a balancing rule. And it is explicitly justified by the fact
that you paid with essence for those eyes; so they work more like *your*
eyes, rather than using a camera to see.

Pepe
Message no. 4
From: lunatec@*****.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:55:12 -0600
> Cyber eyes do not help you see an invisible person, even if they have
> thermographic vision mods. The Invisibility spell works on the
> brain, not by
> bending light or anything.>

What about ultrasound with someone born blind. The question would be this,
if they have never known sight, and since invisibility is an interpretation
of visual stimuli, would the person be invisible? The sound would still
bounce off of the target, be interpreted by electronic means and fed into
the spatial recognition area of the subjects brain. Can this person be
fooled?

Lunatec
Message no. 5
From: shadowrun@******.com (Paul Devisser)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:52:51 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danyeal De La Luna" <lunatec@*****.com>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Cyber eyes and invisibility


> > Cyber eyes do not help you see an invisible person, even if they have
> > thermographic vision mods. The Invisibility spell works on the
> > brain, not by
> > bending light or anything.>
>
> What about ultrasound with someone born blind. The question would be this,
> if they have never known sight, and since invisibility is an
interpretation
> of visual stimuli, would the person be invisible? The sound would still
> bounce off of the target, be interpreted by electronic means and fed into
> the spatial recognition area of the subjects brain. Can this person be
> fooled?
>
> Lunatec
>

IIRC the spell Invisibility specifically targets the subject's perception of
the visual light spectrum.

Epilogue


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002
Message no. 6
From: mamos@*****.com (Mike Amos)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:42:38 -0700
>What about ultrasound with someone born blind. The question would be this,
>if they have never known sight, and since invisibility is an interpretation
>of visual stimuli, would the person be invisible? The sound would still
>bounce off of the target, be interpreted by electronic means and fed into
>the spatial recognition area of the subjects brain. Can this person be
>fooled?


Let me start by saying I feel like I am treading upon your GM's prerogative
by answering this. I will try, but I am getting into interpretations of the
rules more than anything else.

Okay, if a person was born blind, how do cyber eyes work. If the blindness
was due to damage of the eye itself, treat the cybereyes exactly as if they
had gone into a seeing person. as they connect directly to the brain, and
treat the invisibility spell that same. If the damage was in the brain, the
cyber eyes shouldn't be working anyway as they will be connected to the
brain in the same way.

As for ultrasound, (This is pure interpretation, and your GM has the final
say on this). First I'm not as familiar w/M&M as I should be, but I don't
recall an ultrasound mod for cyber eyes. If there is, my interpretation is
that it doesn't matter because it is your brain that is being fooled not
your cyber eyes. If there is no such mod then you would have to go through
some other device. For example if you had some form of ultrasound camera, it
sends a picture to a screen that can be interpreted by a security personnel,
then I would say they would be seen because the data is being handled by a
machine that is not fooled by invisibility, this is where improved invis
comes in. That could fool such a device.

As I stated before this is all my interpretation, and I'm sure there will be
many other answers. When getting this minute the final decision rests on
your GM.
Message no. 7
From: ValeuJ@*************.navy.mil (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:56:03 -0800
> Let me start by saying I feel like I am treading upon your GM's
> prerogative
> by answering this. I will try, but I am getting into interpretations of
> the
> rules more than anything else.
>
> Okay, if a person was born blind, how do cyber eyes work. If the blindness
> was due to damage of the eye itself, treat the cybereyes exactly as if
> they
> had gone into a seeing person. as they connect directly to the brain, and
> treat the invisibility spell that same. If the damage was in the brain,
> the
> cyber eyes shouldn't be working anyway as they will be connected to the
> brain in the same way.
>
>
[Valeu John EMFA]
It states in the SR Comp that if some takes the Blind Flaw (as in
born blind), that they cannot take cybereyes to correct this condition, as
it is part of the wetware (ie Brain) and not the hardware (ie the eyes
themselves). Cybereyes only correct the eyes, not the link betweem them and
the brain.

At least, that's the way I figure it.

EM3 John Valeu
-AKA- TimeKeeper, Nocren
Message no. 8
From: mamos@*****.com (Mike Amos)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:04:24 -0700
> [Valeu John EMFA]
> It states in the SR Comp that if some takes the Blind Flaw (as in
>born blind), that they cannot take cybereyes to correct this condition, as
>it is part of the wetware (ie Brain) and not the hardware (ie the eyes
>themselves). Cybereyes only correct the eyes, not the link betweem them
and
>the brain.

I agree and based my argument off of the same passage. I did want to leave
an opening for a character blinded during the course of Running, or if the
character was blind but chose not to take the actual flaw. For that reason I
made the differentiation between the two scenarios.
Message no. 9
From: ValeuJ@*************.navy.mil (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:53:14 -0800
> > [Valeu John EMFA]
> > It states in the SR Comp that if some takes the Blind Flaw (as in
> >born blind), that they cannot take cybereyes to correct this condition,
> as
> >it is part of the wetware (ie Brain) and not the hardware (ie the eyes
> >themselves). Cybereyes only correct the eyes, not the link betweem them
> and
> >the brain.
>
> I agree and based my argument off of the same passage. I did want to leave
> an opening for a character blinded during the course of Running, or if the
> character was blind but chose not to take the actual flaw. For that reason
> I
> made the differentiation between the two scenarios.
>
[Valeu John EMFA]
If that's the case, I'd have the player come up with some way to
have the character blinded.
(Remember that Hatchetman was looking too closely at a shotgun blast
when he lost his eyes).

>
Message no. 10
From: lunatec@*****.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:44 -0600
As far as the rules are concerned, I agree. However, when I was 5 years old,
I spend a year and a half blind due to constant surgeries to correct the
muscles in my eyes. I have recollection of the time, but no concept of what
the colors were. It's like reading a book, each character in the book has a
face, and you get ideas of what they look like, but there are details that
are left out. I remember what the nurse looked like, the one who so
foolishly tried to feed me cooked carrots, but I don't know what she really
looked like, just what I must have made up in my head. I remember the
hospital, even though I never actually "saw" the hospital. As a way for you
to understand, tonight, turn off all the lights in your house and wear a
blindfold, now stop a listen. As you get up, listen to your movements bounce
off the walls, eventually (as in months) you will begin to "see" the world
around you. Granted, this is much harder for an adult to do than a 5 year
old child, but it CAN be done.

Now back to shadowrun. If ultrasound works that way, there is an area of the
brain that interprets sound into a spatial "picture" in your head.
Ultrasound would be very effective in enhancing that. Like Geordie LaForge,
you would not have a concept of actual sight, but you could receive this
data directly into you brain...not the optic side, but more the spatial
recognition. That is what I think that the doctors of SR would really be
striving for...not only for the handicapped, but the corps and military as
well. Imagine the advantage. This is more just a thought about a what if,
than what the rules state.


Lunatec
Message no. 11
From: mamos@*****.com (Mike Amos)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:57:46 -0700
>Now back to shadowrun. If ultrasound works that way, there is an area of
the
>brain that interprets sound into a spatial "picture" in your head.
>Ultrasound would be very effective in enhancing that. Like Geordie LaForge,
>you would not have a concept of actual sight, but you could receive this
>data directly into you brain...not the optic side, but more the spatial
>recognition. That is what I think that the doctors of SR would really be
>striving for...not only for the handicapped, but the corps and military as
>well. Imagine the advantage. This is more just a thought about a what if,
>than what the rules state.


I can't disagree with what you are saying. As I said before I am not
familiar with M&M on the level I should be. I don't particularly remember
any rules regarding implanted Ultrasound. If you can find and implanted
ultrasound devices (like a cybereye mod) use it by the rules if for no
reason other than game balance. If there is no rule or you really want to
use this you and your GM can agree on a house rule to allow you to use this
technique. Bare in mind you see no color, can't read signs, and should
probably have some super high modifiers on trying to locate something,
especially in a firefight. You would also want to do some real world
researching into how movement, other sounds, and especially the sounds guns
make will effect all of this.
In an attempt to tie this all back to invisibility. I suppose you could make
a case that a piece of cyberware like this would not be hindered by someone
with an invisibility spell on.
If I were GM and actually let you have this, there would be some amazing
penalties for almost everything you tried to "See" using this technique and
invisibility would be effective against it. So work this one out with your
GM.
Message no. 12
From: Gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:32:15 +0100
According to hae zerd, on Fri, 08 Nov 2002 the word on the street was...

> I was wondering how cyber eyes work. Are they like little camera's that
> transmit a digital signal to the brain or is the optic nerve still intact
> and the replacement eye just serves to focus the image on the nerve?

I guess it could well depend on the cybereye manufacturer, though it's
probably easier to wire the eye to the optic nerve rather than also have to
install some hardware in the brain.

> If it is a digital signal wouldn't that allow you to see invisible
> characters or beings? I guess I don't see the difference of seeing an
> image displayed on a video screen with normal eyes versus an image
> captured by a cyber eye and "displayed" to your brain. The only
> difference IMHO is that you cut out the middle man (video screen).

And that you pay Essence for the eyes, which makes them part of your body,
whereas the video screen is just some bit of technology sitting on a desk
in front of you. Where magic is concerned, that is the important bit.

> ----------------------------------------
> Content-Type: text/html; name="unnamed"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description:
> ----------------------------------------

Please do not send HTML-encoded messages to the ShadowRN list. Thank you :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I know all this and more
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 13
From: Gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 11:35:05 +0100
According to Mike Amos, on Fri, 08 Nov 2002 the word on the street was...

> Cyber eyes do not help you see an invisible person, even if they have
> thermographic vision mods.

The description of the Invisibility spell used to say that thermographic
will see "through" the illusion; in SR3, this has been revised to "other
senses" being able to detect the invisible character normally -- whether
that includes thermo or not is open to debate...

<GridSec>
BTW, please place your replies _below_ quoted text, and delete irrelevant
bits of the original message. Thanks :)
</GridSec>

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I know all this and more
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 14
From: pentaj2@****.edu (Penta John C)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:04:56 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Danyeal De La Luna <lunatec@*****.com>
Date: Friday, November 8, 2002 4:20 pm
Subject: RE: Cyber eyes and invisibility

> As far as the rules are concerned, I agree. However, when I was 5
> years old,
> I spend a year and a half blind due to constant surgeries to
> correct the
> muscles in my eyes. I have recollection of the time, but no
> concept of what
> the colors were. It's like reading a book, each character in the
> book has a
> face, and you get ideas of what they look like, but there are
> details that
> are left out. I remember what the nurse looked like, the one who so
> foolishly tried to feed me cooked carrots, but I don't know what
> she really
> looked like, just what I must have made up in my head. I remember the
> hospital, even though I never actually "saw" the hospital. As a
> way for you
> to understand, tonight, turn off all the lights in your house and
> wear a
> blindfold, now stop a listen. As you get up, listen to your
> movements bounce
> off the walls, eventually (as in months) you will begin to "see"
> the world
> around you. Granted, this is much harder for an adult to do than a
> 5 year
> old child, but it CAN be done.

More potent example: I'm blind in one eye. Have been since 2.5
months old. Last year, I started using a cane. How did I have to teach
myself to use it? By navigating solely with sound. That's when I
discovered something.

The human ear is the worst possible way of locating things, no
matter how close it may be. Can you tell whether an object is in front
of you or behind you? Yeah, sure. But that's it. After that, you have
to be REALLY, REALLY close to definitively locate an object. It's one
reason I often look for martial-arts styles that I could learn to help
defend myselr. Hearing alone, unless you are VERY, VERY skilled, in my
experience, you are not going to be able to locate someone well enough
to hit them. The best you can do is swing wildly in their general
direction.

Linking this to SR, I would personally impose large panalties on
anybody fighting with just ultrasound or just hearing. Minimum of a +4
to TNs. Why? Because unless you've spent years practicing at fighting
blind, you aren't going to have the skill in gathering the information
from your other senses to compensate for losing sight that would be
needed to realistically fight. I forget the exact number, but something
like 80$ of all the information an able-bodied human gathers,
especially in movement or combat, is gathered through sight. Most
people do not have the kind of sensory enhancement training needed to
even get to 20% compensation for the inability to use sight. Even if
you ARE mostly blind, your brain tends to automatically default to
using sight. Only people I've seen who've managed to partially bridge
the gap are people who were born totally blind, for obvious reasons.

John
Message no. 15
From: pentaj2@****.edu (Penta John C)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:21:13 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Danyeal De La Luna <lunatec@*****.com>
Date: Friday, November 8, 2002 1:55 pm
Subject: RE: Cyber eyes and invisibility

> > Cyber eyes do not help you see an invisible person, even if they
> have> thermographic vision mods. The Invisibility spell works on the
> > brain, not by
> > bending light or anything.>
>
> What about ultrasound with someone born blind. The question would
> be this,
> if they have never known sight, and since invisibility is an
> interpretationof visual stimuli, would the person be invisible?
> The sound would still
> bounce off of the target, be interpreted by electronic means and
> fed into
> the spatial recognition area of the subjects brain. Can this
> person be
> fooled?

Based off what I know of the way the brain interacts in people
actually born blind, I would say cybereyes would NOT work. At all. In
fact, could not. (Caveat: I am NO professional. I have little book
learning on the subject. This is all observations and passed-on
history.)

Why? Well, let me tell you a small story.

Way back when in the 1960s and before, blind kids were usually put
into boarding schools. Besides learning the stuff most kids learn, they
learned Braille and...music. For decades, education of the blind was
based on the student learning music and how to make basic handicrafts.

Nowadays, that's all changed, thanks to mainstreaming and stuff, but
you still see a lot of blind kids nudged somewhat towards music. Why?
Because one of the things that happens in the brains of babies and
young children is that a lot of connections between neurons are
created, used, and die if they aren't needed. Now, in blind kids,
obviously, the neural pathways that would be conducting visual
information aren't doin much. So the brain coopts em for stuff like
language and...

...Music, if the kid is taught young enough. In fact, that's one of
the prime reasons that kids who're are blind are being introduced to
braille, cane usage, and other skills at the age of 2 or 3 years old.
Used to be, none of that would start until they were at least 8. Why
starting so young?

Because it is VERY difficult to learn something like reading with
your fingertips at an older age. Your neural pathways are too set.

Ergo, it's actually worse for people who go blind at an older age.
You can LEARN all the stuff kids do...But it's harder.

John
Message no. 16
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:52:12 +0200
Danyeal De La Luna wrote:
> > What about ultrasound with someone born blind. The question
> would be
> > this, if they have never known sight, and since invisibility is an
> interpretation
> > of visual stimuli, would the person be invisible? The sound would
> > still bounce off of the target, be interpreted by
> electronic means and
> > fed into the spatial recognition area of the subjects
> brain. Can this
> > person be fooled?
> >
> > Lunatec

That's a very good question. Strictly speaking, ultrasound should work, even
against Improved Invisibility (but that would depend on how you perceive
Improved Invisibility to work).

In theory we're talking about narrow-band sound waves bouncing off anything
solid and returning to the emitter, in this case the cybereyes. The spatial
recognition you mentioned would exist in the ultrasound tech, not in the
brain. The ultrasound mod would translate the data into a sonar image of
what you're looking at, and transmit _that_ to the brain.

Invisibility tricks the brain into thinking that nothing is there, but the
"invisible" matter still exists and would therefore reflect sound. In the
case of Improved Invisibility, I would say that this spell probably bends
light somehow in order to make the subject appear invisible to mechanical
devices such as cameras. In this case, once again the matter still occupies
space and would reflect sound.

If this is true, then the ultrasound mod for cybereyes makes a great "Detect
Invisibility" device, and as such would be a little unbalancing except for
the facts already noted by others: using ultrasound for anything but a quick
area snapshot or recon work would be very difficult, making things like
movement and combat incredibly difficult without extensive training or
experience.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 17
From: York.GA@******.gc.ca (York.GA@******.gc.ca)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:24:47 -0500
>From: Penta John C [mailto:pentaj2@****.edu]
> Linking this to SR, I would personally impose large panalties on
>anybody fighting with just ultrasound or just hearing. Minimum of a +4
>to TNs. Why? Because unless you've spent years practicing at fighting
>blind, you aren't going to have the skill in gathering the information
>from your other senses to compensate for losing sight that would be
>needed to realistically fight. I forget the exact number, but something
>like 80$ of all the information an able-bodied human gathers,
>especially in movement or combat, is gathered through sight. Most
>people do not have the kind of sensory enhancement training needed to
>even get to 20% compensation for the inability to use sight. Even if
>you ARE mostly blind, your brain tends to automatically default to
>using sight. Only people I've seen who've managed to partially bridge
>the gap are people who were born totally blind, for obvious reasons.

Just to clarify a point...IMO ultrasound is not based on hearing as much as
it is based off radar or sonar. It works similar to bat sonar. Since bats
use this to pick up insects in the air I can see it being used effectively
in combat. Although ultrasound will not give you color and texture of a
target it will give you direction and distance. Having said that, if you
are not used to seeing in this way there should definitely be penalties
applied to using it as a sole source of sensory input.

Coyote
Message no. 18
From: christian.casavant@****.co.uk (Casavant, Christian)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:06:49 -0000
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

> Just to clarify a point...IMO ultrasound is not based on
> hearing as much as
> it is based off radar or sonar. It works similar to bat
> sonar. Since bats
> use this to pick up insects in the air I can see it being
> used effectively
> in combat. Although ultrasound will not give you color and
> texture of a
> target it will give you direction and distance. Having said
> that, if you
> are not used to seeing in this way there should definitely be
> penalties
> applied to using it as a sole source of sensory input.

I'm tempted to disagree.

In combination with imaging software coded into the Ultrasound device, I
like to think the sighting mechanism can provide a large degree of
granularity to the point where higher rating Ultrasound devices (A 1-10 rate
v. price matrix would have to be created) might even permit you to have a
good idea of texture. In ideal conditions, the UltraSound imaging
processors would estimate the color, giving the user a high definition
graphical representation of the environment.

However, sound is slower (330m/s through air???) than other medium so it
might be possible to limit the range on the device, even in a continuous
wave device.

It should also be an easy to device to fool. Acoustically dampened
material while not invisible to the US device, might certainly reduce the
echo return.

I'm pretty sure the manufacturers of the Ultrasound device would present the
data in a user friendly format, in this case human readable, which in my
opinion, means a 3d visual presentation since humans probably
read/interpret data much faster this way.

Mind you, I have neither the SR3 books in front of me, nor do I actually
know anything about physics or acoustic technologies. I'm also having
problems with my email, so I'm only getting a limited number of email
through to my box. So apologies if I've stepped on any toes.

Question: would Ultrasound function more efficiently in a humid
environment as opposed to a arid one?

Xian.


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/65a42e1b/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
Message no. 19
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:30:55 +0200
York.GA@******.gc.ca wrote:
> Just to clarify a point...IMO ultrasound is not based on
> hearing as much as it is based off radar or sonar. It works
> similar to bat sonar. Since bats use this to pick up insects
> in the air I can see it being used effectively in combat.
> Although ultrasound will not give you color and texture of a
> target it will give you direction and distance. Having said
> that, if you are not used to seeing in this way there should
> definitely be penalties applied to using it as a sole source
> of sensory input.

Actually I check the book last night and it states that the ultrasound image
is overlayed with your normal vision, so IMO the penalties would be less
severe.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 20
From: Gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:11:37 +0100
According to Casavant, Christian, on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 the word on the street was...

> In combination with imaging software coded into the Ultrasound device, I
> like to think the sighting mechanism can provide a large degree of
> granularity to the point where higher rating Ultrasound devices (A 1-10
> rate v. price matrix would have to be created) might even permit you to
> have a good idea of texture. In ideal conditions, the UltraSound imaging
> processors would estimate the color, giving the user a high definition
> graphical representation of the environment.

Why would you need color? If an ultrasound device gives a black and white picture,
it's good enough to see someone by -- and that is enough to attack them (or avoid
them, if that's your game). A much better use for color would be to indicate
movement, possible threats, and so on: if the ultrasound device detects something
whose shape suggests it's a gun, it could color it red, for example.

> However, sound is slower (330m/s through air???)

Give or take a few m/s.

> It should also be an easy to device to fool. Acoustically dampened
> material while not invisible to the US device, might certainly reduce the
> echo return.

Not to mention you could set up transmitters giving off random pings which could
play merry hell with the image received by the detector. A white noise generator
should probably give TN modifiers equivalent to a smokescreen (say, +1 per rating
point), I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I know all this and more
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 21
From: christian@********.org (Christian Casavant)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:05:08 +0000
Gurth,

>Why would you need color? If an ultrasound device gives a black and white picture,
>it's good enough to see someone by -- and that is enough to attack them (or avoid
>them, if that's your game). A much better use for color would be to indicate
>movement, possible threats, and so on: if the ultrasound device detects something
>whose shape suggests it's a gun, it could color it red, for example.
>
The advantages of having a colour presentation certainly outweight the
advantages of black and white. Instead ask, why wouldn't you need colour

>Not to mention you could set up transmitters giving off random pings which could
>play merry hell with the image received by the detector. A white noise generator
>should probably give TN modifiers equivalent to a smokescreen (say, +1 per rating
>point), I think.
>
>

I'm sure it would be easy to wreak havoc on the ultrasound goggles, but
it may be important to note that the low frequency acoutis emission of a
sonar ping would likely be well out of range of U/S goggles. PIngs
are likely to be in the 100-500 hertz range, whereas U/S would likely be
in the 15-20Khertz range. I agree the Whitenoise generator is the way
to go, certainly it was the prime defence I had in my mind. The only
question is what frequencies does the generator splattercast on? I had
thought the Whitenoise would have broadcasted along the spectrum of the
hearing frequencies, not the ultra ones, since it would likely take alot
of power and hw to do that, but I suppose it's also equally feasible to
argue that in the SR universe of 2060, the defense against eavesdropping
would also include the ultrasonic ones.

Dinner calls.

G'night.

Xian
Message no. 22
From: 520074903613-0001@********.de (Thorger_SÃŒnert)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:25:57 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Casavant, Christian" <christian.casavant@****.co.uk>

> In combination with imaging software coded into the Ultrasound device, I
> like to think the sighting mechanism can provide a large degree of
> granularity

Nope, you have a wavelength of around 5 mm, which beautifully limits your
resolution.

>to the point where higher rating Ultrasound devices (A 1-10 rate
> v. price matrix would have to be created) might even permit you to have a
> good idea of texture. In ideal conditions, the UltraSound imaging
> processors would estimate the color,

I`m still fascinated by the idea that Ultrasound could somehow infer the
coulor of an object.
I would be glad if you explain how they could do this ?

> giving the user a high definition
> graphical representation of the environment.
>
> However, sound is slower (330m/s through air???) than other medium so it
> might be possible to limit the range on the device, even in a continuous
> wave device.

Yep, and you need around 24-25 frames to see no difference to actual motion.
Message no. 23
From: christian@********.org (Christian Casavant)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:22:10 +0000
Throger,

>Nope, you have a wavelength of around 5 mm, which beautifully limits your
>resolution.
>
>
Didn't know that, but I'm not professing to be an expert either. Is the
5mm wavelength constant over frequency?

>I`m still fascinated by the idea that Ultrasound could somehow infer the
>coulor of an object.
>I would be glad if you explain how they could do this ?
>
It doesn't have to be the ultrasound which infers the colour of the
object. It's possible that there is some other ancillary technology
that is guessing at colours. I don't think this in particular is such a
stretch. While the U/S technology in and of itself might be quite
limiting, I'm pretty sure that by adding extra sensors and lots of
processing power, a greater definition can be provided.

Is it possible to argue that the use of multiple constant wave sensors
overlapping might increase definition and granularity?

Xian.
Message no. 24
From: 520074903613-0001@********.de (Thorger_SÃŒnert)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:34:40 +0100
From: "Christian Casavant" <christian@********.org>
> Throger,
>
> >Nope, you have a wavelength of around 5 mm, which beautifully limits your
> >resolution.
> Didn't know that, but I'm not professing to be an expert either. Is the
> 5mm wavelength constant over frequency?

No, varries with frequency.
The connection is
wavelenght = velocity divided by frequency

> >I`m still fascinated by the idea that Ultrasound could somehow infer the
> >coulor of an object.
> >I would be glad if you explain how they could do this ?
> >
> It doesn't have to be the ultrasound which infers the colour of the
> object. It's possible that there is some other ancillary technology
> that is guessing at colours. I don't think this in particular is such a
> stretch. While the U/S technology in and of itself might be quite
> limiting, I'm pretty sure that by adding extra sensors and lots of
> processing power, a greater definition can be provided.

Sorry, but I´m not convinced.

> Is it possible to argue that the use of multiple constant wave sensors
> overlapping might increase definition and granularity?

I´m not quite sure what you mean ?

Greetings Thorger Sünert
Message no. 25
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:51:31 +0100
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
At 21:22 12/11/2002 +0000, Christian Casavant wrote:

>Didn't know that, but I'm not professing to be an expert either. Is the
>5mm wavelength constant over frequency?

No, the wavelength (lambda) is the distance travelled by the wave
during one period (T).
T = 1/f, and lambda = c * T where c is the wave's propagation speed
(330~340m/s)
=> lambda = c / f
(lambda is in meters, f in Hertz, T in seconds and c in m/s)
Lambda decreases when f increases, so in theory, the higher
frequency you use, the more details you'll get. But the amount of sound
reflected by a surface depends on both the surface and the wavelength.
Basically it's the same "problem" as X-rays being reflected by bones and
mostly passing through skin. I won't get any more technical, as sound isn't
my area of expertise and I don't really know the details, but I imagine you
will get some rather, er, interesting effects if you decide to get into the
really high frequencies.

Oh, there's also another problem that will prevent you from
raising the frequency too much: ultrasound emitters aren't omnidirectional,
and IIRC the more you raise the freqs, the narrower the dispersion cone. So
unless ultrasound sight uses some kind of "scanline" system, the user will
have a much narrower field of view than with his normal sight. (but since
it's overlapped to your normal sight, I guess you'll have a circle drawn in
your FoV indicating where you're seeing US and where you're not -- à la
Deus Ex's night vision mod)

>It doesn't have to be the ultrasound which infers the colour of the
>object. It's possible that there is some other ancillary technology that
>is guessing at colours. I don't think this in particular is such a
>stretch. While the U/S technology in and of itself might be quite
>limiting, I'm pretty sure that by adding extra sensors and lots of
>processing power, a greater definition can be provided.

I agree with Gurth on this; black and white is enough. The
processing power would be way better used on image recognition algorithms
so that "important" items (guns, concealed holsters and such) are
highlighted in a particular color (say, from green to red depending on the
item's threat value)

>Is it possible to argue that the use of multiple constant wave sensors
>overlapping might increase definition and granularity?
>
>Xian.

Up to a certain point, maybe, but the wavelength will always be
the limiting factor, no matter how much sensors you use.

--
Wild_Cat


maxnoel_fr@*****.fr
ICQ UIN: 85274019

GC3.12 GE d-(+) s++: a---?@ C++(++++)>$ !U L+ E- W++@ N w+(++@) !O M- PS(+)
PE Y(+) PGP++ t 5 X R+(+++>$) tv+ b++(+++) DI+@ D++ G e(+++>$) h! r y

GCC0.3 GCC0.2 y83.fr G99 SCP/F:Eh[SR] B+ f=(++) RR(RM) RM+ RR++ L-(=) M---
w= s+(-):-(+) GM+:=(+):-:PF h+ p=>+ LA=(-) mf- w=>+ C+(++)
CG= OG+ F+ c! K=

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 08/11/2002

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 26
From: christian@********.org (Christian Casavant)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:18:47 +0000
>
> Oh, there's also another problem that will prevent you from
> raising the frequency too much: ultrasound emitters aren't
> omnidirectional, and IIRC the more you raise the freqs, the narrower
> the dispersion cone. So unless ultrasound sight uses some kind of
> "scanline" system, the user will have a much narrower field of view
> than with his normal sight. (but since it's overlapped to your normal
> sight, I guess you'll have a circle drawn in your FoV indicating where
> you're seeing US and where you're not -- à la Deus Ex's night vision mod)


Well, they aren't now, but will they still be in 60 years? Although I
hadn't considered it to be 360 degree field of view. I've never seen a
360degree view I guess it might be possible to wear goggles that give
you 360, but how well do people cope with that kind of thing? Certinaly
not well to start, maybe they can with exposure. I don't really care,
actually...

> I agree with Gurth on this; black and white is enough. The
> processing power would be way better used on image recognition
> algorithms so that "important" items (guns, concealed holsters and
> such) are highlighted in a particular color (say, from green to red
> depending on the item's threat value)

And I agree with you too, b&w should be enough, but it won't be black
and white probably because in the during the design phase of the
product, the engineer will show the lovely black and white display to
the team and the marketting monkey will raise his hand and say "Why
can't it be in colour?" The engineer will reply "because it's in b&w,
you monkey." To which the product manager will reply "Yeah, in colour.
Great idea" The engineer will shake his head in disbelief and then add
a million lines of instruction to the product to present a lovely colour
image.

I'm sure if you have enough processing power to determine an item's
threat value, you've got plenty to spare for giving colour definition.

Mind you, I'll say this for the third time: I don't pretend to know
anything about acoustics. I'm only trying to imagine what pseudo
military applications the medical technology of ultrasound might have in
60years time. With the current advances in real time computing, I'm
certain it's more likely than not.

Does anyone know if the "heartbeat sensor" from Tom Clancy's Rainbow six
is a device of fiction or reality?

Xian
Message no. 27
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:05:08 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Casavant" <christian@********.org>

> Does anyone know if the "heartbeat sensor" from Tom Clancy's Rainbow
six
> is a device of fiction or reality?

Reality. There are a few car security systems that will listen for
heartbeats and warn the owner (as determined my a radio transmitter in
the key-ring) if there is anyone in/around the car, as they near it.

NB: I don't have such a system, so I don't know how well they work,
nor do I know how useful they are.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984
Message no. 28
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 01:31:33 +0000
At 10:18 PM 12/11/2002 +0000, Christian wrote:
>And I agree with you too, b&w should be enough, but it won't be black and
>white probably because in the during the design phase of the product, the
>engineer will show the lovely black and white display to the team and the
>marketting monkey will raise his hand and say "Why can't it be in
>colour?" The engineer will reply "because it's in b&w, you
monkey." To
>which the product manager will reply "Yeah, in colour. Great idea" The
>engineer will shake his head in disbelief and then add a million lines of
>instruction to the product to present a lovely colour image.
>
>I'm sure if you have enough processing power to determine an item's threat
>value, you've got plenty to spare for giving colour definition.

Although you do read Dilbert don't you... :-)
I give Ultrasound a very low res black and white image, it doesn't after
all give you perfect vision under all circumstances.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

-----BEGIN SR GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 0.22
SR1+ SR2+ SR3++ h++ b++(+++) B? UB+ !IE(+) RN++>++++ STK+ LST+ NERPS+>+++
W- dk+(+++) sa-- ma- jat++++ m+(-) gm+(++) M-- P(+++)
-----END SR GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+

"You really do walk into these things don't you Baldric"
Blackadder the Third (Ink
and Incapability)
Message no. 29
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:38:50 +0200
520074903613-0001@********.de wrote:
> I`m still fascinated by the idea that Ultrasound could
> somehow infer the coulor of an object. I would be glad if you
> explain how they could do this ?

It wouldn't display the color of the object viewed, but ultrasound displays
do tend to color their images based on the way the objects reflect the sound
in order to simulate dimension. Otherwise everything would appear to be flat
and two dimensional.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 30
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:46:21 +0200
Christian Casavant wrote:
> [snip]
> sonar ping would likely be well out of range of U/S goggles. PIngs
> are likely to be in the 100-500 hertz range, whereas U/S
> would likely be
> in the 15-20Khertz range. I agree the Whitenoise generator
> [snip]

Actually audible sound waves extend to about 20 KHz, so ultrasound tends to
be any sound wave above 20 KHz.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 31
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:53:11 +0200
Lone Eagle wrote:
> Although you do read Dilbert don't you... :-)
> I give Ultrasound a very low res black and white image, it
> doesn't after
> all give you perfect vision under all circumstances.

Actually even today most medical ultrasound monitors display the image in
color, although I suppose you could call it "colorized grayscale" more than
anything else. It does represent a more readable and detailed image than
pure grayscale/B&W though.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 32
From: Gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:20:03 +0100
According to Christian Casavant, on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 the word on the street was...

> The advantages of having a colour presentation certainly outweight the
> advantages of black and white. Instead ask, why wouldn't you need colour

You wouldn't _need_ color because you can see well enough without it. I agree
that it would be nice to have, but with a system like ultrasound it seems to me
like it's often going to be more trouble than it's worth having a computer color
in the image based on its best guess as to what something is.

> I'm sure it would be easy to wreak havoc on the ultrasound goggles, but
> it may be important to note that the low frequency acoutis emission of a
> sonar ping would likely be well out of range of U/S goggles. PIngs
> are likely to be in the 100-500 hertz range, whereas U/S would likely be
> in the 15-20Khertz range.

Uhh... Who said you need to use a sonar array for this? What I meant was some
simple electronics hooked up to a speaker, emiting a short "ping" of sound in
the
frequency band used by ultrasound goggles at random intervals. It wouldn't be a
white noise generator, though.

> I agree the Whitenoise generator is the way
> to go, certainly it was the prime defence I had in my mind. The only
> question is what frequencies does the generator splattercast on?

All that takes is a bit of tweaking, or just buying one intended to fool
ultrasound systems...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I know all this and more
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 33
From: Gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:25:29 +0100
According to Christian Casavant, on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 the word on the street was...

> Didn't know that, but I'm not professing to be an expert either. Is the
> 5mm wavelength constant over frequency?

No. Frequency is always inversely proportional to wavelength (that is, if one
goes up, the other goes down by (relatively) the same amount). What I think the
other poster meant is that 5 mm is roughly the wavelength used by any ultrasound
device.

> It doesn't have to be the ultrasound which infers the colour of the
> object. It's possible that there is some other ancillary technology
> that is guessing at colours. I don't think this in particular is such a
> stretch.

You could do that easily enough with a computer, sure. But it hinges on pattern
resolution and basic guesswork -- it absolutely can't tell if the wall in front
of you is painted white, or blue, or has flower-pattern wallpaper on it. So about
the only things it can color in reliably are things with a known color: it could
make guns metal-colored, for example, and ornately-decorated furniture
wood-colored. Even then it'd most likely get things wrong.

Which is why IMHO it's much better to stick to monochrome display for something
like this, and use colors to indicate important stuff.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I know all this and more
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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
Message no. 34
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:05:01 +0200
Gurth wrote:
> [snip]
> Which is why IMHO it's much better to stick to monochrome
> display for something
> like this, and use colors to indicate important stuff.

Well yes, but as I said even contemporary ultrasound devices use scaled
color displays, simply because it is easier to read shades of, say, green
and blue, than shades of gray. However, the colors represent depth of field
(ie. dimension) rather than the physical color of the object.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 35
From: lordmountainlion@***.rr.com (Scott Peterson)
Subject: Cyber eyes and invisibility
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:39:25 -0700
Steve Gerard said.....

Actually even today most medical ultrasound monitors display the image in
color, although I suppose you could call it "colorized grayscale" more than
anything else. It does represent a more readable and detailed image than
pure grayscale/B&W though.

And Im adding this.

haveing recently had a ultrasond done to ruel out a kidney stone (amazing
how life adds flacour) I watched the scanner creen while the tech did. One
thing I nboticed it that if you have contained gas (as in the bowels but you
can see how oit might be used) you block the sound sensor completely
The tech had to literaly dig into me and move the various bowles around to
get to what he wanted to check.

Also Ive been watching the various threads on this topinc and people are
trying to make this pupey do things it cant. iirc ultra sound a slow moving
wave patern and slow return, the only good I have seen someone may have
sugested is if the guys your fighting pop smoke, IR Smoke or other visual
cover. The US system could be a fall back where other sensors failed and
you HAD to have some sort of sighting system to hit them with. But has been
mention there are ways to jam it.

my 5 cents worth.

Scott


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cyber eyes and invisibility, 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!