Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Airwisp@***.com Airwisp@***.com
Subject: Smartlinked Bows (very long and in the narrative)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:53:56 EDT
To all reading this post, be aware that I am separating this message into two
parts, so that it does not get turned into a file.

-=-=-=-

In a message dated 4/25/2000 2:01:46 AM , dghost@****.com writes:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:17:41 EDT HHackerH@***.com writes:
> > Be warned, I'm honest here.
>
> Be warned, so am I.

Ya know Alfredo, I like seeing you being very passionate about something, but
it is also saddening to me to see you be this way ... even K is a bit 'put
out' with who you are right now in this thread ...

I am going to respond to this one Alfredo as I want to and I don't want to
lose a 'friend' either ... and I do consider you one ...

> <SNIP>
> > > I disagree.
>
> > That's nice, but it is completely in the book now.
>
> No it isn't. Where does it say that the rudimentary display link used in
> a smartgunlink can be used for these purposes?

Okay, *opening up M&M* going to page 32 are more detailed rules regarding
what the basic components are in a smartlink system. Quoting directly from
the book ...

-=-=-=-=-=- (Begin quotes)
The smartgun link system breaks down into four components: an I/O device
(typically a subdermal induction pad that syncs with the smartgun's system), a
n eye display, a ballistics processor, and a limited simsense rig (for body
posture/gun position sensing). Some users may not want the whole package.
For example, a user with an image link doesn't need the eye display, he just
needs to connect his existing cyberware to the smartlink system. Some users
may wish to avoid the palm pads (detectable by touch), preferring to jack a
smartlinked gun through a datajack instead.

Two accessories for the smartlink system are also available: the range finder
and the personalized smartlink safety.
-=-=-=-=-=-=- (End quotes)

> <SNIP>
> > > (You assume that a programmer designed smartlnks and not an
> > > engineer,
> > > didn't you? ;) )
>
> > No, I presume a game-player designed this.
>
> It was a joke. An engineer designs something effeciently and cheaply and
> a computer programmer designs something for maximum
> upgradablity/compatability. (or at least, that's how the joke goes)

Sorry Alfredo, I did not catch this as a joke.

> <SNIP>
> > > 1) As I said, the bow can not internally mount a smartlink. It
> > > would too
> > > greatly unermine the bow's structural integrity and/or strain
> > > fragile
> > > electronic components.
>
> > And this is PURE BS!!!! I knew someone who had a device built into
> > the
> > handle-frame of a bow. It won't damage the structural integrity for
> > squat.
>
> In order to maximize the pull of the bow, you can't have anything built
> into the handle.

If the bow is either a normal bow, a recurve bow, then yes, you could not
build something directly into the bow, this much is true. But even normal
bows (and I don't mean compound bows) and recurve bows can have a palm
grip/arrow rest on them too, and there is room definitely there for a
smartlink system. And this palm grip/arrow rest can be something completely
separate from the bow, it is just slid/wrapped down/around where the user is
going to be holding the bow.

> > That you disagree or that you are going beyond the boundaries of
> > pigheadedness??? It's fairly obvious to me that you, for whatever
> > reason,
> > have completely side-placed the normal allowance for "the possible"
> > here
> > Alfredo that you possess. Again, you are basing so much on the here
> > and now
> > and your own personal opinions that you are not going out into the
> > world and
> > seeing what is already possible.
>
> (To audience) "He don't know me very well."
>
> Part of this perception is your misunderstanding of my point in this
> conversation and even misunderstanding what I am saying.

At the same time though Alfredo, you don't know us very well either.

I don't think we misunderstand each other, it is just that we are not
-listening- to each other.

> <SNIP>
> > > Nope. actually, it may be only 2 links.
> > > The datajack connects to the smartlink, memory, and display link;
> > > the
> > > router connects to the datajack, and the transducer.
>
> > No, it has 5 links/ports. 2 of them are used by the datajack
> > itself. Reread
> > the book.
>
> Reread my POST. I'm saying that only 2 router links would be need by the
> router. I know how many links a datajack has.

If using a standard smartlink system, a display/image link, and a datajack,
only 1 router would be needed to hook them all up together. The
display/image link would be connected into the smartlink systems own router
system, which would then all be linked to the datajack by a router from the
datajack to the main processor for the smartlink system.

> <SNIP>
> > Tell you all they want, I am NOT dealing in recurve bows here
> > Alfredo which
> > apparently you are (English Longbows are Recurve ... Bows as
> > outlined in the
> > books currently are NOT recurve, they are Compound style....massive
> > engineering difference).
>
> I'm pretty sure English longbows are not recurve. I'll have to check. I
> believe Turkish bows (IIRC, about the size of a short bow) are recurve
> and out shoot English Longbows. It's been a while and I really don't have
> a source to look it up in anymore ...

Okay, from what I remember of my history, here goes ...

-=-=-=-=- (begin narrative)
In the beginning, when archery first began, bows were not recurve. The were,
basically, a somewhat flexible stick of wood that had the ends connected via
a piece of string (sinew in most cases). This type of bow was in use for a
very long time, as the concept of long range weaponry, though useful was not
considered as being necessary in combat situations.

However, eventually someone begins to figure out (and this is where the Turks
come into play, I think) that the current setup of the bow was not as
efficient as it could be. The current bow created the tension to lob the
arrow at an opponent by flexing the bow with the string. The string in this
case was the only thing that was allowing for the arrow to 'go.' This is
where military necessity comes into play.

War is a 'great' catalyst for change and inspiration.

The chummer figured that if the stick were modified in some way perhaps the
bow could then have a farther range and more power, as accuracy lies solely
within the skill of the user, back then.

Hence along comes the recurve bow. By putting a pair of 'kinks' (I'm not
sure of the right term to use here) into either end of the bow, basically
straightening it out even more, so that when the bow is pulled back to fire
even more tension is placed, and this in turn meant that bows had both
greater firepower and accuracy.

And so time passes. The bow pretty much stagnates for many hundreds of
years, if not a couple of thousand. It is replaced in prominence by
something called a 'gun' as we call them today. This was simply due to the
desire for something far more powerful, with a better range, and a measure of
built in accuracy.

Time passes, and the technological level of the world increases. Guns begin
to flourish with massive improvements and ever increasing potentials for
devastation. The bow has not changed and remains remarkably popular as a
novelty and sports recreation tool.

-=-=-=-=- (continued in next email)
Message no. 2
From: Airwisp@***.com Airwisp@***.com
Subject: Smartlinked Bows (very long and in the narrative)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:10:42 EDT
-=-=-=-=- (Continued)
But then, another chummer, who is a bow enthusiast, comes up with the idea,
of using the current level of technology to improve the bow, and bring it up
to SOTA.

Along comes the compound bow. At it's basics, the central part of the bow is
unflexible and attached to it are two 'arms' that are flexible. The genius
of this upgrade is that pulleys were then used, and the string, instead of
ending at either end of the bow was now a single string (it's beginning meets
it own end - like Jormangandr, the Midgaard Serpent). The pulleys allow for
both greater range and power.

It is too little too late though.

The accuracy of the compound bow nowadays has been lessened upon the skill of
the user with the addition of something called a 'targeting sight.' The
targeting sight enables the user to 'preset' where the bow must be positioned
in order for the arrow to get to within striking distance of their target,
just as it is with a gun. This means the archer can begin to train their
physical body to automatically adjust (subconsiously) the angle of the arm
when they are holding the bow to fire it at the target.

~Personally, I will not be putting on a targeting sight on my compound bow.
I prefer the hardware I was born with and skill to be far more important.~

Getting to the quiver part. A quiver for the longest time was always either
worn strapped across the back, or hanging from a belt, or, when stationary,
from a ground quiver. Having to reach and grab the arrow from the quiver is
a tedious process. And in warfare/combat, time is of the essence. Guns had
the advantage in this department as their ammunition was contained within the
weapon. Hence some other chummer, after the creation of the compound bow,
realized that you could put a small number of arrows onto bow itself. Thus
the creation of the bow-mounted quiver, also another accessory.

However, with the addition of the quiver, the stability of the bow came into
question. Now there was a object attached to the bow which was making it
more difficult for the user to keep the bow straight up and down when they
were firing it. Another chummer comes up with the idea of placing a set of
balancing weights onto the bow. Problem solved for the most part, as the
user was still central to the equation of firing the bow (they still need to
be strong enough to hold the darn thing).

Bows will never replace the gun, as they currently are made.

But even guns are in danger. Though they are powerful and have a good range.
There is still something better out there. Energy weaponry will do the same
thing to guns in the long-run as guns did with our modern day guns.

-=-=-=-=-=- (End narrative)

So where does this put us.

In the end, you can do a lot of things to make it easier upon the archer.
Easier to be more accurate. And to take away them needing to worry about
what modifications the bow need to do to modify itself (hmm, with Archer, I
have the bow set for the maximum and have something similar to the cyberchoke
to lower the power when an outright 'kill' shot is not desired) depending on
the arrow being fired.

You can barcode the arrow. Put a ident chip into it which is similar to the
modern day FOF interrogator systems with some missile systems (when the arrow
is nocked onto the bow, the action causes a short radio burst -which can be
interferred with by ECCM- or some other communication method that triggers a
preprogrammed set of settings within the bow to accomodate the arrow).

In the end, the main determining factor(s) in everything are .. Desire and
Resources (both funding and technology together) ... without these two the
possibilities of what the user ~wants~ installed/added-on/built into the bow
are not possible.

Perhaps on a tangent, being a postal employee is very stressful, especially
now with the hiring freeze in place and the desire by the post office to cut
their work force by some 9,000 people. Two or three weeks ago, I got into an
argument with two of the people I work very closely with. I eventually
realized that we were both right in our povs, they did not know the entirety
of my orders and I had not realized the potential of doing something they
said they did a lot - my job is a little easier now because of it. I stopped
the argument, admitting that yes, I was also in the wrong, but that we were
arguing over nothing and getting very heated up because of it.

I will read any of the responses to the email, I don't think I will respond
to any of them though. I will listen though.

I do know that somewhere in my narrative I have some errors, but as I
remember of the history of archery, I am relatively on the mark.

And, to correct K, there are three types of bows ...

"Straight"
"Recurve"
and
"Compound"

SR3 makes no distinction between the three of them ... it's in the equipment
section.

The Ranger-X is the exception to them as it is, simply, a better version and
more powerful.

*sigh* I'm surprised at myself, this is the longest post I believe I have
ever written.

It feels good ...

-Mike
Message no. 3
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: Smartlinked Bows (very long and in the narrative)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:17:18 -0500
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:53:56 EDT Airwisp@***.com writes:
> To all reading this post, be aware that I am separating this message
> into two
> parts, so that it does not get turned into a file.
>
> -=-=-=-
>
> In a message dated 4/25/2000 2:01:46 AM , dghost@****.com writes:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:17:41 EDT HHackerH@***.com writes:
> > > Be warned, I'm honest here.

> > Be warned, so am I.

> Ya know Alfredo, I like seeing you being very passionate about
> something, but

I'm not that passionate about this. I just kept posting to straighten out
what I thought was K misunderstanding me.

> it is also saddening to me to see you be this way ... even K is a
> bit 'put
> out' with who you are right now in this thread ...

Who am I?

> I am going to respond to this one Alfredo as I want to and I don't
> want to
> lose a 'friend' either ... and I do consider you one ...

And I you. What kind of friend would be so easily "lost"?

> > <SNIP>
> > > > I disagree.

> > > That's nice, but it is completely in the book now.

> > No it isn't. Where does it say that the rudimentary display link
> > used in
> > a smartgunlink can be used for these purposes?

> Okay, *opening up M&M* going to page 32 are more detailed rules
> regarding
> what the basic components are in a smartlink system. Quoting
> directly from
> the book ...
>
> -=-=-=-=-=- (Begin quotes)
> The smartgun link system breaks down into four components: an I/O
> device
> (typically a subdermal induction pad that syncs with the smartgun's
> system), a
> n eye display,
<SNIP>

Eye display: .1 Essence; 300¥
Display Link: .1 Essence 1,000¥

What's the difference if it's not functionality/flexibilty? It does not
specifically state that a Display Link can be used in lieu of an
eyedisplay, but is implied. Where is it even implied that the reverse is
true?

<SNIP>
> > It was a joke. An engineer designs something effeciently and
> > cheaply and
> > a computer programmer designs something for maximum
> > upgradablity/compatability. (or at least, that's how the joke
> > goes)

> Sorry Alfredo, I did not catch this as a joke.

Why not? You mean you don't get it or you are offended or what?

<SNIP>
> > In order to maximize the pull of the bow, you can't have anything
> > built
> > into the handle.

> If the bow is either a normal bow, a recurve bow, then yes, you
> could not
> build something directly into the bow, this much is true. But even
> normal
> bows (and I don't mean compound bows) and recurve bows can have a
> palm
> grip/arrow rest on them too, and there is room definitely there for
> a
> smartlink system.

I don't think it could have internally mounted electronic components...

> And this palm grip/arrow rest can be something
> completely
> separate from the bow, it is just slid/wrapped down/around where the
> user is
> going to be holding the bow.

Unless I am mistaken as to what are suggesting, this is what I was
thinking for a smartbow hook up.

<SNIP>
> I don't think we misunderstand each other, it is just that we are
> not
> -listening- to each other.

Perhaps.

<SNIP>
> If using a standard smartlink system, a display/image link, and a
> datajack,
> only 1 router would be needed to hook them all up together. The
> display/image link would be connected into the smartlink systems own
> router
> system, which would then all be linked to the datajack by a router
> from the
> datajack to the main processor for the smartlink system.
<SNIP>

I didn't think of that ... hmm... would it work? could you access the
display link through the smartlink or only access the functionality of
the link that smartlink uses?

> Okay, from what I remember of my history, here goes ...
<SNIP>

Thanks for the history!

Btw, IIRC, recurve bows are not drawn normally. Instead of pulling the
bowstring back, you push the bow forward. (Again, IIRC)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Smartlinked Bows (very long and in the narrative), 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!