From: Stephen Mutka [dreadmook@netzero.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:05 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality Ml10@aol.com wrote: > > Bodycomp VS Portable Navigation Suite > > Power Consumption. > Navigaion equipment consumes a lot of power over a long period of time. While a GPS or > electric compass might only need to be turned on once in a while to get the current > reading, an inertial nav unit needs to be on all the time. That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. Still, since the GPS unit in FluMech comes with its own powersource, I think it's safe to assume that an inertial nav unit would as well. In this case, they would probably use a bigger battery (a mini cell) that could be easily changed in the bush. > I see bodycomps used much like the PDA's of today in that they are only turned on when > needed in order to extend battery life. Hmm. I'm not sure I agree, since the write up on batteries in the PG says that things that use batteries generally have enough to be used *continuously* for 50 hours. That would include calling people, crunching hard data, downloading a tutorial from CommCore, and lots of other stuff. Even if you use your comp a great deal, there will still be occasional slow periods when it could go into "sleep mode" or whatever. This would extend battery life even more. > Performance > The other issue is performance. A dedicated unit will usually be better than a general > purpose unit. for example, I have a pretty serious hand held GPS. I gave an entry > level GPS to a friend as a wedding gift and I have played around with the GPS > attachment for my PDA. There are vast differences in accuracy, lockon times, ect…. Yeah, but isn't that a matter of legality? The US gov doesn't want us exporting GPS equipment that could be used for missile guidance... > Also, all the handheld units that I have used pale in comparison to the avionic GPS > units that I use at work. I know this is true, but why is that? I'm not a GPS expert, so please tell me where I'm mistaken. From what I understand, all a GPS device does is receive triangulation data from multiple satellites. Is there more to it than that? And if there is, is it a matter of hardware or software? > Implant Calculator > The #1 advantage that they have is hands free usage. Which you also have with a bodycomp. > Also, as pointed out above, a dedicated unit is usually better than a general purpose > unit. The calculator on my PDA (which is rather good) is no match for my HP48GX > calculator. Sure, but your PDA isn't a supercomputer by 20th century standards, which a bodycomp is. > If I was on ERT pilot, an Implant Calc would be a great plus. It allows hands free > operation in an environment were a datajack would be impratical and an unlink jack > would be unreliable. (try using any radio equipement in the middle of a storm.) I hadn't thought of this either. Does storm activity interrupt cordless phone use (I don't mean cellular, of course)? > I could use it for fuel calculations as the situation changes. Wouldn't the vehicle's comp take care of that? It has direct access to all of the vehicle's gauges, and there are cars out *today* that can do these sorts of calculations. ChrisTheS wrote: > > > Implant Calculator vs. Bodycomp > > While the same sums COULD be done by a bodycomp, they would not be done at the speed of > thought (as the case with the implant calc), there would be a greater possibility of > input errors, Well, if you're linked to your comp, it *would* be at the speed of thought, and there wouldn't be the possibility of error (or at least, no more than with an implant calc). > and it just wouldn't be nearly as impressive at geek parties :) Okay, I'll give you that ;-) My problem with this whole situation boils down to this: BP computer tech is *immense,* and I don't think most anyone has really thought it through. I like most of what I've seen in the books (the essays on how life has changed, for instance), but then I see all these technological "throwbacks." If this computer tech was all bleeding edge, I would understand, but from what I've read it sounds like it's been around for some time. I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate here, I really want to know what people think. So far, good stuff! Take care, Steve ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___________________________________________________________ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Stephen Mutka [dreadmook@netzero.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:05 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality kabael@softhome.net wrote: > > > While I'm at it, the implanted calculator kinda bugs me as well. I realize that > > it would be capable of all sorts of calculations (rocket telemetry, stock market > > volitility, and anything else that required realtime calculation), but couldn't > > a bodycomp do that as well? > > Yeah, the bodycomp could do it, but don't forget that the internal computer > has a drastically higher interface rate. Does it? If I'm jacked into a comp, how is it faster than an implant? It's all the same sort of wiring as far as I know. > A bodycomp is reasonably convenient, but there is no way it can compare to a larger > system with more interface options (since it doesn't have to be so compact) let alone > the speed of thought. Wait, are you saying an implant comp doesn't need to be as compact as an external one? I have to disagree here. An implant by definition needs to be inside the body, where all sorts of meaty bits get in the way. If anything, I would think an implant would be *less* effective since it needs to be smaller and (reasonably) nontoxic. As an analogy, think about a typical desktop computer versus a laptop (manufactured at the same time). Desktops generally perform better since they don't have to worry about miniaturization. > When you're in a situation when you need to have those calculations NOW, > then the internal computer wins out. It also wins when you need a comp and > can't be seen with a bodycomp (covert ops). The internal computer wouldn't > be a big seller, sure, but it has it's uses. Well, I agree that implant comps have their uses over regular bodycomps, but I'm still not convinced about implant calculators. But hey, keep it coming! Steve _______________________________________________ Why pay for something you could get for free? NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: kabael@softhome.net Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:35 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality > Does it? If I'm jacked into a comp, how is it faster than an implant? It's all > the same sort of wiring as far as I know. That's assuming you're jacked in. And you still have to deal with the bulk of the bodycomp. If you're only going to use it sometimes, then the bodycomp is probably the better choice, however, if you are going to have to interface frequently, or with a variety of different technologies, then the internal computer is better. - it's smaller and more convenient, that can be important - the internal comp could easily be set up to overlay images in a HUD type manner, more reliably than a bodycomp or other screen. Similarly it could allow for other sensory stimulation, not only sound and sight. > Wait, are you saying an implant comp doesn't need to be as compact as an > external one? I have to disagree here. An implant by definition needs to be > inside the body, where all sorts of meaty bits get in the way. If anything, I > would think an implant would be *less* effective since it needs to be smaller > and (reasonably) nontoxic. As an analogy, think about a typical desktop > computer versus a laptop (manufactured at the same time). Desktops generally > perform better since they don't have to worry about miniaturization. No, I was referring to 3 types of machines there. Bodycomps, implants (smaller than bodycomps) and the BP equivalent of a desktop or mainframe. The latter is the one that I first mentioned. As for interface options, since the internal computer requires you to jack into it, it automatically provides you with faster, easier and more reliable interface than simply dictating or typing. Again, yes you can do that with an bodycomp as well, but a lot of people are willing to pay for the smaller size and greater convenient of an internal computer. The implant certainly isn't a common investment, but it has its uses. Derek Guder - kabael@softhome.net - ICQ# 24193592 Opinionated reviewer extraordinaire *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gareth Hanrahan [hanrahag@iol.ie] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 2:05 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality > ChrisTheS wrote: > > > > > Implant Calculator vs. Bodycomp > > > > While the same sums COULD be done by a bodycomp, they would not be done at the speed of > > thought (as the case with the implant calc), there would be a greater possibility of > > input errors, > > Well, if you're linked to your comp, it *would* be at the speed of thought, and > there wouldn't be the possibility of error (or at least, no more than with an > implant calc). Hang on a sec. You're assuming that everyone's using trodes to hook up to their bodycomps. Trode use is probably going to be impractical in a lot of situations. Sure, a standard bodycomp and trodes work as well and are a lot cheaper than an implant calculator - but when you're hanging onto the frame of half-constructed Incorporate refinery in the middle of a gale, and your trodes just got blown off...and you need to calculate the, er, something technical really fast....then you'd appreciate an implant calculator. Or an implant computer. Actually, looking at the book, implant calculators are just stupid... > > and it just wouldn't be nearly as impressive at geek parties :) > > Okay, I'll give you that ;-) > > My problem with this whole situation boils down to this: BP computer tech is > *immense,* and I don't think most anyone has really thought it through. I like > most of what I've seen in the books (the essays on how life has changed, for > instance), but then I see all these technological "throwbacks." If this > computer tech was all bleeding edge, I would understand, but from what I've read > it sounds like it's been around for some time. > > I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate here, I really want to know what people > think. So far, good stuff! Meh. It's really really hard to work out what the impact of any technology will be on society. BP does it better than most... > Take care, > Steve Gar *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: jh39 [jh39@ukc.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:38 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:04:36 -0500 Stephen Mutka wrote: > > Performance > > The other issue is performance. A dedicated unit will usually be better than a general > > purpose unit. for example, I have a pretty serious hand held GPS. I gave an entry > > level GPS to a friend as a wedding gift and I have played around with the GPS > > attachment for my PDA. There are vast differences in accuracy, lockon times, ect…. > > Yeah, but isn't that a matter of legality? The US gov doesn't want us exporting > GPS equipment that could be used for missile guidance... It's not just the US government. Since GPS systems were essentially started by various military organisations the ones available to the public have a built-in random error factor. Apparently the first one to go on sale without this induced error is only a couple of months old. I'm not sure why they're allowing this one and not the previous versions though. Jason *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Stephen Mutka [dreadmook@netzero.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:45 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality Gareth Hanrahan wrote: > > > Well, if you're linked to your comp, it *would* be at the speed of thought, > > and there wouldn't be the possibility of error (or at least, no more than > > with an implant calc). > > Hang on a sec. You're assuming that everyone's using trodes to hook up to > their bodycomps. Trode use is probably going to be impractical in a lot of > situations. Sure, a standard bodycomp and trodes work as well and are a lot > cheaper than an implant calculator - but when you're hanging onto the frame > of half-constructed Incorporate refinery in the middle of a gale, and your > trodes just got blown off...and you need to calculate the, er, something > technical really fast....then you'd appreciate an implant calculator. Well, I'm assuming that anyone who's serious about using a comp (or pretty much anything, for that matter) will have invested in a linkjack as well. It just seems like it's too useful not to have, especially for someone who might be in a dangerous situation. And I would assume that linkjacks wouldn't just pop out at the slightest pressure (though they would probably give under a sharp tug for safety reasons, like skis). Frankly, anyone who *depends* on trodes deserve whatever they get... ;-) > Actually, looking at the book, implant calculators are just stupid... Hah! That's one convert... > > My problem with this whole situation boils down to this: BP computer tech > > is *immense,* and I don't think most anyone has really thought it through. > > like most of what I've seen in the books (the essays on how life has > > changed, for instance), but then I see all these technological "throwbacks." > > If this computer tech was all bleeding edge, I would understand, but from > > what I've read it sounds like it's been around for some time. > > > Meh. It's really really hard to work out what the impact of any technology > will be on society. BP does it better than most... Oh, I absolutely agree. One of the aspects of v1 that attracted me was the fact that the writers weren't afraid of letting tech go where it would go instead of worrying about game balance or whatever. It's for exactly this reason that I want to talk about this, in order to strengthen an already strong game. I wouldn't bother making this argument about a game like Cyberpunk... Take care, Steve ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___________________________________________________________ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Stephen Mutka [dreadmook@netzero.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:50 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality jh39 wrote: > > It's not just the US government. Since GPS systems > were essentially started by various military organisations > the ones available to the public have a built-in random > error factor. Apparently the first one to go on sale > without this induced error is only a couple of months old. > I'm not sure why they're allowing this one and not the > previous versions though. That's exactly my point. From what I understand, this unit is a little bit bigger than a PDA, right? In 200 years they could shrink that down to something the size of a cassette tape, if not *much* smaller. And this is something that's accurate down to a meter. How much more accuracy does anyone really need? Thanks, Steve _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Stephen Mutka [dreadmook@netzero.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:17 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality kabael@softhome.net wrote: > > > Does it? If I'm jacked into a comp, how is it faster than an implant? It's > > all the same sort of wiring as far as I know. > > That's assuming you're jacked in. And you still have to deal with the bulk > of the bodycomp. Well, yeah. I think it's safe to say that anyone who would really depend on a comp would jack in. And as far as bulk is concerned, the book says a bodycomp is 90 grams and .12 liters. How big is that, like a walkman or so? > If you're only going to use it sometimes, then the bodycomp is probably the > better choice, however, if you are going to have to interface frequently, > or with a variety of different technologies, then the internal computer is > better. > > - the internal comp could easily be set up to overlay images in a HUD type > manner, more reliably than a bodycomp or other screen. Similarly it could > allow for other sensory stimulation, not only sound and sight. Well, I think all that stuff is included in a linkjack setup. How else could an external device be considered a part of you? > Again, yes you can do that with an bodycomp as well, but a lot of people > are willing to pay for the smaller size and greater convenient of an > internal computer. Well, maybe a few people ;-) A price jump from 2,500cs to 50,000cs tends to weed out all but the hard core users... Take care, Steve _______________________________________________ Why pay for something you could get for free? NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Ml10@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 8:32 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality In a message dated 12/13/00 1:12:18 PM Central Standard Time, dreadmook@netzero.net writes: << > > Bodycomp VS Portable Navigation Suite > > Power Consumption. > Navigaion equipment consumes a lot of power over a long period of time. While a GPS or > electric compass might only need to be turned on once in a while to get the current > reading, an inertial nav unit needs to be on all the time. That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. Still, since the GPS unit in FluMech comes with its own powersource, I think it's safe to assume that an inertial nav unit would as well. In this case, they would probably use a bigger battery (a mini cell) that could be easily changed in the bush. >> If you turn off a inertial nav unit then you lose your location. I'll ask you this, what would your reaction be if a pilot had to change the batteries for his navigation equipment in mid-flight? << > I see bodycomps used much like the PDA's of today in that they are only turned on when > needed in order to extend battery life. Hmm. I'm not sure I agree, since the write up on batteries in the PG says that things that use batteries generally have enough to be used *continuously* for 50 hours. That would include calling people, crunching hard data, downloading a tutorial from CommCore, and lots of other stuff. Even if you use your comp a great deal, there will still be occasional slow periods when it could go into "sleep mode" or whatever. This would extend battery life even more. >> With navigation equipment, you have to keep power on at all times. Like I said, if you have the ability to recharge your bodycomp daily (remember on Poseidon, the d days are 30 hours long), then you could get away with using a bodycomp, otherwise, stick with dedicated equipement. << > Performance > The other issue is performance. A dedicated unit will usually be better than a general > purpose unit. for example, I have a pretty serious hand held GPS. I gave an entry > level GPS to a friend as a wedding gift and I have played around with the GPS > attachment for my PDA. There are vast differences in accuracy, lockon times, ect…. Yeah, but isn't that a matter of legality? The US gov doesn't want us exporting GPS equipment that could be used for missile guidance... >> No it isn't. This inaccuracy was due to Selective Availability which was turned off by the US government a little while ago. SA was a random error introduced into the data transmission. See below for more information. << > Also, all the handheld units that I have used pale in comparison to the avionic GPS > units that I use at work. I know this is true, but why is that? I'm not a GPS expert, so please tell me where I'm mistaken. From what I understand, all a GPS device does is receive triangulation data from multiple satellites. Is there more to it than that? And if there is, is it a matter of hardware or software? >> In order to triangulate a GPS needs good data from several different satellites. The signals send out by the GPS satellites are rather low powered and are easily lost due to atmospheric conditions, terrain, ect... Good GPS systems have sensitive active receivers that can lock onto multiple sats at once. Cheap GPS systems use a single passive receiver that locks onto 1 sat. at a time. Of course this is a gross simplification of the differences. A good GPS system will do a ton of error checking and correction. They can account for the different speeds at which the signals pass through the atmosphere, account for bounced signals, ect.... It is a non trivial problem. If Sats A, B, and C say that you are at location X, but Sats D, E, and F say that you are at location Y, which set is correct? A bodycomp with the right add-ons would function as a poor man's navigation suite. I wouldn't let my life depend upon it though. I see a portable nav unit used mostly in native boats or as a backup system for other vehicles. << > Also, as pointed out above, a dedicated unit is usually better than a general purpose > unit. The calculator on my PDA (which is rather good) is no match for my HP48GX > calculator. Sure, but your PDA isn't a supercomputer by 20th century standards, which a bodycomp is. >> I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between a dedicated machine and a general machine. For example, my PDA is less than a year old. My HP48GX is over 5 years old. My PDA batteries will last about 6 hours of constant use, my HP batteries will last about 2 weeks worth of constant use. If I have a lot of number crunching to do, guess which one, I would use. << > If I was on ERT pilot, an Implant Calc would be a great plus. It allows hands free > operation in an environment were a datajack would be impratical and an unlink jack > would be unreliable. (try using any radio equipement in the middle of a storm.) I hadn't thought of this either. Does storm activity interrupt cordless phone use (I don't mean cellular, of course)? >> Yes it does. Also, in a less stressfull environment, a jack (regular or uplink) might already be in use, say to control a drone. << > I could use it for fuel calculations as the situation changes. Wouldn't the vehicle's comp take care of that? It has direct access to all of the vehicle's gauges, and there are cars out *today* that can do these sorts of calculations. >> It could, if it had all of the variables. If a storm was growing worse, the pilot could factor that in (as he will need more fuel). If he sees that he has around 500 kilos to rescue, he could factor that in. If he knows that he has to leave quickly (which consumes more fuel), he could factor that in. The vehicles computer would not have any of this information and might not be programmed to handle it. Mike Z *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: ChrisTheS [stormsurge@stormsurge.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:00 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality > Wait, are you saying an implant comp doesn't need to be as compact as an > external one? I have to disagree here. An implant by definition needs to be > inside the body, where all sorts of meaty bits get in the way. If anything, I > would think an implant would be *less* effective since it needs to be smaller > and (reasonably) nontoxic. As an analogy, think about a typical desktop > computer versus a laptop (manufactured at the same time). Desktops generally > perform better since they don't have to worry about miniaturization. RE: But there's a substantial difference between implant comps and normal computers of this time. Implant comps are interfaced with the actual brain tissue, meaning that it doesn't need a lot of things that a normal comp would need, like display apparatus for example. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: ChrisTheS [stormsurge@stormsurge.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:02 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Equipment Practicality > Well, if you're linked to your comp, it *would* be at the speed of thought, and > there wouldn't be the possibility of error (or at least, no more than with an > implant calc). RE: In that case it becomes more a matter of convenience. If you have an implant comp you're always plugged in, while with an external comp you'd have to jack in every time to get the same effect. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.