 Rapid Transit Jumpsuit, Munchkin-flage? |
  |
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
 Mar 13 2005, 01:00 AM
Post
#51
|
|
Guests  |
Visual survey.
|
 |
 
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 01:53 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'm willing to bet that casinos would spend more to have the seccams be concealed.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 02:13 AM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Casinos conceal the vast majority of their cameras because everyone already knows they're there, and Big Brother isn't really condusive to their (ostensible) aim of entertainment. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, isn't simple cheap: big, visible cameras aren't even necessarily functional. I'm willing to bet that more often than not, I could steal something, be reasonably discreet about it, get caught on camera, and never have anything happen anyway. Cameras aren't watched all the time; when they're visual, they exist primarily as a deterrent (because if you don't know they aren't necessarily being watched, they're damn effective, and if you do, who the hell wants to take a chance on being arrested over five bucks anyway?). Casinos, still, will have way more eyes on you all the time, and those cameras are being watched (though chances are they won't do anything even if they do notice you stealing a pack of gum, or something).
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 02:09 AM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
They might even take you up on that bet, too, but, as always, the odds favor the house. |
||
|
|
|
||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Mar 13 2005, 08:32 AM
Post
#55
|
|
Guests |
Yes, thank you for a lesson in security from the University of Duuuuuh.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 02:08 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
heh, the phone was actualy outgoing only. you picked up the handset and was automaticaly connected to the public defenders office or something to that effect, they could then pass you on to your lawyer. what he did was to redirect that phone to a house number, made a phonecall in to the phone in the prison (something that should normaly not happen, and therefor the buzzer of that phone was removed) and just waited for someone at the other end to have a reason for contacting their lawyer. my fav is the one where the son, in the space of a cafe visit, got hold of his fathers credit card number just by placeing two phonecalls. all done based on a bet with his father. after reading that one can start to worry about how companys handle customer info. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 13 2005, 02:23 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and then all you have to do is either get the decker to the data or the data to the decker, and with low physical security its simple. never rely on only one level of security. the best security comes in layers, where each one may not stop the "attack" cold but will drain its resources. one or two layers may stop most gangs and similer, 3-4 will stop many a team, anything more then that and we are talking fort knox :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 13 2005, 02:40 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Layered security is good, but the problem with layering is that it absorbs an "attack" but if an attack is discovered within the secured area, it would be hell to pay. Designing something to keep something out is not the same as designing from keeping something in.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 02:43 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
One of the things I've been learning over the years, is that to really deter criminals you have to eat up the one resource they can't afford to lose. Time. You can't stop all the crooks out there, it's impossible, however if you make it take forever for them to accomplish their goal, 9 of 10 will flee before finishing the job, cause they don't want to get caught.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 03:16 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 345 Joined: 10-February 03 From: Leeds, UK Member No.: 4,046 |
At a basic level what you're doing is making it difficult enough to stop a casual "opportunity" theft (such as locking your car door) and make someone go through extra steps or do something to increase the chance of detection.
If I see a mobile phone on a car seat and decide to steal it then, if it's locked, I have to either smash the window (which increases the chances of getting caught because of the noise), get the keys somehow or pick the lock (which takes time). Basic, sensible security measures are the most effective and it becomes a game of risk assessment on both parts. Implement security to counter the risks you can see and increase the risk on the part of the thief to provide a deterrant. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 07:13 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and nothing screams risk like armed guards, paracritters and monowire :P
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 10:58 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Monowire? Opportunity! I've got my cutters! :lick:
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 11:01 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's what the claymores embedded in the wall and triggered to the loss of an electrical signal through the monowire are for :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 11:10 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 6,817 |
Is it actually possible to send an electric signal through a monwire?
My crude grasp of physics says no, but that also says that monowire doesn't exist. A pressure-sensing device that noticed wether or not the monowire is hanging "tightly" might be more plausible. Cutting monowire would take more than your ordinary wireclippers wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 11:11 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Monowire not only exists (if not exactly as Shadowrun has it), but it would also be about as electrically conductive as graphite AFAIK, so it'd do it just fine.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2005, 11:54 PM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Based on the way I read the wire table on SR3 p. 234 combined with the text for a wire clipper on SR3 p. 293, :nuyen: 25 can net you thousands in a hurry. (Monowire :nuyen: 2000/meter, SI 3) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 13 2005, 11:57 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
It also happens to be under tension and is a very thin wire, it'll whip when you cut it. Not quite the retirement I'd like to have. Also, supports won't stop it because there likely wouldn't be supports. After all, they don't get their money's worth by warning you, now do they?
Experts have trouble with razorwire, do you think an amateur (albeit a well-above average one) will fare better with a material that is way more harmful? |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 12:15 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
If razorwire was worth thousands per meter, I think even amateurs would make it work. Honestly, there is a vast difference between someone trying to steal the razorwire instead of just cross it quickly. I have cut wires under high tension. If you stand in the right spot, even a whipping strand will go nowhere near you. What's the elasticity of monowire? I tend to think it would be relatively low. High elasticity=low strength. I don't think monowire would whip around. I do think that armored gloves would help greatly, but monowire's danger comes from a force applied behind it. If you can get a strand loose, it would be safe enough to wrap it around a spool. It isn't invisible. TN 8 to see it is tough, but not impossible.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think a lot of GMs overuse monowire. Who would use gold razorwire no matter how effective it is? Monowire works great in places that are hard to get to, but in my opinion, its a bit like mil-spec armor or APDS. If the NPCs have it, the PCs will (and should) end up liberating it from them. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 01:26 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I agree with Da9iel. If the GM puts in something in his game and his players are smart enough to use that, allow them their victory.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 01:31 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I would, but likewise, if I have a countermeasure implemented and the players don't bypass it, I will also allow them their defeat. It's really not that hard if you don't think of monowire as a magic cure-all.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 01:45 AM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Only if you had planned the countermeasure beforehand. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 01:37 AM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Your absolutely right Kagetenshi, but most of the time I've seen monowire security, there was no hidden claymore. I was merely arguing that once you spot it, monowire (by itself) isn't that hard to deal with. As you put it, I have seen a lot of magic cure-all attitudes.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 01:57 AM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I usually play it that way, but that's seriously debatable. A corporation has more people with much more experience in designing security systems doing this, so allowing (for example) a player to outthink Saeder-Krupp just because they can outthink me is absurd to say the least. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 02:17 AM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
A good point, but a natural shortcoming of any game like this run by mere mortals. It reminds me of the debate about rolls vs roles in the negotiation thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 02:55 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
And getting back to the original topic, with the exception of the NV camo, there are day and night version of the various camo patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th September 2025 - 06:39 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.