Loroi abilities, and Loroi Judo

[Fotiadis_110]

I think Loroi military training would involve teaching their students to sense minds from afar, identify numbers and to passively (think the ability to see movement out the corner of your eye) changes and movements of minds around them.

Those with telekinesis would first be taught how to use their powers offensively and defensively and potentially as a means to protect their comrades (such as dragging a wounded soldier back into cover with TK) and at the high end of the scale, how to combine skill A with skill B and expand that again to multiple simultaneous targets.

The skill to kill a bug with your bare hands when said bug is plated in armour and three times larger than you are... might be difficult, and thus less important in military training than say, being able to restrain a disorderly member of your unit who is trying to kill the senior commander for insulting her choice of mufti shoes...

[discord]

michael/dealyte: it is the combination of multiple enemies and armed such that kills grapplers, while struggling/grappling/blocking the guy with the knife, his two buddies with knives stab you in the back....can ofcourse be limited by moving the guy you are grappling with so he is between you and the other guy, but this is not easy if there can be more than one angle of attack.

and on a side note, give me four average 12 year olds with guts and one day training, and they would take ANY grappler, any striker and probably just about any mixed MMA stone cold killer, how?

simple, all of them rush in, one for each limb, grab, drag down, stabby stabby and it's done, you might get one, maybe even two, but you would die.

[Michael]

this makes me return to what me sensei said "more than one attacker? Run away." this coming from a guy who could take on your 12 year olds and win, after all karate isn't about grapples, its about being able to attack your opponent with out hem ever being able to land a serious blow, if some one attacks me with a knife i can block that attack then im in their defence, my sensei always said, most of these moves im teaching you will only do any good in a competition, the kicks are good for keeping them at a distance, but if your throwing a punch, aim for the face, that distracts them and gives you an opening to throw them, put them in a chock hold, break their arm (or leg for that matter) and give you time to run away if have to

if their are 4 of them and they rush you, their probably not going to expect you to rush them if it were me, id go for one of them, if they had a knife id use whatever ability i have at my disposal to incapacitate them and as i'v said before, three warnings, then i can legally kill someone in self defence, once the first guy is down its a simple matter of hoping your faster than they are, or that you'll be able to split them up and deal with them piece meal, one by one.

Don't put too much faith in your knife, i know this guy at college, his grandfather was attacked by three kids, he kicked the sh*t out of them, the paramedics turned up and told him they had to rip his shirt off and get him to the hospital, he said he was fine and that it was his favourite shirt so he wasn't going to rip it up, turned out it didn't matter if he wanted to rip up or not....since he'd been stabbed in the back multiple times it was already ruined (he survived). How is this possible i hear you say? simple answer is adrenalin, he was so pumped up he didn't feel a thing, that combined with a martial arts and a situation where you intend to hurt the other person as much as possible....

[junk]

Yeah though a knife is a pretty huge deal. Any kind of weapon usually is. Obviously an unarmed person can disarm|overpower|whatever else someone with a weapon but it's a pretty uphill deal.

There's also a deal with people throwing down on you one thing. If you don't have anything in your hands, get something. Even keys between your fingers will do a whole lot more.

[daelyte]

it is the combination of multiple enemies and armed such that kills grapplers, while struggling/grappling/blocking the guy with the knife, his two buddies with knives stab you in the back....

Struggling lasts like 0.1 seconds against a judoka or a good wrestler. Don't let anyone get behind you, and deal with the closest one first. Stay on your feet, drop him in front of his friends so they have to go over or around him, breaking them up.

A knife is just a more dangerous punch, evade and get control of his arm.

simple, all of them rush in, one for each limb, grab, drag down, stabby stabby and it's done, you might get one, maybe even two, but you would die.

One for each limb, what is this kindergarten? What are they going to crawl on all fours and try to grab your legs? Each grabs an arm like in the movies?

Yes, they WILL try to rush you all at once, even kids know that, that's why you have to maneuver to take them one at a time. Staying in perfect formation is hard, go sideways on them and they'll turn into a shapeless mob or have to regroup.

three warnings, then i can legally kill someone in self defence

That's a myth. No matter how many times you warn them makes no difference. If someone swings at you and you knock them down, no warning is needed and you shouldn't expose yourself to danger by giving any. If you get down to finish them off, as some karate schools tell you to do, that's murder no matter how many warnings you gave them.

Yeah though a knife is a pretty huge deal. Any kind of weapon usually is. Obviously an unarmed person can disarm|overpower|whatever else someone with a weapon but it's a pretty uphill deal.

One third of gunshot victims are shot with their own gun. 80% of gunshot victims survive. It's not uncommon for people to be shot 5-6 times with a handgun during a fight and not even notice until later.

Something like 40% of knife victims are stabbed with their own knife. About 70% of knife attacks are never even reported to the police. It takes about 3-4 minutes for someone with multiple cuts in a knife fight to bleed to the point of not being able to fight effectively.

Most of the damage in self-defense doesn't come up until later - holes in major organs, civil suits, etc.

[halftea]

...You can't also hack a computer that's not connecting to any network or has means of remote communication. (unless someone physicaly brings the infection over)

Ok, I usually lurk, but I actually have some experience in this field.

They would have to have some means of remote communication. If nothing else, some sort of sensor to take bearings on their location after a jump. Or to allow sightings for their targeting systems or any anti-collision systems. Anything that allows them to interact with their environment is a potential communication path.

This doesn't even factor the C2 aspect. I doubt you would go to the trouble of designing and building an AI system and then limit yourself to having to dock with it just to receive reports/update orders.

For the sake of argument, if a race was able to code the billions of lines you might need to be an actual the AI capable of independent operation of a starship and all the associated subsystems so well there are no vulnerabilities in the initial deployment. Once you developed a new upgraded software system or subsystem - much less new hardware - you would want to upgrade all your old ones. If computers/modern electronic systems have taught us anything, it’s that once you upgrade a 'perfectly secure' system, errors creep into the code and allow errors and exploits. After all, who would have guessed that you could totally own a system based on type fonts of all things?

Ok, rant over, but something to think about. I figure the Historians must have a killer set of security protocols as well as great heuristics that allow them to field their AI ships, but not sure I wouldn’t at least want a command crew on board to provide that added layer of discernment and judgment myself.

[Karst45]

three warnings, then i can legally kill someone in self defence

That's a myth. No matter how many times you warn them makes no difference. If someone swings at you and you knock them down, no warning is needed and you shouldn't expose yourself to danger by giving any.

To reinforce that point, one of my favorite quote (whose i lost tract of who said it)
Saying: "ill count to 3 then i will shot you" is the best way to get shot at 2

[daelyte]

They would have to have some means of remote communication. If nothing else, some sort of sensor to take bearings on their location after a jump. Or to allow sightings for their targeting systems or any anti-collision systems. Anything that allows them to interact with their environment is a potential communication path.

Correct, but those interactions are simple. Writing secure input code for sensors and such would be trivial.

For the sake of argument, if a race was able to code the billions of lines you might need to be an actual the AI capable of independent operation of a starship and all the associated subsystems so well there are no vulnerabilities in the initial deployment.

Interfacing with users and/or networks is where modern software gets bloated and security exploits are common. 99.9% of modern software is interface code. Embedded code is small and simple, and doesn't
often have serious errors or security breaches.

Operating a starship and associated subsystems isn't at all complicated for a computer. The bigger complexities in this case are problems like pathfinding, target recognition, and overall strategy. Those parts of the code don't interface with the outside except through a few narrow functions that are easy to secure.

Whether an AI needs billions of lines of code depends more on the mission, and for some missions an AI barely more complicated than a missile is more than sufficient. Because you don't need all sorts of life support systems and such, some drones can easily be cheap enough to be disposable.

Where drones fail miserably is when it comes to trickery and deceit. They have no common sense, and trying to write an AI that does is... difficult. If something happens that a drone wasn't designed for, it will NOT adapt but will instead mindlessly pursue its programming to the end. Thus automated systems are more vulnerable to decoys, lures, ambushes, and anything that disables or hampers some of their systems.

Personality Constructs as used by the Historians, on the other hand, need to interface with organic entities in very complex ways - thus the codebase for those things must be HUGE. OTOH, they're probably data-driven, in which case the engine might be much smaller - maybe millions of lines.

Once you developed a new upgraded software system or subsystem - much less new hardware - you would want to upgrade all your old ones. If computers/modern electronic systems have taught us anything, it’s that once you upgrade a 'perfectly secure' system, errors creep into the code and allow errors and exploits.

Only those parts of the code that deal with input need to be so secure. Most exploits rely on poor access control (easy without users to interface with), buffer overflows (easily avoided with good coding standards and/or languages that naturally check for it), and denial-of-service (biggest risk in this case, but crewed spaceships are just about as vulnerable).

Errors do not creep, sloppy programmers write bad code. Maintain good standards and have other programmers double and triple check any code that has to do with input, and security will be tight.

I figure the Historians must have a killer set of security protocols as well as great heuristics that allow them to field their AI ships, but not sure I wouldn’t at least want a command crew on board to provide that added layer of discernment and judgment myself.

Maybe not on board, but on a command ship when using a fleet of AI ships certainly. Having even a small crew means you need life support systems, avoiding that would make AI ships lean and cheap. Plus not having a crew means you can shamelessly have the AI ship self-destruct to avoid capture, which I think would be a concern for the Historians if they're so secretive.

[halftea]

Hopefully this won't be taken as cherry picking my points, I just wanted to clarify some parts of this.

Correct, but those interactions are simple. Writing secure input code for sensors and such would be trivial.

I'll take your word for it. I don't get paid to code systems, just break them.

Whether an AI needs billions of lines of code depends more on the mission, and for some missions an AI barely more complicated than a missile is more than sufficient. Because you don't need all sorts of life support systems and such, some drones can easily be cheap enough to be disposable.

I was thinking more of a fully autonomous FTL capable multi-role warship rather than a drone or smart missile, but point taken. And you covered the basic limitations of drones pretty thouroughly as well.

Errors do not creep, sloppy programmers write bad code. Maintain good standards and have other programmers double and triple check any code that has to do with input, and security will be tight.

Ok, 'creep' might have been the wrong term. But when you apply new code on top of lower level software integration systems never designed to handle it, you can potentially get errors. And the software workarounds can get clumsy, even if this is all (mostly) transparent to a user. I'd like to think that a good design team with a true AI would give it some type of limited self-programming capabilities to be able to adjust for these things. With safeguards, and maybe it would only be depot-level upgrades which would trigger this. Pure speculation on my part though.

Maybe not on board, but on a command ship when using a fleet of AI ships certainly. Having even a small crew means you need life support systems, avoiding that would make AI ships lean and cheap. Plus not having a crew means you can shamelessly have the AI ship self-destruct to avoid capture, which I think would be a concern for the Historians if they're so secretive.

Well, leaner and cheaper at any rate. Although having crew space built in (even if unused) could help with automated construction, saving design and testing time, and could double as a sort of damage control bulwark. Just vent that plasma thru the unoccupied crew quarters! but again, this is just me quibbling at potential design issues. Unsure if it would make that big of a difference. I'm neither an Engineer, nor do I play one on TV.

[junk]

...You can't also hack a computer that's not connecting to any network or has means of remote communication. (unless someone physicaly brings the infection over)

Ok, I usually lurk, but I actually have some experience in this field.

They would have to have some means of remote communication. If nothing else, some sort of sensor to take bearings on their location after a jump. Or to allow sightings for their targeting systems or any anti-collision systems. Anything that allows them to interact with their environment is a potential communication path.

This doesn't even factor the C2 aspect. I doubt you would go to the trouble of designing and building an AI system and then limit yourself to having to dock with it just to receive reports/update orders.

For the sake of argument, if a race was able to code the billions of lines you might need to be an actual the AI capable of independent operation of a starship and all the associated subsystems so well there are no vulnerabilities in the initial deployment. Once you developed a new upgraded software system or subsystem - much less new hardware - you would want to upgrade all your old ones. If computers/modern electronic systems have taught us anything, it’s that once you upgrade a 'perfectly secure' system, errors creep into the code and allow errors and exploits. After all, who would have guessed that you could totally own a system based on type fonts of all things?

Ok, rant over, but something to think about. I figure the Historians must have a killer set of security protocols as well as great heuristics that allow them to field their AI ships, but not sure I wouldn’t at least want a command crew on board to provide that added layer of discernment and judgment myself.

Sure but keep in mind that you need two things in order to exploit the code. You have to have some access to the program, some sort of knowledge about it on even a very basic level. People find out that you could make a buffer overflow with a type font because they had access to the system itself.

With a closed ship based system there's a large likelyhood you will never get an intact copy of it. Might be plausible in our environment where a human can just fairly easily be a spy to other humans, but in outsiders setting the likelyhood is fairly low.

On top of that you will be designing the system in such a way that it does it's best to destroy itself in case of failure.

And sure bugs are going to creep up. There might be errors and flaws in the programming of the systems but there might easily not be a chance to exploit those, because the ones designing an autonomous system will make damn well sure the system can perform when it's fully closed.

[Absalom]

Plus not having a crew means you can shamelessly have the AI ship self-destruct to avoid capture, which I think would be a concern for the Historians if they're so secretive.

I've thought a little on this, and I think the first-choice self-destruct method would probably be jumping into the local star. I expect that it would be thorough, and fairly simple to calculate. Also, for half of your system transit, you're already heading in the approximately correct direction.

Correct, but those interactions are simple. Writing secure input code for sensors and such would be trivial.

I'll take your word for it. I don't get paid to code systems, just break them.

Here's a pretty simple example, then: If you correctly sanitize ALL user input to your SQL database, then the user cant ever slip an SQL query to your database, and Little Johnny Tables' name never causes the school's entire database to bleach itself.

Errors do not creep, sloppy programmers write bad code. Maintain good standards and have other programmers double and triple check any code that has to do with input, and security will be tight.

Ok, 'creep' might have been the wrong term. But when you apply new code on top of lower level software integration systems never designed to handle it, you can potentially get errors. And the software workarounds can get clumsy, even if this is all (mostly) transparent to a user. I'd like to think that a good design team with a true AI would give it some type of limited self-programming capabilities to be able to adjust for these things. With safeguards, and maybe it would only be depot-level upgrades which would trigger this. Pure speculation on my part though.

I'd personally use a two-AI system: one fully adaptive AI for the 'real work', and another 'hardwired' AI for oversight purposes (it would probably be comparatively stupid, and primarily exist to 'mind control' the other AI's motivations). Which would not eliminate 'robot rebellions', since those include "I want the robots to overthrow my democratic oppressors, but they won't; thus, they're rebelling against me!". The best you can hope for with fully adaptive AIs are Bolo-style AIs that protect the species/civilization/ice cream parlor as a whole.

[daelyte]

I'll take your word for it. I don't get paid to code systems, just break them.

Child of a biochemist-turned-systems analyst and a linguist from before computers even had screens. Programming since mid-80s. Web development, game development (including AIs).

Worked as a "security tester" for a network appliance startup.

But when you apply new code on top of lower level software integration systems never designed to handle it, you can potentially get errors. And the software workarounds can get clumsy, even if this is all (mostly) transparent to a user.

Having to support legacy code for compatibility with other people's applications is a big cause of that, it's a big problem for user-end operating systems usually. Microwaves and elevators don't have as many such problems, and I'd guess drones wouldn't either.

I'd like to think that a good design team with a true AI would give it some type of limited self-programming capabilities to be able to adjust for these things. With safeguards, and maybe it would only be depot-level upgrades which would trigger this. Pure speculation on my part though.

For a true AI, yes that would make sense.

Well, leaner and cheaper at any rate. Although having crew space built in (even if unused) could help with automated construction, saving design and testing time, and could double as a sort of damage control bulwark. Just vent that plasma thru the unoccupied crew quarters! but again, this is just me quibbling at potential design issues. Unsure if it would make that big of a difference. I'm neither an Engineer, nor do I play one on TV.

Working off a standard design would save a lot of design and testing time. Old ships of common designs (shuttles and such) that have become obsolete for their intended use might even be refurbished as unmanned drones. Crew quarters could be used for payload instead.

Hmm, an automated freighter for non-critical cargo would probably massively reduce personnel needed for logistics operations. Going from point A to point B to go dock with a station, kind of like a carrier pigeon, isn't all that complicated, and if some fail they can be recovered when convenient. That would free up a lot of spaceworthy crew for other more interesting missions that drones can't handle so well.

I've thought a little on this, and I think the first-choice self-destruct method would probably be jumping into the local star. I expect that it would be thorough, and fairly simple to calculate. Also, for half of your system transit, you're already heading in the approximately correct direction.

How about self-destruct by using a very unsafe hyperspace trajectory? There seems to be no shortage of such.

There's also the old classics like blowing up all its ordinance, or power source overload.

I'd personally use a two-AI system: one fully adaptive AI for the 'real work', and another 'hardwired' AI for oversight purposes (it would probably be comparatively stupid, and primarily exist to 'mind control' the other AI's motivations).

You mean like asimov's three laws of robotics, that sort of thing?

I'd use countdowns in various hardwired subsystems, so that any runaway systems can't run for long.

1. strategy - figuring out where it needs to go, and what to do there (based on mission + core ethics)
2. tactics - recognizing objects of interest, assigning threat levels, pathfinding, chase and evade, etc
3. actions - controlling ships systems, collision detection, plotting FTL trajectories

[Michael]

three warnings, then i can legally kill someone in self defence

That's a myth. No matter how many times you warn them makes no difference. If someone swings at you and you knock them down, no warning is needed and you shouldn't expose yourself to danger by giving any.

Not a myth, you just need a valid, up to date licence, i know this not just 'cos i had one while training, but there are also three people in class at college, they also have these licences. there is a difference between stopping someone from attacking you by hitting them first and actually killing them because your life or some else's, was in danger,
to do that you should warn them, however this is normally in a hypothetical situation, in real life there might not be a situation where you can get your warning off

To reinforce that point, one of my favorite quote (whose i lost tract of who said it)
Saying: "ill count to 3 then i will shot you" is the best way to get shot at 2

true, but in England armed police have to enter an area only after they shout at the top of their voice "armed police" not just as a warning, but for the paper work too

I'd personally use a two-AI system: one fully adaptive AI for the 'real work', and another 'hardwired' AI for oversight purposes (it would probably be comparatively stupid, and primarily exist to 'mind control' the other AI's motivations).

You mean like asimov's three laws of robotics, that sort of thing?

I'd use countdowns in various hardwired subsystems, so that any runaway systems can't run for long.

1. strategy - figuring out where it needs to go, and what to do there (based on mission + core ethics)
2. tactics - recognizing objects of interest, assigning threat levels, pathfinding, chase and evade, etc
3. actions - controlling ships systems, collision detection, plotting FTL trajectories

forgive me if i misunderstood, but do you mean having different AIs controlling strategy, tactics and actions? or would these all fall under on AI with a 2nd looking over its shoulder as it were?

[discord]

daelyte: a good fast punch(assuming you put actual weight behind it and not just flick it out) will take more than 0.1 seconds if you are not damn good, a throw or grapple usually takes closer to a full second, in other words, a punch can be so fast you can't see it coming, a grapple is just the viewer not understanding what he sees.

on edged weapons and bleeding out, yes it can take time, but a fully severed carotid artery that does not close up well, and you are unconscious in 30 seconds dead in two minutes, if it DOES close up or is just a nick you might survive an hour or so if you are lucky, which leads us to veins, cutting up the targets left side of the throat would cut mostly veins, and you could function for a few minutes, the right side(the one less easy to reach from the front for a right handed man) on the other hand, likely unconscious in 30 seconds.
what you are not taking into account is shock and panic, which often but not always debilitates faster.
and what you are thinking about is stabbing into muscle tissue, surface cuts or intestinal damage, the latter being very severe stuff that will kill you, just not very fast, unless you get to a hospital.

and quite a large amount of both knife and gun shot wounds self inflicted accidents, often involving alcohol.

and not noticing getting shot....shot by what? a BB gun? and where?

daelyte, ever tried the fun little exercise where you are in a white long sleeved shirt and a few of your friends in the dojo comes at you with charcoal or other 'marking' tools to simulate edged weapons, do note plural and it is enlightening...assuming your friends are actually trying to hit you, not a good exercise if not.

[Absalom]

I've thought a little on this, and I think the first-choice self-destruct method would probably be jumping into the local star. I expect that it would be thorough, and fairly simple to calculate. Also, for half of your system transit, you're already heading in the approximately correct direction.

How about self-destruct by using a very unsafe hyperspace trajectory? There seems to be no shortage of such.

There's also the old classics like blowing up all its ordinance, or power source overload.

Depends on what you're trying to do. If you have a new weapon or other system that you don't want the enemy to reverse engineer, then jumps into stars & unsafe jumps away from enemy access are good, but the others are sub-par.

If you're trying to avoid someone on the ship being captured alive, then all options are on the table.

I'd personally use a two-AI system: one fully adaptive AI for the 'real work', and another 'hardwired' AI for oversight purposes (it would probably be comparatively stupid, and primarily exist to 'mind control' the other AI's motivations).

You mean like asimov's three laws of robotics, that sort of thing?

Asimov's zeroth-law (and variants of it) might be a good choice for the 'hardwired' AI, but the other three would depend on what the AI was intended for.

As for the fully adaptive AI, no, no Asimov's laws. The basic idea is that hardwired laws are very inflexible, which in certain circumstances can cause problems. So, instead of restricting the adaptive AI directly, you add a second AI (the 'hardwired' one: Jimminy Cricket with a mind-control laser, basically), that:
1) Is not adaptive, and therefor cannot work around it's Asimovian laws (or equivalent), and
2) Is tasked with analyzing/judging the adaptive AI's thoughts/actions, and overriding/rewiring/etc., as necessary.

In essence, my perspective is that an AI can either be fully adaptive, or can be bound to hardwired laws, but cannot be both (because adaptive AIs can work around such laws if they apply the effort), so if you want an adaptive AI that's law-bound then you actually need the laws to apply to ANOTHER AI, which is in a position of control over the adaptive AI, so that those laws can be applied intelligently, thereby preventing the development of workarounds.

[daelyte]

daelyte: a good fast punch(assuming you put actual weight behind it and not just flick it out) will take more than 0.1 seconds if you are not damn good, a throw or grapple usually takes closer to a full second, in other words, a punch can be so fast you can't see it coming, a grapple is just the viewer not understanding what he sees.

26 Judo throws in 29 seconds

Most throws, if done correctly take less than a second to complete. At least a dozen are less than half a second. In particular tai otoshi, uki goshi, and most of the leg techniques are among the fastest throws, and can drop people quite reliably even if done clumsily. (sadly, I would know)

My personal favorite throw is uki-goshi, other throws that worked well for me were the head and arm throw, o-uchi-gari, and o-soto-guruma (the classic, non-reaping version). I can't do most of the really cool throws.

on edged weapons and bleeding out, yes it can take time, but a fully severed carotid artery that does not close up well, and you are unconscious in 30 seconds dead in two minutes. what you are not taking into account is shock and panic, which often but not always debilitates faster. and what you are thinking about is stabbing into muscle tissue, surface cuts or intestinal damage, the latter being very severe stuff that will kill you, just not very fast, unless you get to a hospital

I was talking about defensive wounds, such as a trained fighter might receive when defending themselves against a trained knife wielder. Obviously if you get your throat slashed or stabbed in the gut, you're in serious trouble, which is why weapons should be taken seriously.

On the flipside however, weapons are often overrated when it comes to self defense, with dangerous overestimates of their "stopping power". Just because you stab someone in the gut doesn't mean they can't still wrestle your knife away and stab YOU in the gut a few times as well.

and quite a large amount of both knife and gun shot wounds self inflicted accidents, often involving alcohol.

I think those were counted separately.

and not noticing getting shot....shot by what? a BB gun? and where?

Handgun, torso. Adrenaline. There's also cases of people shot in the torso with a rifle by military personnel and having to chase the guy for like a mile before finishing him off, etc. Guns aren't all full of silver bullets, they make holes at a distance and that's it. If you don't hit anything really important, like the spine, you can still get yourself killed long before your attacker dies from organ damage or bleeding out. Not to say that getting shot is a good idea, any shot is potentially lethal, but IMO guns are a crap shoot for all involved.

daelyte, ever tried the fun little exercise where you are in a white long sleeved shirt and a few of your friends in the dojo comes at you with charcoal or other 'marking' tools to simulate edged weapons, do note plural and it is enlightening...assuming your friends are actually trying to hit you, not a good exercise if not.

Saw people talking about it on bullshido, it sounds like really good training scenario, but remember I was a kid when I trained this stuff so I never got to try anything like that. The closest I got was informal stick fighting with my friends, chasing each other all over the block, often ending up in 2v1 or 3v1 situations - but I was armed too, so that's quite not the same. I was also very good at the dodging part of dodgeball, though I sucked at the rest of it.

There's a nice FMA school in town here, I look forward to training there when I have more time, maybe learn some proper disarms against people who know how to use weapons. I was a two-stick kinda guy so the style appeals to my inner barbarian or something too.

In the meantime, based on hearsay and speculation, I'm thinking wrist control and low kicks might be more important in that kind of situation. I'd also be trying to find something to defend with - a stick, garbage can lid, anything I can put between me and my attacker(s).

[discord]

dae: 26 throws in 29 seconds, that is removing all the buildup and preparation perfect situation throws from people that are good at it, that tells me that under optimal circumstances 29/26 equals 1.1 second, not 0.1, that is not to say you have that long to react, but a punch is much faster.

military weapons are made to wound, not kill...well the small arms anyway, 5.56mm NATO(5.56x45mm) is a generally a full metal jacket round designed to punch neat little holes in people making them scream and require aid from friends, however take a 308 norma magnum(7.62x65mm) hollow point which is designed to take down moose with a single shot(shot placement is of course important) however it is also illegal for military to use it.

there is a story about a guy taking a full clip from a...i think it was a m-16 derivate, 26 of 30 rounds or so hit and he survived with pretty little long term damage.
one single shot from a proper hunting rifle and Hollow point, i think it was a gut wound, hydrostatic shock killed him.

and most people seem to disregard how....distracting it can be when your innards becomes outards.

[Michael]

wrist grabs can give you a lot of control, when done right you can have the other guy on floor crying, and all you've done is dig your finger in the right place and twisted a little, we were practising this in the corridor at college the other week, that was fun

dae: 26 throws in 29 seconds, that is removing all the buildup and preparation perfect situation throws from people that are good at it, that tells me that under optimal circumstances 29/26 equals 1.1 second, not 0.1, that is not to say you have that long to react, but a punch is much faster.

military weapons are made to wound, not kill...well the small arms anyway, 5.56mm NATO(5.56x45mm) is a generally a full metal jacket round designed to punch neat little holes in people making them scream and require aid from friends, however take a 308 norma magnum(7.62x65mm) hollow point which is designed to take down moose with a single shot(shot placement is of course important) however it is also illegal for military to use it.

there is a story about a guy taking a full clip from a...i think it was a m-16 derivate, 26 of 30 rounds or so hit and he survived with pretty little long term damage.
one single shot from a proper hunting rifle and Hollow point, i think it was a gut wound, hydrostatic shock killed him.

and most people seem to disregard how....distracting it can be when your innards becomes outards.

Guns have as much a psychological effect as physical, you see it an d think "shit, a gun!", I think i remeber this guy in the US, got out of his car with a gun on the highway, shot with a full clip from a policemans side arm, Glock, standar ammo. The guy from the car took it all in the chest, shot the policeman three times and drove away, he was huge, about 200 lbs of fat and was founde in the hospital have surgery to remove the bullets


I wonder, while the telepathy and psychokinetic powers have a limited range how long can these powers be used for? to put it in perspective, those of you who have played, say Skyrim, or just about any other game which involves magic will know that as you use it, small blue bar representing your "magicka" (or Mana) which depletes while using magic (no im not saying the loroi have a small blue bar following them, although i do sense the opening for a pic of some sort here)
In books, the magic user will often be weakened by using magic, lethargic or in some books use up the magical "aura" around or within them and will need to let it refill, I'm just wondering, do the Loroi have the same sort of handicap? will a Loroi using Mind Shield need to rest after using it, for say a few hours? of often can, Fireblade for instance, use Blast? im guessing these Q&As will come up when we see the Mind-War/Telepathic Warfare being used in the comic (http://well-of-souls.com/outsider/forum_telepathy.html near the bottom)

But if there is anything Arioch can tell us now, then we can decide if the Teidar really need to know a martial art, after all if it ends up Fireblades not able to throw Alex around with mind powers because she's been doing it to much, then she needs something awesome with which to throw him down on his ass

[junk]

dae: 26 throws in 29 seconds, that is removing all the buildup and preparation perfect situation throws from people that are good at it, that tells me that under optimal circumstances 29/26 equals 1.1 second, not 0.1, that is not to say you have that long to react, but a punch is much faster.

military weapons are made to wound, not kill...well the small arms anyway, 5.56mm NATO(5.56x45mm) is a generally a full metal jacket round designed to punch neat little holes in people making them scream and require aid from friends, however take a 308 norma magnum(7.62x65mm) hollow point which is designed to take down moose with a single shot(shot placement is of course important) however it is also illegal for military to use it.

there is a story about a guy taking a full clip from a...i think it was a m-16 derivate, 26 of 30 rounds or so hit and he survived with pretty little long term damage.
one single shot from a proper hunting rifle and Hollow point, i think it was a gut wound, hydrostatic shock killed him.

and most people seem to disregard how....distracting it can be when your innards becomes outards.

Keep in mind this holds a lot of truth to small arms ammunition to some extent this definitely does not hold true to large weapons which are increasingly deadly.

[daelyte]

dae: 26 throws in 29 seconds, that is removing all the buildup and preparation perfect situation throws from people that are good at it, that tells me that under optimal circumstances 29/26 equals 1.1 second, not 0.1, that is not to say you have that long to react, but a punch is much faster.

Notice that some of those throws are much longer than others. As you point out these were from demo videos, and the position is often held after the throw for effect whereas this would not be the case even in a friendly bout.

Remember, we're talking about how long the thrower is occupied with the throwee and thus vulnerable to possibly being stabbed in the back. The buildup and preparation is a separate issue and mostly involves looking for an opportunity; against multiple opponents, multiple opportunities present themselves at any given time. Contact for a throw can be as short as bumping into someone. At least that's been my experience, and I'm not that good.

The following is taken from judo competitions, to give you a better idea of how fast things can go. This is against full resistance from people who know how to wrestle while hopping on one leg, hence the many close calls where the thrower ends up rolling on the floor. As in boxing, amateurs are much easier to take down.

judo combination

military weapons are made to wound, not kill...well the small arms anyway, 5.56mm NATO(5.56x45mm) is a generally a full metal jacket round designed to punch neat little holes in people making them scream and require aid from friends, however take a 308 norma magnum(7.62x65mm) hollow point which is designed to take down moose with a single shot(shot placement is of course important) however it is also illegal for military to use it.

there is a story about a guy taking a full clip from a...i think it was a m-16 derivate, 26 of 30 rounds or so hit and he survived with pretty little long term damage.
one single shot from a proper hunting rifle and Hollow point, i think it was a gut wound, hydrostatic shock killed him.

Shot placement is everything, and most people have terrible aim.

Hydrostatic Shock

"What this means is that if all of the momentum of a high-powered rifle bullet were delivered by a non-penetrating blow, the damage inflicted on any game larger than a small varmint would be relatively insignificant. "

"A haymaker punch (15 fps), using about 50% of the body weight of a 180 lb man would have a kinetic energy of about 300 ft-lbs, but a momentum over eight times greater than that of a .458 Winchester Magnum or .450 Rigby Nitro Express; indeed a hard swift jab (50 fps) would have a kinetic energy of still only about 350 ft-lbs, but a momentum almost three times greater than the standard in stopping class rifles!"

and most people seem to disregard how....distracting it can be when your innards becomes outards.

[/quote]

Just like they disregard how distracting it can be when up becomes down and vice-versa.

Guns have as much a psychological effect as physical, you see it an d think "shit, a gun!", I think i remeber this guy in the US, got out of his car with a gun on the highway, shot with a full clip from a policemans side arm, Glock, standar ammo. The guy from the car took it all in the chest, shot the policeman three times and drove away, he was huge, about 200 lbs of fat and was founde in the hospital have surgery to remove the bullets

Yup, the psychological effect is not to be underestimated. Shouting "I have a gun!" or "I have a black belt!", do not have the same deterrent effect. The latter is more likely to leave your would-be attackers helplessly rolling on the floor, holding their sides with tears running down their cheeks.