Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:22:48 -0700
From: "Drew Curtis" <dcurtis@***.net>
> No doubt what would happen would be similar to what happens today. There
> are GUIs for unix, but most sysadmins just want a command line. That's
> not to say the GUI isn't useful however. Just that deckers wouldn't be as
> interested. You can't hack crapola with a GUI.

One of my friends (who was far more into the hacker scene then I) is always
bitching about how all cyberpunk games and novels assume that a 3d interface
and toys somehow equals better ability to crack systems. You do have to
concede that when you think about it its not a huge advantage over sitting
at a keyboard, certainly its more distracting and requires a lot of system
resources. Not to mention a whole lot safer, what with mindwiping
psychotropic IC and programs that use "AMO" programming techniques and
bogotron particles to fry your body.

If I lived in the Shadowrun world I'd skip the fancy simsense and just use a
terminal mode interface, or at best use a cool interface - not worth the
risk of brain damage and death.

Kenneth
Message no. 2
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:33:37 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Tzeentch <tzeentch666@*********.net>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:01 AM
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)


>From: "Drew Curtis" <dcurtis@***.net>
>> No doubt what would happen would be similar to what happens today. There
>> are GUIs for unix, but most sysadmins just want a command line. That's
>> not to say the GUI isn't useful however. Just that deckers wouldn't be
as
>> interested. You can't hack crapola with a GUI.
>
>One of my friends (who was far more into the hacker scene then I) is always
>bitching about how all cyberpunk games and novels assume that a 3d
interface
>and toys somehow equals better ability to crack systems. You do have to
>concede that when you think about it its not a huge advantage over sitting
>at a keyboard, certainly its more distracting and requires a lot of system
>resources. Not to mention a whole lot safer, what with mindwiping
>psychotropic IC and programs that use "AMO" programming techniques and
>bogotron particles to fry your body.
>
>If I lived in the Shadowrun world I'd skip the fancy simsense and just use
a
>terminal mode interface, or at best use a cool interface - not worth the
>risk of brain damage and death.
>
I'd say the idea is that when you are jacked in, it is much better to use
icons because of the speed at which everything happens, as well as the
intelligence of the programs that you are using. If you aren't jacked in,
you are a hell of a lot slower and not much of a challenge to IC. Besides,
which would you rather roleplay: "You type in the line of code and you get a
message back saying access denied. As this happens a line of Tarpit virus
infects your system and deletes several files before you can catch it." Or
"You swing your claymore at the solid wall, trying to make a hole large
enough to fit through. Suddenly a huge mouth forms out of the wall and sucks
onto your chest, draining your ability to fight and weakening you."
Message no. 3
From: Cullyn cullyn@*********.net.au
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:55:56 +1000
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:33:37 +1000, "Simon and Fiona" wrote:
<SNIP>
>>One of my friends (who was far more into the hacker scene then I) is always
>>bitching about how all cyberpunk games and novels assume that a 3d
>interface
>>and toys somehow equals better ability to crack systems. You do have to
>>concede that when you think about it its not a huge advantage over sitting
>>at a keyboard, certainly its more distracting and requires a lot of system
>>resources. Not to mention a whole lot safer, what with mindwiping
>>psychotropic IC and programs that use "AMO" programming techniques and
>>bogotron particles to fry your body.
>>
>>If I lived in the Shadowrun world I'd skip the fancy simsense and just use
>a
>>terminal mode interface, or at best use a cool interface - not worth the
>>risk of brain damage and death.
>>
>I'd say the idea is that when you are jacked in, it is much better to use
>icons because of the speed at which everything happens, as well as the
>intelligence of the programs that you are using. If you aren't jacked in,
>you are a hell of a lot slower and not much of a challenge to IC. Besides,
>which would you rather roleplay: "You type in the line of code and you get a
>message back saying access denied. As this happens a line of Tarpit virus
>infects your system and deletes several files before you can catch it." Or
>"You swing your claymore at the solid wall, trying to make a hole large
>enough to fit through. Suddenly a huge mouth forms out of the wall and sucks
>onto your chest, draining your ability to fight and weakening you."

Totally agreed. Being on a keyboard against IC is like being a kid on
the ground with a slingshot against an Fighter Jet. Not even in the
same ball park. Without the ability to move as you think, and having
programs and hardware to directly help your thinking, and ability, you
would get nowhere.

The term for people using a keyboard in Shadowrun is turtle from what
I can remember. Ever thought that it was a close aproximation to how
the real deckers actually see them move?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't like to get my brain fried either, but
I still realise how useless I would be on a keyboard. Hire someone :>

-Cullyn, Rigger or Mage. Those are your choices mother nature. If I
end up mundane and having bio-rejection, you are in deep shit!
Message no. 4
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@*******.net.mx
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:29:56 -0500
> From: "Drew Curtis" <dcurtis@***.net>
> > No doubt what would happen would be similar to what happens today.
There
> > are GUIs for unix, but most sysadmins just want a command line. That's
> > not to say the GUI isn't useful however. Just that deckers wouldn't be
as
> > interested. You can't hack crapola with a GUI.
>
> One of my friends (who was far more into the hacker scene then I) is
always
> bitching about how all cyberpunk games and novels assume that a 3d
interface
> and toys somehow equals better ability to crack systems. You do have to
> concede that when you think about it its not a huge advantage over sitting
> at a keyboard, certainly its more distracting and requires a lot of system
> resources. Not to mention a whole lot safer, what with mindwiping
> psychotropic IC and programs that use "AMO" programming techniques and
> bogotron particles to fry your body.
>
> If I lived in the Shadowrun world I'd skip the fancy simsense and just use
a
> terminal mode interface, or at best use a cool interface - not worth the
> risk of brain damage and death.
>
> Kenneth
>
IMHO i always considarate that the hardware/software in the part of the
"client" was the metahuman brain. I Gm that the deck only send the
"information" to the brain, the brain "process" the
"information" like it
was input from a natural source (eyes, hands etc.. ) Thats why a 3d is
faster that a terminal. With this line of think your computer have to run
the code to "print in your screan the data, your eyes read it, your brain
process and "transfer" to the language an the part of the brain where you
storage your computer knowlage, then they "process" a correct response, they
"load" your hands and your alphabet knowlage to made you write the answer to
the terminal. Your terminal process the answer and then send the
information.
In a brain conected computer they send the data to your brain your brain
processed in a "easy enviroment" reality (your brain is used to it), then
send the answer in "low code" to the deck an then you have the answer.
As you can see is faster than the terminal, is like play tennis with a
keyboard VS reallife.


Ahuizotl

sorry about the english
Message no. 5
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:05:37 -0700
From: "Ahuizotl" <cuellare@*******.net.mx>
> IMHO i always considarate that the hardware/software in the part of the
> "client" was the metahuman brain. I Gm that the deck only send the
> "information" to the brain, the brain "process" the
"information" like it
> was input from a natural source (eyes, hands etc.. ) Thats why a 3d is
> faster that a terminal.

Hmm. That seems like an odd way to run an interface. Not outside the realm
of Shadowrun possibility though since they have mapped out metahuman brain
functions in excrutiating detail. How else would 'trodes and simsense work?

> With this line of think your computer have to run
> the code to "print in your screan the data, your eyes read it, your brain
> process and "transfer" to the language an the part of the brain where you
> storage your computer knowlage, then they "process" a correct response,
they
> "load" your hands and your alphabet knowlage to made you write the answer
to
> the terminal. Your terminal process the answer and then send the
> information.

This would probably be remarkably ineffecient sicne your brain doesn't
process data like more conventional computers. As was mentioned before it
would require a lot of training to make sure that your fleeting "surface
thoughts" are translated correctly or ignored. Then we have the problem of
what happens when you mentally visualize objects, can the system read and
understand that?

Using your brain akin to a biocomputer has interesting potential (especially
for a more plausible "Matrix" scenario of harvesting people for extra
processor cycles (see "Underground" for this taken to an extreme).

> In a brain conected computer they send the data to your brain your brain
> processed in a "easy enviroment" reality (your brain is used to it), then
> send the answer in "low code" to the deck an then you have the answer.
> As you can see is faster than the terminal, is like play tennis with a
> keyboard VS reallife.

Keyboards and various interface gear have been around for a long time and
have been proven to work. Neural interface may supplement (as it does when
using a cool ASIST) or in extremes replace (hot ASIST) external interface
equipment but who really knows. It seems odd to me that pure DNI gives you
the bonuses it does, but its an gamey tactic to make deckers more vulnerable
to IC.

Kenneth
"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to
apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a
question."
-- Charles Babbage
Message no. 6
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:27:10 -0500
on 7/27/00 8:05 PM, Tzeentch at tzeentch666@*********.net e-scribed:

> This would probably be remarkably ineffecient sicne your brain doesn't
> process data like more conventional computers. As was mentioned before it
> would require a lot of training to make sure that your fleeting "surface
> thoughts" are translated correctly or ignored. Then we have the problem of
> what happens when you mentally visualize objects, can the system read and
> understand that?

If it only scans certain parts of your brain, it'd work. My understanding is
that it taps your muscle-connected nerves, so when you reach out, your
persona does so, and that's why it's so hard to make the shift in perception
between reality & matrix.

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about GUI vs 3D (was Re: Virtual Realities 3.0), 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!