Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Patrick D. Little" <pdl@******.NET>
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:32:05 PDT
What is the optimal amount of headware memory (Shadow Tech,pg 54) to have? I
know that there are limits to this that involve cash, essence, etc. My
question stems from Fastjack's comment on the bottom of Shadowtech's page 50.
He says that if you intend to use a SPU (data management), you better buy a
lot of headware memory.
-------------------------------------
E-mail: Patrick
04/22/95
16:32:05
-------------------------------------
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 12:25:36 +1000
Patrick D. Little writes:

> What is the optimal amount of headware memory (Shadow Tech,pg 54) to have? I
> know that there are limits to this that involve cash, essence, etc. My
> question stems from Fastjack's comment on the bottom of Shadowtech's page 50.
> He says that if you intend to use a SPU (data management), you better buy a
> lot of headware memory.

He actually says it around the other way. If you intend on having a lot of
headware memory, the SPU (data management) is good to have. But there really
is no "optimal" amount of headware memory to have. It depends on what you
want to do with it. If you just store Knowsofts or maps for your Tac
Computers Orientation system in it, then you ain't gunna need much. If you
do decking using a C^2 deck, then you'll probably need bloody heaps, and the
data management SPU to compress it all to get even more.

But, if you are not concerned with the delay and are only considering the
the Essence cost vs Mp available, then you can do a bit of simple maths and
find out the Mp required before it becomes more economical to put in an SPU
to get the same Mp for less Essence. You can do the same calculations for
nuyen too. Or even availability time if you want.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 12:36:17 +0200
>What is the optimal amount of headware memory (Shadow Tech,pg 54) to have? I
>know that there are limits to this that involve cash, essence, etc.

There is no "optimum" amount of headware memory, IMHO. For the most part,
the stuff just doesn't have any real use. If you want to run skill chips,
just buy the chip and a four-slot softlink and you can do four skills at
once, without needing huge quantities of headware memory for it. It might be
useful for having permanent new skills without getting a skill chip: put the
skill data into the memory upon implant, and use an encephalon to run it.
Anyway, you can cram upto, what is it, 1800 Mp into your skull if you really
want to.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sanity is contagious
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 4
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:58:35 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:44 AM 9/12/98 -0400, Shadowmage wrote:
> The standard optical memory chip is 2 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm.
>This chip has a base minimum size of 5 mp, and it goes up from
>there. Presumably, there's a maximum density that it can be made
>in before you *need* a second chip. FASA doesn't give that limit,
>though.

1000 Mp. It's in Shadowbeat.
I think this would advance with the SOTA though.

> Now, look at that size. That's big. Too big to fit safely
>into the skull.

Really? The way I understood it was that they had methods of carving
out hollows in the cranial bone, while artifically strengthening the
remaining material so there's no loss of overall skull strength.
Seeing as how cranial bone is relatively thick in some places, I think
a single, standard size optical chip wouldn't be too much of an
impact, IMO.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNfrugaPbvUVI86rNAQH4OgQAo86j2AmOp/vo58i57AbPf2MwwtvwhOka
TseFUDbgNJ+v5oR5pn4WMFcWYj73aS17pY6O8DvbKetdZZ81qvQAQ27zWE8vwua9
PgPP6CFLA4E11bXtPsuq8p3cQXYl4TKNm9r9EV/Fsp1W4g/0nSwfxCyQ955kSOiB
jpUfgy2YGrY=
=tJ2i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 5
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:39:06 -0400
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Paul Gettle wrote:

->At 03:44 AM 9/12/98 -0400, Shadowmage wrote:
->> The standard optical memory chip is 2 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm.
->>This chip has a base minimum size of 5 mp, and it goes up from
->>there. Presumably, there's a maximum density that it can be made
->>in before you *need* a second chip. FASA doesn't give that limit,
->>though.
->
->1000 Mp. It's in Shadowbeat.
->I think this would advance with the SOTA though.
->
->> Now, look at that size. That's big. Too big to fit safely
->>into the skull.
->
->Really? The way I understood it was that they had methods of carving
->out hollows in the cranial bone, while artifically strengthening the
->remaining material so there's no loss of overall skull strength.
->Seeing as how cranial bone is relatively thick in some places, I think
->a single, standard size optical chip wouldn't be too much of an
->impact, IMO.

What about a cyberskull? Use the cyberskull and use the
"Built-in equipment" rules, then attach a DNI to it. YOu then have access
to the headware memory... and no essence cost outside the cyberskull &
DNI.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 6
From: Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:25:03 PDT
>What about a cyberskull? Use the cyberskull and use the "Built-in
>equipment" rules, then attach a DNI to it. YOu then have access to
>the headware memory... and no essence cost outside the cyberskull &
>DNI.
>
>Fixer

Is this possible? Can you do this? Could i get a cyber skull with a
built in device of Thermographic googles or binoculars or radio, pocket
secratary or recording device? This sounds like a slippery slope. It
also would change the nature of Headware forever.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 7
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 14:04:20 -0700
:>What about a cyberskull? Use the cyberskull and use the "Built-in
:>equipment" rules, then attach a DNI to it. YOu then have access to
:>the headware memory... and no essence cost outside the cyberskull &
:>DNI.
:>
:>Fixer
:
:Is this possible? Can you do this? Could i get a cyber skull with a
:built in device of Thermographic googles or binoculars or radio, pocket
:secratary or recording device? This sounds like a slippery slope. It
:also would change the nature of Headware forever.


Its probably "possible". Is it smart? Probably not, as all that gear
is quite usable as NON built in gear. If placed "in" a cyberskull, I'd
say there would be no special concealabilty compared to bolting anything
to your head. The "installed" goggles would seem a really BAD idea in
that case.
Message no. 8
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:27:42 -0400
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Mongoose wrote:

->:>What about a cyberskull? Use the cyberskull and use the "Built-in
->:>equipment" rules, then attach a DNI to it. YOu then have access to
->:>the headware memory... and no essence cost outside the cyberskull &
->:>DNI.
->:>
->:>Fixer
->:
->:Is this possible? Can you do this? Could i get a cyber skull with a
->:built in device of Thermographic googles or binoculars or radio, pocket
->:secratary or recording device? This sounds like a slippery slope. It
->:also would change the nature of Headware forever.
->
->
-> Its probably "possible". Is it smart? Probably not, as all that gear
->is quite usable as NON built in gear. If placed "in" a cyberskull, I'd
->say there would be no special concealabilty compared to bolting anything
->to your head. The "installed" goggles would seem a really BAD idea in
->that case.

I agree with you on this one. Why'd you want to put goggles in
your skull anyway? Your eyes are not a part of your skull..... They just
happen to be sticking out of the holes in your skull. Now, the pocket
secretary..... that would work, although you'd look pretty funny with a
telephone coming off the side of your head (unless you're a head corporate
secretary and believe in being VERY functional).
There should be a weight limit on the amount of equipment that can
be inserted in any cyberlimb. I realize equipment will be minaturized but
a weight limit should be established. I'm going to put forth the
following, take pot-shots at will until we get it ironed out:

Skull: 5kg
Torso: 30kg
Arms: 10kg (individually)
Legs: 15kg (individually)

Note: All weights assumed before miniaturization. i.e. if a
Pocket Secretary weighs a half a kilo before miniaturization, and you want
to put it in a cyberskull, you have 4.5kg of "mass" you can put in your
head, even though the pocket secretary will be miniaturized down to, oh,
.05kg instead (guesstimate).

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 9
From: Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:57:08 PDT
>->:Is this possible? Can you do this? Could i get a cyber skull with a
>->:built in device of Thermographic googles or binoculars or radio,
pocket
>->:secratary or recording device? This sounds like a slippery slope. It
>->:also would change the nature of Headware forever.
>->
>->
>-> Its probably "possible". Is it smart? Probably not, as all that
gear
>->is quite usable as NON built in gear. If placed "in" a cyberskull,
I'd
>->say there would be no special concealabilty compared to bolting
anything
>->to your head. The "installed" goggles would seem a really BAD idea
in
>->that case.
>
>I agree with you on this one. Why'd you want to put goggles in your
skull anyway
>
>Fixer

Why would I want to do it? I wouldn't. But there probably are enough
Munchkins out there that would realize you could install devices to
duplicate the effects of cyberware with little to no essence cost. Sure
the goggles would look inhuman bolted onto a skull, but I just saved .2
essence. Radio pack sticking out over my ear looking like a tumor? Who
cares, just saved .75 essence. Pocket secratary in your head would give
you a head computer, headware memory and a phone. and Headware Memory.
And for .1 to .3 essence instead of the over 1 point it would normally
cost. WHOOOO-HOOOO!!Then link it with a DNI and use each as an
Encephalon, FIFO memory

Not everyone is interestd in beautiful characters, some Munchies just
want powerful ones.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 10
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:29:18 -0400
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Razor Girl wrote:

<snip stuff on head>
->Why would I want to do it? I wouldn't. But there probably are enough
->Munchkins out there that would realize you could install devices to
->duplicate the effects of cyberware with little to no essence cost. Sure
->the goggles would look inhuman bolted onto a skull, but I just saved .2
->essence. Radio pack sticking out over my ear looking like a tumor? Who
->cares, just saved .75 essence. Pocket secratary in your head would give
->you a head computer, headware memory and a phone. and Headware Memory.
->And for .1 to .3 essence instead of the over 1 point it would normally
->cost. WHOOOO-HOOOO!!Then link it with a DNI and use each as an
->Encephalon, FIFO memory
->
->Not everyone is interestd in beautiful characters, some Munchies just
->want powerful ones.

That's why you then attack them with social considerations (which
are the primay weapons against munchkins). Lone Star (or other law
enforcement) would probably arrest them immediately for gross stupidity in
addition to the illegal cyberware charges. Lotsa good all that cyber will
do you in jail.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 11
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:22:16 EDT
In a message dated 9/13/1998 11:30:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US writes:

>
> What about a cyberskull? Use the cyberskull and use the
> "Built-in equipment" rules, then attach a DNI to it. YOu then have access
> to the headware memory... and no essence cost outside the cyberskull &
> DNI.
>
Somehow, I just *knew* this is where you folks were going with this. Scarey
thing is, it does make sense, in so much as anything else that's "Built-In
Equipment" makes sense.

-K
Message no. 12
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:45:40 -0400
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, K in the Shadows wrote:

->In a message dated 9/13/1998 11:30:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
->fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US writes:
->
->>
->> What about a cyberskull? Use the cyberskull and use the
->> "Built-in equipment" rules, then attach a DNI to it. YOu then have
access
->> to the headware memory... and no essence cost outside the cyberskull &
->> DNI.
->>
->Somehow, I just *knew* this is where you folks were going with this. Scarey
->thing is, it does make sense, in so much as anything else that's "Built-In
->Equipment" makes sense.

(There are advantages to being a former munchkin...)
Right, so, as GMs (some of us are) we need to find ways of
limiting munchies attempts at busting the system. I think I posted my
ideas about restricting the masses of items in various locations.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 13
From: Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:17:09 -0400
David Foster wrote:
>
> [ . . . ] Now, the pocket
> secretary..... that would work, although you'd look pretty funny with a
> telephone coming off the side of your head (unless you're a head corporate
> secretary and believe in being VERY functional).

* * * * *
BrainPilot[TM] CyberOrganizer

Cost: 6,000 =Y= (Comes with 20 Mp free headware memory)
Essence: .3

Datalink/enecephalon, *or* cybereyes/retinal display, *or* datajack and
PilotSpecs[TM] (wireframe eyeglasses interface, 400 =Y=) required for user
interface. Cyberphone or datajack connection to cellular phone required
for phone capabilities.

The Cross BrainPilot is the economical, ergonomic alternative to the Fuchi
Cerebral Executive (CE). It fulfills the functions of a Pocket Secretary
and more, and is compatible with all display and communications headware.
The BrainPilot makes use of available headware memory, and can record and
organize phone conversations, cybercamera pictures, personal notes, and
other aspects of a busy executive's life. Other software (reference
databases, business/administrative/technical functions, games, etc.) sold
separately.

* * * * *

(Believe it or not, there was a *strong* demand for this in my campaign.)
>8->


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net
Message no. 14
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:26:08 -0500
----------
> From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
> ->Not everyone is interestd in beautiful characters, some Munchies
just
> ->want powerful ones.
>
> That's why you then attack them with social considerations
(which
> are the primay weapons against munchkins). Lone Star (or other law
> enforcement) would probably arrest them immediately for gross
stupidity in
> addition to the illegal cyberware charges. Lotsa good all that
cyber will
> do you in jail.

Help you see Bubba before he comes for you in the night...
Message no. 15
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:28:56 -0500
----------
> From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>

> (There are advantages to being a former munchkin...)

Munchkins are like alcoholics. There are no "former" munchkins, only
recovering ones.
Message no. 16
From: Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:32:36 +0200
Not sure if this was covered in the Great SR3 Debate (b4 my time)

I see that in SR3 headware momory has the same essence cost as the
FIFF memory that is detailed in Shadowtech. Does this memory also
suffer from SLD (System Load Delay) as detailed in Shadowtech?

SR3 makes no mention of this, so I presume that either the tech has
advanced enough to make SLD unimportant or that it has been left out
of the core rules for the sake of simplicity. Does anyone recommend
that the SLD rules be kept or perhaps that an even better essence to
memory ratio could be developed
that could use these rules? Say 500 to 1?

Otherwise all those people with DataManagement and I/O SPUs will have
wasted wares in their heads :)

Thanks
BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Yo soy un disco quebrado
Yo tengo chicle en cerebro
sm:)e
Message no. 17
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 06:22:33 -0600
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:32:36 +0200 Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA> writes:
>Not sure if this was covered in the Great SR3 Debate (b4 my time)
>
>I see that in SR3 headware momory has the same essence cost as the
>FIFF memory that is detailed in Shadowtech. Does this memory also
>suffer from SLD (System Load Delay) as detailed in Shadowtech?
>
>SR3 makes no mention of this, so I presume that either the tech has
>advanced enough to make SLD unimportant or that it has been left out
>of the core rules for the sake of simplicity. Does anyone recommend
>that the SLD rules be kept or perhaps that an even better essence to
>memory ratio could be developed
>that could use these rules? Say 500 to 1?
>
>Otherwise all those people with DataManagement and I/O SPUs will have
>wasted wares in their heads :)

System Load Delay was a concept introduced in Shadowtech and will
probably b ere-introduced in Man & Machine (M&M). Perhaps in M&M, it
will include SR3 Memory (in which case, it'll probably be an optional
rule.), perhaps not. Even if not, the Encephalon, Data Management SPU,
and I think a few other pieces of `ware (not to mention any new ones that
might be introduced in M&M) can generate SLD, so the I/O SPU still has
uses. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 18
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:27:44 EST
In a message dated 98-11-23 07:30:25 EST, you write:

> System Load Delay was a concept introduced in Shadowtech and will
> probably b ere-introduced in Man & Machine (M&M). Perhaps in M&M, it
> will include SR3 Memory (in which case, it'll probably be an optional
> rule.), perhaps not. Even if not, the Encephalon, Data Management SPU,
> and I think a few other pieces of `ware (not to mention any new ones that
> might be introduced in M&M) can generate SLD, so the I/O SPU still has
> uses. :)

Since SLD was writen up as a game balance for people with lots of headware
memory (And I shudder at what sort of hijinks the FASA playtesters had to put
up with to come up with such a rule) I see no reason why it WOULDNT be kept
in some form or another.

In the meantime, since there has been nothing writen that says SLD no longer
applys, it should still be enforced... at least until we see what they say in
M&M.

--
Starrngr -- Now with WEBPAGE:
Ranger HQ
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm">;
HTTP://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm</A>;

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they call
you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.
Message no. 19
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 12:32:23 EST
In a message dated 11/23/1998 5:33:49 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gyro@********.CO.ZA writes:

> Not sure if this was covered in the Great SR3 Debate (b4 my time)
>
> I see that in SR3 headware momory has the same essence cost as the
> FIFF memory that is detailed in Shadowtech. Does this memory also
> suffer from SLD (System Load Delay) as detailed in Shadowtech?

Actually, SLD has not been used since first edition, to my knowledge, which
Shadowtech is the trailing source put forward (last first ed book published).
VR2 rules concerning memory precede everything in that department. As I don't
recall (still wiping sleep out of my eyes) the exact rules for SLD (everything
is vague, even the screen), there are rules concerning what happens to the
"Bandwidth" of the decker/operator if they exceed the standard usages.
Bandwidth was what took the place of the SLD modifiers IIRC.

> SR3 makes no mention of this, so I presume that either the tech has
> advanced enough to make SLD unimportant or that it has been left out
> of the core rules for the sake of simplicity. Does anyone recommend
> that the SLD rules be kept or perhaps that an even better essence to
> memory ratio could be developed
> that could use these rules? Say 500 to 1?

Boy, now wouldn't that have made somethings far more interesting. Especially
in lue of the new cyberdeck memory ranges. As to whether or not SLD should be
kept or not, personally, I would suggest dropping it, as the mathematical
mechanics, though helpful, might slow down the already annoying slow portions
of the game where the decker is doing their thing.

> Otherwise all those people with DataManagement and I/O SPUs will have
> wasted wares in their heads :)

Isn't there a song like this??? ;)

-K
Message no. 20
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:23:17 +0100
According to Bruce, at 12:32 on 23 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> I see that in SR3 headware momory has the same essence cost as the
> FIFF memory that is detailed in Shadowtech. Does this memory also
> suffer from SLD (System Load Delay) as detailed in Shadowtech?

I see it as the same memory that's in Shadowtech, so it suffers from SLD
in the same way in my campaign (in which, however, it is not available yet
because it's set in 2050).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stay in.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:25:21 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:32 PM 11/23/98 +0200, Bruce wrote:
>I see that in SR3 headware momory has the same essence cost as the
>FIFF memory that is detailed in Shadowtech. Does this memory also
>suffer from SLD (System Load Delay) as detailed in Shadowtech?

In the BBB3, nowhere is the Headware Memory specifically described to
be the FIFF type. Given that 8 years of game time have progressed
between Shadowtech, and the BBB3, and the fact that headware memory is
one of the most commonly implanted pieces of 'ware, I wouldn't have
any reservations with assuming that the SOTA of "Regular" Headware
Memory had progressed to where it's essence cost matched the cost of
FIFF memory 8 years earlier.

>Otherwise all those people with DataManagement and I/O SPUs will have
>wasted wares in their heads :)

Not exactly. First of all, the Data Management SPU adds to SLD,
instead of aleviating it. The way I've always ruled it, if someone
uses a DataM. SPU with even Regular Headware Memory, they suffer from
SLD. Secondly, the I/O SPU isn't wasted either; it can reduce SLD from
the DataM. SPU's data-compression. More importantly, the higher-speed
datajacks from Shadowtech require an Input/Output controler for the
transfer of data into headware memory. There are only two pieces of
'ware that qualify as Input/Output controlers: the Encephalon, and our
friend the I/O SPU.

- -----

In my own campaign, though, it doesn't matter much if the memory in
the BBB3 is FIFF or not, since I normally use Aaron Wigley's House
Rule for Headware Memory (I'd give out the URL, but the Archive isn't
back up yet.) which charges a flat 0.4 essence cost for any MP amounts
up to the capacity limit of a single Optical Memory Chip, (Listed in
ShadowBeat). The capacity is still limited by cost (100Y per Mp), and
I haven't had any problems with the houserule.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNlmoTqPbvUVI86rNAQHuNAQAgO2Ay+To9/2bNxC8Gu7oRIRpKXwPn2BM
MMTFH26XK4FeLJg3OSrw8yKmX2fuUmzn6q8h2QTS4mJAYyef0rTkwUNgbP4do+iT
zprjaE4YmA8aj06k3xotDWDytYPlFYMYedXnIsra+2dz0Q9nAjhx4Zt7t3lsipkb
knwXGiT3QK8=
=LCjy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 22
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:50:45 +1000
> > System Load Delay was a concept introduced in Shadowtech and will
> > probably b ere-introduced in Man & Machine (M&M). Perhaps in M&M,
> it
> > will include SR3 Memory (in which case, it'll probably be an
> optional
> > rule.), perhaps not. Even if not, the Encephalon, Data Management
> SPU,
> > and I think a few other pieces of `ware (not to mention any new
> ones that
> > might be introduced in M&M) can generate SLD, so the I/O SPU still
> has
> > uses. :)
>
> Since SLD was writen up as a game balance for people with lots of
> headware
> memory (And I shudder at what sort of hijinks the FASA playtesters had
> to put
> up with to come up with such a rule) I see no reason why it WOULDNT
> be kept
> in some form or another.
>
> In the meantime, since there has been nothing writen that says SLD no
> longer
> applys, it should still be enforced... at least until we see what
> they say in
> M&M.
(Starrngr)

Errr...don't quote me on this, but I thought there was something in VR2
that said System Load Delay (due to upgrades in technology?) no longer
existed.

Of course, it's entirely possible I'm imagining things, but I pretty
sure about this one. (Gospel truth, boys and girls! :) ) Someone better
check.

Anyway, I, personally, would discount its effects in my game. I mean,
deckers have to put so much time and effort into staying on top of the
SOTA, you think that memory loading wouldn't improve during this time?
Think about the size of the I/O speeds for the stock decks in SR3. If
you have the cash and a powerful deck, you can soup it up to up- and
download thousands of Mps a second, can't you?

Of course, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that SLD is just as
bad, simply because program sizes have increased (think about programs
ten years ago and programs today).

I think someone had better check this one. Look in VR2 for SLD or
something like that. I would, but I'm at work. Which is why I'm a bit
vague sometimes. :)

*Doc' zones out for hours as he uploads his latest porno sim to headware
memory for continual looping...*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 23
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:19:49 -0600
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:50:45 +1000 "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)"
<RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU> writes:
<SNIP>
>Errr...don't quote me on this, but I thought there was something in VR2
>that said System Load Delay (due to upgrades in technology?) no longer
>existed.
>
>Of course, it's entirely possible I'm imagining things, but I pretty
>sure about this one. (Gospel truth, boys and girls! :) ) Someone better
>check.
<SNIP>

I can't find it ... Sorry. the only thing I can think of is ask FASAMike
... :/

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 24
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:48:49 EST
In a message dated 98-11-23 17:53:40 EST, you write:

> Of course, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that SLD is just as
> bad, simply because program sizes have increased (think about programs
> ten years ago and programs today).
>
> I think someone had better check this one. Look in VR2 for SLD or
> something like that. I would, but I'm at work. Which is why I'm a bit
> vague sometimes. :)
>

I'm looking in my index on VR2.0, and I see no mention of System Load Delays
nor SLD. And it wouldnt be in VR anyway, really, cause its all about decking
and decks, while headware memory is used by lots and lots of people.

Hmmm.... Methinks I need to do more research.... **ugh**

--
Starrngr -- Now with WEBPAGE:
Ranger HQ
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm">;
HTTP://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm</A>;

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they call
you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.
Message no. 25
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:36:34 EST
In a message dated 11/23/1998 1:25:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
RunnerPaul@*****.COM writes:

>
> In my own campaign, though, it doesn't matter much if the memory in
> the BBB3 is FIFF or not, since I normally use Aaron Wigley's House
> Rule for Headware Memory (I'd give out the URL, but the Archive isn't
> back up yet.) which charges a flat 0.4 essence cost for any MP amounts
> up to the capacity limit of a single Optical Memory Chip, (Listed in
> ShadowBeat). The capacity is still limited by cost (100Y per Mp), and
> I haven't had any problems with the houserule.

He (Aaron), took it down eh??? I'm gonna have to egg him for that one. His
House Rule is not a bad one, IF the GM in question keeps some degree of
monitoring in mind.

-K
Message no. 26
From: Grahamdrew <mnemonic25@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:17:45 -0500
> Errr...don't quote me on this, but I thought there was something in VR2
> that said System Load Delay (due to upgrades in technology?) no longer
> existed.
>
> Of course, it's entirely possible I'm imagining things, but I pretty
> sure about this one. (Gospel truth, boys and girls! :) ) Someone better
> check.

Umm, I think your thinking of Load speed, from VR 1 cyberdecks. Load
was the speed of transfering data from storage memory to active memory,
and THAT was abolished in VR 2.0. I don't think there was much at all
about cyberware in VR 2.0 (well, except C^2 decks)
Message no. 27
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:16:06 -0600
SR3 increased active memory of "standard" decks by 6-20 times.
SR3 increased storage memory of "standard" decks by 5-10 times.
Cranial Cyberdecks use headware memory as both active and storage memory.
According to Shadowbeat, Optical Memory Chips are the same size
regardless of storage capacity with a possible implied limit of one
gigapulse (Which, according to shadowbeat is equal to 1,000 gigapulses.
;).

In the interest of not screwing over decker-types and adding a hint of
consistancy to the above, I present this revision of Headware memory for
SR3:
Essence Cost: .1 per 100 Mp or fraction thereof.
Cost: Mp times 150 nuyen
Availability: Always (ever hear of a computer store that didn't have
memory SIMMs and/or hard drives in stock?)
Street Index: .8
Legality: Legal

This gives you memory in your head but does not give you I/O access to it
or any form of processing power (ie, consider just implanting headware
memory akin to disconnecting your hard drive from your computer and
setting it on your desk.).

This approximately divides the essence cost by 3.

This (or something similar) has probably been done or considered by
others, but I thought I'd post anyway. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 28
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:48:57 +1000
D. Ghost write:
> In the interest of not screwing over decker-types and adding a hint of
> consistancy to the above, I present this revision of Headware memory for
> SR3:
> Essence Cost: .1 per 100 Mp or fraction thereof.
> Cost: Mp times 150 nuyen
> Availability: Always (ever hear of a computer store that didn't have
> memory SIMMs and/or hard drives in stock?)
> Street Index: .8
> Legality: Legal

Nope, that's not consistent. If all the hardware you're implanting is is a
chip, then the Essence cost should be fixed. Only if the hardware includes
the infrastructure required to read it would there be an increasing Essence
cost. Even then, I'm having difficulty figuring out why it would need to
increase (the only scenario which comes to mind is that SR uses holographic
storage, and you increase the storage potential of the chip by adding lasers
at different angles)


And in true SR terms, you should have staggered levels of cost, not just a
simple linear expansion.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 29
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:58:00 -0600
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:48:57 +1000 "Robert Watkins"
<robert.watkins@******.com> writes:
<SNIP>
>Nope, that's not consistent. If all the hardware you're implanting is is
a
>chip, then the Essence cost should be fixed. Only if the hardware
includes
>the infrastructure required to read it would there be an increasing
Essence
>cost. Even then, I'm having difficulty figuring out why it would need to
>increase (the only scenario which comes to mind is that SR uses
holographic
>storage, and you increase the storage potential of the chip by adding
lasers
>at different angles)

Well, I started with the assumption that normal chips have a 1 gigapulse
maximum capacity. This is at a size of 2 cm by 3 cm by 1 cm, not
counting any reading/writing mechanisms. Since I was also assuming that
the implanted version is much smaller than that (I should have made a
note of that.) I reduced the maximum as well. Additionally, I said a
*hint* of consistency. :)

>And in true SR terms, you should have staggered levels of cost, not just
a
>simple linear expansion.

Nope, SR3 moves towards linear growth. Check the change to the
Skillwires system (Max Total Mp times Max Total Rating time 500 nuyen.).

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 30
From: Paul Gettle RunnerPaul@*****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:29:33 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 05:16 PM 2/9/99 -0600, dghost@****.com wrote:
>SR3 increased active memory of "standard" decks by 6-20 times.
>SR3 increased storage memory of "standard" decks by 5-10 times.

SR3 "standard" Headware Memory costs one third the essence of the
"standard" Headware Memory listed in previous editions of the core
rulebook. It has the same essence cost as the "Essence-Friendly" FIFF
Headware Memory that appeared in Shadowtech, but no mention is made of
System Load Delay, a special game mechanic that applied to the FIFF
Headware Memory but not the standard variety.

It is unclear whether FASA omitted SLD to represent the fact that
"Standard" Headware Memory had advanced in essence-friendliness to the
point where FIFF memory had been eight years previous, or because they
wanted to leave a complex rule (that no one used much anyway) out of
the core rulebook, or because they just plain forgot about it.


>Cranial Cyberdecks use headware memory as both active and storage
memory.
>According to Shadowbeat, Optical Memory Chips are the same size
>regardless of storage capacity with a possible implied limit of one
>gigapulse (Which, according to shadowbeat is equal to 1,000
gigapulses.
>;).

It should be noted that other parts of Shadowbeat seem to contradict
the notion of a 1 Gp limit, specifically:

"... a feature-length, sixty-minute recording occupies about 18,000
Mp. ... The chip alone costs a fortune!" -- Shadowbeat, p. 79.

Note that the phrase above is "The CHIP alone costs a fortune" which
seems to imply that you can fit over 1000 Mp on one chip.


>In the interest of not screwing over decker-types and adding a hint
of
>consistancy to the above, I present this revision of Headware memory
for
>SR3:
>Essence Cost: .1 per 100 Mp or fraction thereof.

The assumptions that you're making here being that headware memory
consists of memory units that are physically smaller than the standard
OMC, and have a capacity limit of 100 Mp?


>Availability: Always (ever hear of a computer store that didn't have
>memory SIMMs and/or hard drives in stock?)

To answer the question, no I haven't, but are those SIMMs medical
grade, suitable for implant purposes? From what you seem to have put
forward, these aren't going to be the typical, garden variety 1cm x
2cm x 3cm Optical Memory Chip, but a smaller, more specialized unit.

I'd keep the Availability where it was: 3/24hrs, or perhaps drop it
back to 2/24hrs, which was the Availability of "Standard" Headware
Memory back in SR2. An Availability of 2/24hrs is damn close to
Always, but it still allows for those possible botches.


>This gives you memory in your head but does not give you I/O access
to it
>or any form of processing power (ie, consider just implanting
headware
>memory akin to disconnecting your hard drive from your computer and
>setting it on your desk.).

This is in keeping with how headware memory is described in the BBB3.
However, I've personally always found a bit of charm to the first
edition definition which described headware memory as "the computing
power of the chips in your head." As such, I allow characters who have
appropriate pieces of other headware to use their headware memory as a
cyberware version of a personal computer. For this house rule, I
require either a C^2 deck, an encephalon, or aat the bare minimum, a
Direct Neural Interface to the Memory as input and an Image Link as
output.


>This approximately divides the essence cost by 3.
>
>This (or something similar) has probably been done or considered by
>others, but I thought I'd post anyway. :)

Seeing as how the essence cost for Headware Memory listed in the BBB3
is already 1/3rd that listed in the BBB2, I'd say dividing the essence
cost by 3 had been considered and done by FASA. :)

There's also Aaron Wigley's houserule for headware memory, that while
following similar logic, is much more grand in scope. Details can be
found at:

http://shadowrun.html.com/archive/ArchiveShowArticle.php3?IDA;

To sum up, Aaron's version assumes a full sized OMC is implanted into
the head, and as such, has a flat essence cost, up to the max capacity
of an OMC (whatever that may be -- Shadowbeat is hardly clear on the
subject). This can lead to some astonishingly high memory capacities
for very little essence, given sufficent nuyen.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNsD8TaPbvUVI86rNAQHuCAP/cLvgOUZXA3ZW6rKG/3JirEUrLhJ86Ivm
sJ6+OKbApz8RQqCnMMj0ZQZMyo7fKJBenZH1o5M7gEkdPkZw+mbTDm6fjSEzdGT9
QGjRx8sZOZfoUNY9GH3NwAoojpNDb1hSmy8+tg9XNnSco9+IYnjJrNiXv0kq880F
gqV2v8ymFhM=J2AQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 31
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:31:04 -0600
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:29:33 -0500 Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.com>
writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>At 05:16 PM 2/9/99 -0600, dghost@****.com wrote:
>>SR3 increased active memory of "standard" decks by 6-20 times.
>>SR3 increased storage memory of "standard" decks by 5-10 times.

>SR3 "standard" Headware Memory costs one third the essence of the
>"standard" Headware Memory listed in previous editions of the core
>rulebook. It has the same essence cost as the "Essence-Friendly" FIFF
>Headware Memory that appeared in Shadowtech, but no mention is made of
>System Load Delay, a special game mechanic that applied to the FIFF
>Headware Memory but not the standard variety.
>
>It is unclear whether FASA omitted SLD to represent the fact that
>"Standard" Headware Memory had advanced in essence-friendliness to the
>point where FIFF memory had been eight years previous, or because they
>wanted to leave a complex rule (that no one used much anyway) out of
>the core rulebook, or because they just plain forgot about it.

I thought someone emailed FASAMike and that he said it was intentionally
left out ... or maybe it was Rob Boyle (or maybe he said he'd look into
it...).

>>Cranial Cyberdecks use headware memory as both active and storage
memory.
>>According to Shadowbeat, Optical Memory Chips are the same size
>>regardless of storage capacity with a possible implied limit of one
>>gigapulse (Which, according to shadowbeat is equal to 1,000 gigapulses.
>>;).

>It should be noted that other parts of Shadowbeat seem to contradict
>the notion of a 1 Gp limit, specifically:
>
>"... a feature-length, sixty-minute recording occupies about 18,000
>Mp. ... The chip alone costs a fortune!" -- Shadowbeat, p. 79.
>
>Note that the phrase above is "The CHIP alone costs a fortune" which
>seems to imply that you can fit over 1000 Mp on one chip.

I just took 1 Gp to be the limit because it was simple and neat. As I
said it was a *possible* implied limit. It is also possible that the
limit is 999 Gp or that there is no limit. In fact, I would guess that
it was the authors intention that there is no limit. I just set one for
the post in order to have something definite to work with. :)

>>In the interest of not screwing over decker-types and adding a hint of
>>consistancy to the above, I present this revision of Headware memory
for SR3:
>>Essence Cost: .1 per 100 Mp or fraction thereof.

>The assumptions that you're making here being that headware memory
>consists of memory units that are physically smaller than the standard
>OMC, and have a capacity limit of 100 Mp?

Yes.

>>Availability: Always (ever hear of a computer store that didn't have
>>memory SIMMs and/or hard drives in stock?)

>To answer the question, no I haven't, but are those SIMMs medical
>grade, suitable for implant purposes? From what you seem to have put
>forward, these aren't going to be the typical, garden variety 1cm x
>2cm x 3cm Optical Memory Chip, but a smaller, more specialized unit.

Well, a datajack has an Availability of Always and I would think that a
streetdoc would be about as likely to have headware mem as a datajack.

>I'd keep the Availability where it was: 3/24hrs, or perhaps drop it
>back to 2/24hrs, which was the Availability of "Standard" Headware
>Memory back in SR2. An Availability of 2/24hrs is damn close to
>Always, but it still allows for those possible botches.

Actually, after thinking about it for a moment, cyberdocs are likely to
have certain common sizes of chips ... Like multiples of 10 or 25 or
something similar. You can (IMO) get a 100 Mp anywhere, anytime, but you
may have to wait on a 13 Mp chip (I have no idea why anyone would want a
13 Mp chip, so don't ask. :).

>>This gives you memory in your head but does not give you I/O access to
it
>>or any form of processing power (ie, consider just implanting headware
>>memory akin to disconnecting your hard drive from your computer and
>>setting it on your desk.).

>This is in keeping with how headware memory is described in the BBB3.
>However, I've personally always found a bit of charm to the first
>edition definition which described headware memory as "the computing
>power of the chips in your head." As such, I allow characters who have
>appropriate pieces of other headware to use their headware memory as a
>cyberware version of a personal computer. For this house rule, I
>require either a C^2 deck, an encephalon, or aat the bare minimum, a
>Direct Neural Interface to the Memory as input and an Image Link as
output.

I had actually forgot a piece of cyber I had wanted to add to go with
this ... thanks for reminding me.

Headware CPU (DNI seperate)
Essence Cost: .2
Cost: 200 nuyen
Availability: Always
Street Index: .75
Legality: Legal

>>This approximately divides the essence cost by 3.
>>
>>This (or something similar) has probably been done or considered by
>>others, but I thought I'd post anyway. :)

>Seeing as how the essence cost for Headware Memory listed in the BBB3
>is already 1/3rd that listed in the BBB2, I'd say dividing the essence
>cost by 3 had been considered and done by FASA. :)

Actually, I was referring to dividing the BBB3 essence cost by 3... so it
divides the BBB2 essence cost by 9. :)

>There's also Aaron Wigley's houserule for headware memory, that while
>following similar logic, is much more grand in scope. Details can be
>found at:
>
>http://shadowrun.html.com/archive/ArchiveShowArticle.php3?IDA;
>
>To sum up, Aaron's version assumes a full sized OMC is implanted into
>the head, and as such, has a flat essence cost, up to the max capacity
>of an OMC (whatever that may be -- Shadowbeat is hardly clear on the
>subject). This can lead to some astonishingly high memory capacities
>for very little essence, given sufficent nuyen.

Wasn't that or something similar posted a while back? I was specificly
trying to avoid infinite capacities, btw. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 32
From: Paul Gettle RunnerPaul@*****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:35:06 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:31 PM 2/9/99 -0600, dghost@****.com wrote:
>>>According to Shadowbeat, Optical Memory Chips are the same size
>>>regardless of storage capacity with a possible implied limit of one
>>>gigapulse (Which, according to shadowbeat is equal to 1,000
gigapulses.
>>>;).
>
>>It should be noted that other parts of Shadowbeat seem to contradict
>>the notion of a 1 Gp limit
<<Snip>>
>I just took 1 Gp to be the limit because it was simple and neat. As
I
>said it was a *possible* implied limit.

And its the limit a lot of GMs go by. I just wanted to point out that
other parts of the book implied other things. (The interpertation I
use is that 1000 Gp was the limit as of 2052.)
Of course, since there is a lack of hard numbers to start with, that
means there's a bit of play in the final numbers that a GM chooses to
use for this. Headware chips might increment essence every 500 Mp
instead of every 100, for example.

<<SnipitySnip>>
>Well, a datajack has an Availability of Always and I would think that
a
>streetdoc would be about as likely to have headware mem as a
datajack.

The way I see it, there's a slightly bigger demand for datajacks than
there is for headware memory. You'll hardly ever see someone get
headware memory implanted without a datajack to access it, but someone
getting a datajack installed without having headware memory isn't that
uncommon. They're both in demand, but datajacks would be asked for
slightly more often. As I said in my last post though, there's not
much difference between "Always" and "2/24hrs".


<<Snip>>
>I had actually forgot a piece of cyber I had wanted to add to go with
>this ... thanks for reminding me.
>
>Headware CPU (DNI seperate)
>Essence Cost: .2
>Cost: 200 nuyen
>Availability: Always
>Street Index: .75
>Legality: Legal

This goes well with the rest of your stuff. One suggestion I might
make that might make this a bit more interesting: rated CPUs, with the
rating being tied to how much memory the CPU can address. I'd keep the
essence the same, but tie the cost to the rating. It's just a thought,
as this piece of ware stands well as is.


>>I'd say dividing the essence
>>cost by 3 had been considered and done by FASA. :)
>
>Actually, I was referring to dividing the BBB3 essence cost by 3...
so it
>divides the BBB2 essence cost by 9. :)

Exactly. They've already taken 2/3rds off the cost, and you want to do
it again?!? ;)
Going by the numbers for standard cyberdecks though, 9 is a more
resonable number than 3.

>>http://shadowrun.html.com/archive/ArchiveShowArticle.php3?IDA;
>Wasn't that or something similar posted a while back? I was
specificly
>trying to avoid infinite capacities, btw. :)

I think I mentioned it the last time the Headware Memory thread came
up. And anyway, Aaron's rule is hardly infinite. He caps it at the
(assumed) limit of an OMC, which he takes to be 1000 Mp. Even if that
limit wasn't there, there's still the nuyen to consider.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNsEaF6PbvUVI86rNAQHiTQP+IWDnGT9K4SItbxWBGkAezSNAwtj16777
soyqdDvn3xiyX28d180TfBxDZJxrGsvx6/s3+AwaEocbdJ7oLtb82axz1xiMrY28
L4bmX3JLdAoWLCGBY6Eg/F05qmFUWQMq9YERh3MQd4LtC7Avc3qX9KV0zJqMet1V
C3Llhlv8yzw=5Op2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 33
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:15:05 EST
In a message dated 99-02-10 00:37:18 EST, you write:

> And its the limit a lot of GMs go by. I just wanted to point out that
> other parts of the book implied other things. (The interpertation I
> use is that 1000 Gp was the limit as of 2052.)
> Of course, since there is a lack of hard numbers to start with, that
> means there's a bit of play in the final numbers that a GM chooses to
> use for this. Headware chips might increment essence every 500 Mp
> instead of every 100, for example.

actually, a Giga pulse would be 1024! MEGA pulses (MP's not GP's) because we
are dealing with binary numbers here. I would also like to come down on the
side of the argument for the always availability for headware memory. Most
people who install datajacks have headware memory, for one reason or another,
mostly to tuck the odd knowsoft right into headware, or other such off the top
of the head data. Those who dont tend to be types who have tied so much
essance up in other things they cant afford even the .1 a bit of headware
memory would cost.

On the subject of memory prices, I would like to suggest the following for
your consideration: While it is possible to get headware memory in any amount
you desire, Memory that falls under a natural binary boundry should get a 15%
discount, since its possible to implement with off the shelf chips. (this
would be numbers like 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024), this represents not having to
dig around for an odd sized memory chip to bring it up to a strange number.

All of this reminds me of just how flawed Bill Gates' vision was. in 1980, he
thought 10 frames of 64k would run any program that could ever be written.
Yet today we routinly sell computers with 64 megabites... Or TWO ORDERS of
magnitude greater than Gates' vision. And yet this is the person 90% of the
people in america look to to provide their operating system and other major
software.

(Starrngr pauses and then notices the growing carp shaped shadow surrounding
him...) Ooops......
Message no. 34
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:32:12 +1000
Starrngr writes:
> actually, a Giga pulse would be 1024! MEGA pulses (MP's not GP's)
> because we
> are dealing with binary numbers here.

Pulses aren't binary... one MegaPulse = 10^6 Pulses, not 2^20. One GigaPulse
= 10^9 Pulses, not 2^30.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 35
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 02:10:29 -0600
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:15:05 EST Starrngr@***.com writes:
>In a message dated 99-02-10 00:37:18 EST, you write:

>> And its the limit a lot of GMs go by. I just wanted to point out that
>> other parts of the book implied other things. (The interpertation I
>> use is that 1000 Gp was the limit as of 2052.)
>> Of course, since there is a lack of hard numbers to start with, that
>> means there's a bit of play in the final numbers that a GM chooses to
>> use for this. Headware chips might increment essence every 500 Mp
>> instead of every 100, for example.

>actually, a Giga pulse would be 1024! MEGA pulses (MP's not GP's)

I think Paul meant 1,000 Gp, as in almost a Terapulse.

> because we are dealing with binary numbers here.

Do we really know that for sure? Certainly, it makes sense to assume
that, but I can't recall anything that specifically states that.

>I would also like to come down on the
>side of the argument for the always availability for headware memory.
Most
>people who install datajacks have headware memory, for one reason or
another,
>mostly to tuck the odd knowsoft right into headware, or other such off
the top
>of the head data. Those who dont tend to be types who have tied so much
>essance up in other things they cant afford even the .1 a bit of
headware
>memory would cost.

Actually, Headware memory would pretty much HAVE to be less common (and
probably significantly so) than a datajack. How many uses for headware
memory can you think of that don't require a datajack? The only ones I
can think of (wierd stuff like surgically implanted data.) would be so
rare that it is safe, for these purposes, to treat them as non-existent.

>On the subject of memory prices, I would like to suggest the following
for
>your consideration: While it is possible to get headware memory in any
amount
>you desire, Memory that falls under a natural binary boundry should get
a 15%
>discount, since its possible to implement with off the shelf chips.
(this
>would be numbers like 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024), this represents not
having to
>dig around for an odd sized memory chip to bring it up to a strange
number.

Well, I agree, but I like NOT stiking to powers of 2 since it makes the
numbers nicer (petty reason, I know :) and it does keep things simplier
(even though figuring out a power of 2 is not all that difficult.).

>All of this reminds me of just how flawed Bill Gates' vision was. in
1980, he
>thought 10 frames of 64k would run any program that could ever be
written.
>Yet today we routinly sell computers with 64 megabites... Or TWO ORDERS
of
>magnitude greater than Gates' vision. And yet this is the person 90% of
the
>people in america look to to provide their operating system and other
major
>software.
>
>(Starrngr pauses and then notices the growing carp shaped shadow
surrounding
>him...) Ooops......

Actually, it seems Billy's new OS can address 2 gigs of memory (I think
he learned his lesson. ;), IIRC, 2^30 times. That means that if upto
2^30 machines are networked together, each can have its own, unique 2
gigs of memory accessable by the OS ... Spiffy, ain't it?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"You, you're like a spoonful of whoopass." --Grace
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 36
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:12:12 EST
In a message dated 99-02-10 01:33:48 EST, you write:

> Pulses aren't binary... one MegaPulse = 10^6 Pulses, not 2^20. One GigaPulse
> = 10^9 Pulses, not 2^30.

If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN binary.
everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature of
addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a pulse
is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8. Somethings
just dont change.
Message no. 37
From: Bob Tockley zzdeden@*******.com.au
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:27:54 +1000
>If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN binary.
>everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature of
>addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a pulse
>is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8. Somethings
>just dont change.

Sorry, here you're just plain wrong. Early computers actually ran in
analog. With the crash of '29 and the complete re-think of technology
who's to say what 'modern' computers work in. For all we know it could be
some sort of bizarre hybrid or it could be Base 10. It's a fictional
world, they can use fictional technology.

(>) ARKHAM
"The difference between a clown and a mime? Easy. People care if the
clown gets killed."
Message no. 38
From: Tim Kerby drekhead@***.net
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:23:13 -0500
At 2/10/99 4:12:00 AM, you wrote:
>
>If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN binary.
>everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature of
>addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a pulse
>is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
>Somethings just dont change.

Think again.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/28/chaos.idg/index.html

Choas theory would be perfect to use with the optical and holographical
technologies of SR.

--
Message no. 39
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:05:35 EST
In a message dated 99-02-10 05:42:50 EST, you write:

> Sorry, here you're just plain wrong. Early computers actually ran in
> analog. With the crash of '29 and the complete re-think of technology
> who's to say what 'modern' computers work in. For all we know it could be
> some sort of bizarre hybrid or it could be Base 10. It's a fictional
> world, they can use fictional technology.
>

I will conceed the fact that Pascal's differential comptuter was in fact an
analog device, but it never worked for much. And most of the machines you
seem to be refering to were basicly specialized caluclators, not true
multifunction computers like sit on your desk. The first example of THAT (a
computing machine you could actualy program) was Multivac, and it was digital.

Leaving history aside and looking back to the future, to get back on track
here, Lets just start of by saying I dont agree with your reasoning, K? The
reason is to this stage, transistor like devices form 99.9% of all computing
power. These devices work in a binary state, either something is on or off.
To come up with something totaly different would require such a totaly new
technology they would have described it in their books, saying "THIS is what
made the Matrix possible" sort of thing.

To develop a device that works with anything other than a binary signal
increases the complexity of the device a thousand fold. I postulate that even
if such a device could be brought to market, it would have flopped, because
the existing technology could do it just as fast, for less money and in less
cost in power, space, and weight. Simply put, anything other than a binary
system would never have caught on because a system that uses anything other
than a binary signal requires so much more attendant infrastructure that it
could not compete.
Message no. 40
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:00:38 EST
In a message dated 2/10/99 1:12:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, Starrngr@***.com
writes:

> If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN binary.
> everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature of
> addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a pulse
> is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
> Somethings
> just dont change.

Except of course if they add the "maybe" in yes/no
Message no. 41
From: Geoff Skellams geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:49:42 +1100
On shadowrn@*********.org, Starrngr@***.com wrote:
> If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN
binary.
> everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a
feature of
> addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a
pulse
> is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
Somethings
> just dont change.

CURRENT computers all run in binary. Who's to say that sometime
after the crash of '29 they don't come up with some completely new and
radical architecture that isn't binary?
I seem to recall that the basis of the computers in SR is a
simple biological structure. At the moment, I cannot for the life of me
remember where the hell I read this (although "Blood in the Boardroom"
seems to be floating to the surface of my consciousness). If computer
systems are based more on the way the human brain is structured, then it
isn't going to be binary. It will work by the neurons firing and
triggering responses in other neurons.

cheers
G
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165 (Eynowd)

Hili hewa ka mana'o ke 'ole ke kukakuka
(Ideas run wild without discussion)
Message no. 42
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@**********.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:16:01 -0600
Geoff Skellams wrote:

> On shadowrn@*********.org, Starrngr@***.com wrote:
> > If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN
> binary.
> > everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a
> feature of
> > addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a
> pulse
> > is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
> Somethings
> > just dont change.
>
> CURRENT computers all run in binary. Who's to say that sometime
> after the crash of '29 they don't come up with some completely new and
> radical architecture that isn't binary?
> I seem to recall that the basis of the computers in SR is a
> simple biological structure. At the moment, I cannot for the life of me
> remember where the hell I read this (although "Blood in the Boardroom"
> seems to be floating to the surface of my consciousness). If computer
> systems are based more on the way the human brain is structured, then it
> isn't going to be binary. It will work by the neurons firing and
> triggering responses in other neurons.

But who is to say that the way that a human brain works when you get right
down to it isn't actually binary. Neuron's firing. Effectively an ON OFF
type of thing. And that my friend would be Binary would it not? On/Off or
1/0

>
>
> cheers
> G

Grimlakin
Message no. 43
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:28:38 +1000
Starrngr writes:
> > Pulses aren't binary... one MegaPulse = 10^6 Pulses, not 2^20.
> One GigaPulse
> > = 10^9 Pulses, not 2^30.
>
> If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way
> THAN binary.
> everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature of
> addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how
> big a pulse
> is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
> Somethings
> just dont change.

Go learn some history. The first computers were decimal, not binary. Binary
is just convienent, as it is easier (and thus less error-prone) to write an
arithmetic logic for base 2 than it is to write an arithmetic logic for base
10.

Furthermore, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that most computers in SR
use some form of quantum computing. Quantum computing isn't even digital,
let alone binary.

And, to repeat, Pulses are NOT binary. Nor are they as convienent as you
would think. Pulses are not related to bytes in any fashion, and they are
counted in decimal notation, not binary.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 44
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:28:49 +1000
Geoff Skellams writes:
> I seem to recall that the basis of the computers in SR is a
> simple biological structure. At the moment, I cannot for the life of me
> remember where the hell I read this (although "Blood in the Boardroom"
> seems to be floating to the surface of my consciousness). If computer
> systems are based more on the way the human brain is structured, then it
> isn't going to be binary. It will work by the neurons firing and
> triggering responses in other neurons.

SR computers are based on optical processing. The medium they use to
generate and store the optical data is an organic substance, though not a
living one (it is grown, though, so it does have a biological structure).

An optical substance would not be limited to 2 states, and thus a binary
system would not be mandated.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 45
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:28:47 +1000
> I will conceed the fact that Pascal's differential comptuter was
> in fact an
> analog device, but it never worked for much. And most of the machines you
> seem to be refering to were basicly specialized caluclators, not true
> multifunction computers like sit on your desk. The first example
> of THAT (a
> computing machine you could actualy program) was Multivac, and it
> was digital.

The first computers made by the British War Office and the US Department of
War were base 10. These were mechanical, not electrical. The first prototype
designs for electrical computers also used base 10 logic until they decided
that it was too difficult to wire, and offered few benefits over base 2
logic.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 46
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:29:22 +1000
Bob Tockley writes:
> Sorry, here you're just plain wrong. Early computers actually ran in
> analog. With the crash of '29 and the complete re-think of technology
> who's to say what 'modern' computers work in. For all we know it could be
> some sort of bizarre hybrid or it could be Base 10. It's a fictional
> world, they can use fictional technology.

Quick nitpick, Bob: they ran in decimal, which is still digital. For an
example of the difference: integers are digital, real numbers are analog.

And as a final statement, who ever said that the notation had to stay the
same. It's quite simple... when they switched to Pulses instead of bytes,
they just brought the prefixes inline with the rest of the metric system.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 47
From: Paul Gettle RunnerPaul@*****.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:31:40 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 01:15 AM 2/10/99 -0500, Starrngr@***.com wrote:
>Most
>people who install datajacks have headware memory, for one reason or
another,
>mostly to tuck the odd knowsoft right into headware, or other such
off the top
>of the head data. Those who dont tend to be types who have tied so
much
>essance up in other things they cant afford even the .1 a bit of
headware
>memory would cost.

Most people, or most shadowrunners? What about majority of upright
uptight corporate citizens who wouldn't want any cyberware in their
body, but their job requires a datajack because they have to heavy
matrix work at least some part of the work day? Would they go ahead
then, and get some headware memory on top of the datajack they never
really wanted? Or how about the simesense junkies who are getting a
jack merely because the ASIST signal through a trode-net sucks rocks?

The datajack has almost exclusive status as the only socially
acceptable piece of cyberware. I stand behind my statement that there
are quite a few datajacks out there that don't have headware memory
installed too.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNsIW1KPbvUVI86rNAQFRfwP9HuI2V8wCERiuktYE2QbuSANoJLA8QWPa
SZswtE/5SdTBvceFxaxaHfwnRbyJQrHD0ejcGtPMmIws1gh8yLSpB+/55tE4/NBe
HA5oEZsqQMugV+BpYmQ0XNQn0YpHA1pIRg0vyYprk6A/m8cM8GhydqGnnspdH31b
HkvImOHKWoI=FGVd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 48
From: Geoff Skellams geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:30:55 +1100
On shadowrn@*********.org, Joshua Mumme[SMTP:Grimlakin@**********.com]
wrote:
> But who is to say that the way that a human brain works when you get
right
> down to it isn't actually binary. Neuron's firing. Effectively an
ON OFF
> type of thing. And that my friend would be Binary would it not?
On/Off or
> 1/0

That's a very simplistic view of the way a neuron works and is
not necessarily right. There is a whole branch of computer science right
now dealing with neural networks. They aim to create software (and
sometimes hardware) that mimics the way a human brain works. Only a very
simple one uses a binary threshold function (either it fires or it
doesn't, based on the inputs). The more advanced ones use some sort of
non-linear threshold functions and quite often use fuzzy logic.
For the uninitiated, fuzzy logic not only includes the concept
that you can have diametrically opposed answers (for example, true and
false), but a value can be a mixture of the two values (37% true and 63%
false). You then build up a series of rules about what you do across the
entire range of possible values. When you test something, you fire ALL
of the rules each time and calculate the average of the results. This
then gives you your answer. By building up a decent rule base, you can
do some amazing things. I read in one book that there was a Japanese
researcher who has developed a rule base of about 100 rules that can
safely land a model helicopter that loses a rotor blade (although I have
wondered if they mean loses the tail rotor). Unfortunately, I haven't
heard any more about this experiment, so I have no more details on it.
If you have neurons that work along a sliding scale like this,
then you are going to have neurons effectively half firing. Any given
neuron might take inputs from 3 different inputs. If input A is firing
to 30% capacity, input B is firing to 24% of its capacity and input C is
firing to 98%, then the target neuron might (based on the evaluation
function that it has) might decide to fire to 73% of its capacity. Your
threshold function is going to accept any combinations of its inputs and
it will fire to a certain degree that won't be necessarily the maximum
that it can do.
And that ain't binary. You can't get it into one of two classes.

I'm not even going to mention Quantum computing (mainly because
I haven't heard a lot about it, although it does sound rather scary).

cheers
G
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165 (Eynowd)

Hili hewa ka mana'o ke 'ole ke kukakuka
(Ideas run wild without discussion)
Message no. 49
From: Geoff Skellams geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:33:19 +1100
On shadowrn@*********.org, Robert
Watkins[SMTP:robert.watkins@******.com] wrote:
> Geoff Skellams writes:
> > I seem to recall that the basis of the computers in SR is a
> > simple biological structure. At the moment, I cannot for the life of
me
> > remember where the hell I read this (although "Blood in the
Boardroom"
> > seems to be floating to the surface of my consciousness). If
computer
> > systems are based more on the way the human brain is structured,
then it
> > isn't going to be binary. It will work by the neurons firing and
> > triggering responses in other neurons.
>
> SR computers are based on optical processing. The medium they use to
> generate and store the optical data is an organic substance, though
not a
> living one (it is grown, though, so it does have a biological
structure).
>
Thanks Robert. I knew that I had read something like that
somewhere along the line (they were talking about the guy who actually
invented the system in the first place, IIRC).

> An optical substance would not be limited to 2 states, and thus a
binary
> system would not be mandated.

Yep, I concur. I believe that sooner or later (probably later),
computing is going to need to get out of using binary logic if it really
wants to advance. There are just too many problems that you can't do
properly with just two states.

cheers
G

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165 (Eynowd)

Hili hewa ka mana'o ke 'ole ke kukakuka
(Ideas run wild without discussion)
Message no. 50
From: Bob Tockley zzdeden@*******.com.au
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:33:32 +1000
At 09:29 AM 2/11/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Bob Tockley writes:
>> Sorry, here you're just plain wrong. Early computers actually ran in
>> analog. With the crash of '29 and the complete re-think of technology
>> who's to say what 'modern' computers work in. For all we know it could be
>> some sort of bizarre hybrid or it could be Base 10. It's a fictional
>> world, they can use fictional technology.
>
>Quick nitpick, Bob: they ran in decimal, which is still digital. For an
>example of the difference: integers are digital, real numbers are analog.

Hehehe... Yeah, yeah, I know. But they're still not binary... =)

(>) ARKHAM
<cop to mime> "... anything you say can be taken down in evidence and used
against you in a court of law...... why do I feel stupid?"
Message no. 51
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:03:25 +1000
Joshua Mumme writes:
> But who is to say that the way that a human brain works when you get right
> down to it isn't actually binary. Neuron's firing. Effectively
> an ON OFF
> type of thing. And that my friend would be Binary would it not?
> On/Off or
> 1/0

You're assuming (incorrectly) that a neuron fires in only one way.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 52
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:03:42 EST
In a message dated 2/9/1999 7:17:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.com writes:

> In the interest of not screwing over decker-types and adding a hint of
> consistancy to the above, I present this revision of Headware memory for
> SR3:
> Essence Cost: .1 per 100 Mp or fraction thereof.
> Cost: Mp times 150 nuyen
> Availability: Always (ever hear of a computer store that didn't have
> memory SIMMs and/or hard drives in stock?)
> Street Index: .8
> Legality: Legal

There is only one thing I have a problem with. Availability should be more
like "4/24 Hours", as even in large stores, computer supply depots, etc..,
there are the *occasional* shortages.

-K
Message no. 53
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:05:32 EST
In a message dated 2/9/1999 7:36:08 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.com writes:

>
> Nope, that's not consistent. If all the hardware you're implanting is is a
> chip, then the Essence cost should be fixed. Only if the hardware includes
> the infrastructure required to read it would there be an increasing Essence
> cost. Even then, I'm having difficulty figuring out why it would need to
> increase (the only scenario which comes to mind is that SR uses holographic
> storage, and you increase the storage potential of the chip by adding
lasers
> at different angles)

Interesting concept with regards to memory being a single "chip". Sadly, as
of the Shadowtech and the Cybertechnology, it does fluctuate however, and
isn't going to be "fixed". However, I do think it would be possible to create
such, and have it makes sense with regards to both our current computer
developments as well as SR's.

-K
Message no. 54
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:59:16 -0600
:>If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN
binary.
:>everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature
of
:>addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a
pulse
:>is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
Somethings
:>just dont change.
:
:Sorry, here you're just plain wrong. Early computers actually ran in
:analog. With the crash of '29 and the complete re-think of technology
:who's to say what 'modern' computers work in. For all we know it could
be
:some sort of bizarre hybrid or it could be Base 10. It's a fictional
:world, they can use fictional technology.

And they do. A "pulse" is could in fact be an analog term (I believe
one current use refers to the transmission of spread spectrum info, often
down a fiber optic cable). However, in "Shadotechnology", the mechanism
of chip memory is detailed, and it pretty clearly IS binary, being based
of a pigment that alters between two colors when stimulated by a laser.
(Actually, a similar technology already exists)

Mongoose
Message no. 55
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:58:28 EST
In a message dated 99-02-10 22:08:58 EST, you write:

> And they do. A "pulse" is could in fact be an analog term (I believe
> one current use refers to the transmission of spread spectrum info, often
> down a fiber optic cable). However, in "Shadotechnology", the mechanism
> of chip memory is detailed, and it pretty clearly IS binary, being based
> of a pigment that alters between two colors when stimulated by a laser.
> (Actually, a similar technology already exists)
>
> Mongoose

Yup. I knew there was a basis for my argument, and it is found on pages 84&85
of Shadowtech, section chemestry, subsection optical chips. The text explains
that the stuff OMC's are made of either bounce light of a green or red
wavelenght, depending on other outside conditions. This gives a BINARY
response, which to me indicates a still digital system. Thanks for the
assist, Mongoose.
Message no. 56
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:26:45 +0100
According to Geoff Skellams, at 9:49 on 11 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> I seem to recall that the basis of the computers in SR is a
> simple biological structure. At the moment, I cannot for the life of me
> remember where the hell I read this (although "Blood in the Boardroom"
> seems to be floating to the surface of my consciousness). If computer
> systems are based more on the way the human brain is structured, then it
> isn't going to be binary. It will work by the neurons firing and
> triggering responses in other neurons.

That's from Shadowtech, and I'll dispell everyone's doubts: it says the
"transistors" have two states: green and red. By shining a laser at it,
the material changes from one color to the other, and thus it is still a
binary system. Now if it were a red/green/blue switch-thingie, it wouldn't
be a binary computer. As written up in Shadowtech, though, it's binary all
the way.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If it's no use pretending, then I don't want to know.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 57
From: David Buehrer dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:51:35 -0700 (MST)
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Robert Watkins wrote:
/
/ An optical substance would not be limited to 2 states, and thus a binary
/ system would not be mandated.

<grin>

So, the history of the optical processing chip could go something
like:

The Monochrome PentiumXXIII
The CGA Pentium
The VGA Pentium
The SVGA Pentium
The Pentium16MC
The Pentium32MC

And, of course, each new processor would allow you to use the new
Microsoft OS:

Virtual Windows MC23
Virtual Windows CGA
Virtual Windows VGA
and so on...

Just a thought :)

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 58
From: Stuart M. Willis hbiki@****.geocities.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:30:30 +1100
>In a message dated 2/10/99 1:12:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, Starrngr@***.com
>writes:
>
> If its computer, its binary. Computers dont work any other way THAN binary.
> everything in a computer is reduced to 1's and 0's. Its also a feature of
> addressing, which is also stricly binary. It doesnt matter how big a pulse
> is, it will still normaly be grouped in a binary function. 2,4,8.
>> Somethings
> just dont change.

Experiments have bee made in 'evolving' chips/gates/circuits. They work in
anything BUT binary [as much as anyone knows how they work]. :-)

60 years down the track I can see evolved processors being an important
technology.

s. :-)

---
"Wait a sec," Case said. "Are you sentient, or not?"
"Well, if feels like I am, kid..."
- William Gibson, Neuromancer.

hi tech. no life.

egoshrine: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8905/
ICQ: 4340513
Dangermedia Guild Assassin: http://dangermedia.com
---
Message no. 59
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Headware Memory
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:20:54 -0600
:Experiments have been made in 'evolving' chips/gates/circuits. They work
in
:anything BUT binary [as much as anyone knows how they work]. :-)

The articles I've read about that refered to a specific kind of chip
(rather like an EPROM) that could reprogram its internal routing and
logic. While they admitedly did not always function as strict binary
circuits (sometimes it was obseved that faults, voltage leaks, and
induction played an important part in the "evolved" function), they were
still (afaik) operating in a binary environment.

:60 years down the track I can see evolved processors being an important
:technology.

They certainly could be, although (for now) each chip must be
"trained" seprately. Perhaps that is part of what a "chip cooker"
does
during the "cook time" needed for making deckcomponents.
60 years down the road, the SR SOTA in computing is the OTAKU. The
otaku is not a normal binary computing device, but (per R:AS) they seem
awfully interested in teaching norms to mentally perform complex bolian
operations, so as to make more otaku...


Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Headware Memory, 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!