Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Hedley <hedley@********.COM>
Subject: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:38:37 -0600
Has anyone heard about some company called Teledesic, founded by Craig McCaw
and Bill Gates? They're working on a "constellation" of some 288 Low-Earth
Orbit satellites to provide high speed Internet access from any point on the
planet. Teledesic can be found at http://www.teledesic.com

Anyway, does anyone have any ideas on how such a system could be plugged
into the Shadowrun universe, or better yet, what happened to Teledesic's
plans by 2058?

BTW, Teledesic launched their first bird last night...

Hedley
http://box.pcnetinc.com/hedley/shadowrun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 2
From: SCROSE <scrose@****.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:39:47 -0600
Hedley wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard about some company called Teledesic, founded by Craig McCaw
> and Bill Gates? They're working on a "constellation" of some 288 Low-Earth
> Orbit satellites to provide high speed Internet access from any point on the
> planet. Teledesic can be found at http://www.teledesic.com
>
> Anyway, does anyone have any ideas on how such a system could be plugged
> into the Shadowrun universe, or better yet, what happened to Teledesic's
> plans by 2058?

This requires thinking scary. However lets take a look at what this is
and how it would work. We have some real world tech that will be 60 year
old tech by the time of SR. Not exactly SOTA but it could make an
interesting history piece. It was probably the back bone of the pre
crash of 29 computer network but has been replaced and upgraded by 2058.
That's my two cents worth on this topic.
Message no. 3
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:34:23 -0500
At 11:39 AM 2/27/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Hedley wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone heard about some company called Teledesic, founded by Craig
McCaw
>> and Bill Gates? They're working on a "constellation" of some 288
Low-Earth
>> Orbit satellites to provide high speed Internet access from any point on
the
>> planet. Teledesic can be found at http://www.teledesic.com
>>
>>

For those that want more information, I would suggest checking some of the
online news organizations. Because of who is involved (Bill Gates) and the
purpose of it (high-speed Internet) it has been covered by CNET's news.com
page and I believe also on both zdnet.com and techweb.com (or
technews.com). Those places might be best if you want to read the news
coverage relatively quickly.

Erik J.

"Internet surfing is part of my job...too bad my bosses don't agree with
me."
Message no. 4
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:38:52 EST
In a message dated 98-02-26 21:41:19 EST, hedley@********.COM writes:

> Has anyone heard about some company called Teledesic, founded by Craig McCaw
> and Bill Gates? They're working on a "constellation" of some 288
Low-Earth
> Orbit satellites to provide high speed Internet access from any point on
the
> planet. Teledesic can be found at http://www.teledesic.com

I had heard of it, but I thought it had gotten underway already...

> Anyway, does anyone have any ideas on how such a system could be plugged
> into the Shadowrun universe, or better yet, what happened to Teledesic's
> plans by 2058?

Satellites are probably in the control of either Ares or Fuchi, IMHO. MOST of
them that is. Stealth Stuff...who knows...

> BTW, Teledesic launched their first bird last night...

YES!!! OVERNET HERE I COME!!!!
-K
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:20:37 +1000
Hedley writes:
>Has anyone heard about some company called Teledesic, founded by Craig
McCaw
>and Bill Gates? They're working on a "constellation" of some 288 Low-Earth
>Orbit satellites to provide high speed Internet access from any point on
the
>planet. Teledesic can be found at http://www.teledesic.com
>
>Anyway, does anyone have any ideas on how such a system could be plugged
>into the Shadowrun universe, or better yet, what happened to Teledesic's
>plans by 2058?


Umm... The software crashed with the Crash of '29. Ares later came along and
vacuumed up the the satellites for parts.

(Just my guess).

More seriously... a far better high speed solution is a massive network of
fibre lines. Corps do have communication satellites, both as backups and for
installations in the boonies, but most comms satellites would be removed
from use. (TV and phones, for example, wouldn't use satellites.)

Satellites might have high bandwidth, but they also have high latency... you
might be able to send a gigabyte in a second, but it's still going to take
another second to get there, and so on...

Satellites are definitely there in SR (otherwise, deckers couldn't use
satellite uplinks), but they are nowhere near as important as they are
today, due to a vastly increased fibre backbone.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 6
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:55:22 EST
In a message dated 98-03-02 01:20:55 EST, robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> Satellites are definitely there in SR (otherwise, deckers couldn't use
> satellite uplinks), but they are nowhere near as important as they are
> today, due to a vastly increased fibre backbone.
>
Oh Rob, you couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. Their biggest
importance (as far as communication is concerned) is their ability to directly
skip from one continent to another -without- an information transfer point.
Remember, for every major RTG/CTG crossed, the decker's reaction is going to
slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts as
"1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....

-K
Message no. 7
From: Quick Silver <quicksilver82@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 22:40:24 -0500
Ereskanti wrote:

> In a message dated 98-03-02 01:20:55 EST,
> > Satellites are definitely there in SR (otherwise, deckers couldn't use
> > satellite uplinks), but they are nowhere near as important as they are
> > today, due to a vastly increased fibre backbone.
> >
> Oh Rob, you couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. Their biggest
> importance (as far as communication is concerned) is their ability to directly
> skip from one continent to another -without- an information transfer point.
> Remember, for every major RTG/CTG crossed, the decker's reaction is going to
> slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts as
> "1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....
>
> -K

Hi em i think this is my first posting i can't remeber but anyway in regards to
the satilite thing well did anyone read the story in the base book??? cuz when
Neddy the mage er shaman whatever probes the young decker wannabe he goes through
her last matrix run in which inside of a fuchi or was it renraku? system goes
through a satalite transfer to the master algorithim's node i know its just a
story but it gives some hard fact for the satalites being there thing.
*dunno if this has already been made as a point in this thread so don't kill me if
so*
Thankz
QuickSilver82
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:08:17 +1000
Ereskanti writes:
>> Satellites are definitely there in SR (otherwise, deckers couldn't use
>> satellite uplinks), but they are nowhere near as important as they are
>> today, due to a vastly increased fibre backbone.
>>
>Oh Rob, you couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. Their biggest
>importance (as far as communication is concerned) is their ability to
directly
>skip from one continent to another -without- an information transfer point.
>Remember, for every major RTG/CTG crossed, the decker's reaction is going
to
>slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts
as
>"1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....


Bzzt... thanks for playing. Satellites are limited by LOS. Crossing the
pacific would count as at _least_ 2 jumps, more likely 4.

For an electronic signal to run around the world in a fibre loop would take
less than a second, subject to delays while reboosting the signal. For that
signal to run around a constellation of satellites would take significantly
longer, as the distance is significantly larger. Remember, the circumference
of a circle is pi x (radius squared). So if you double the radius, you
quadruple the circumference, etc, etc.

Crossing major geographical regions is best done by a super-duper backbone
pipe, NOT by satellites.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 9
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:54:01 -0700
Robert Watkins wrote:
/
/ Ereskanti writes:
/ >> Satellites are definitely there in SR (otherwise, deckers couldn't use
/ >> satellite uplinks), but they are nowhere near as important as they are
/ >> today, due to a vastly increased fibre backbone.
/ >>
/ >Oh Rob, you couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. Their biggest
/ >importance (as far as communication is concerned) is their ability to
/ directly
/ >skip from one continent to another -without- an information transfer point.
/ >Remember, for every major RTG/CTG crossed, the decker's reaction is going
/ to
/ >slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts
/ as
/ >"1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....
/
/
/ Bzzt... thanks for playing. Satellites are limited by LOS. Crossing the
/ pacific would count as at _least_ 2 jumps, more likely 4.
/
/ For an electronic signal to run around the world in a fibre loop would take
/ less than a second, subject to delays while reboosting the signal. For that
/ signal to run around a constellation of satellites would take significantly
/ longer, as the distance is significantly larger. Remember, the circumference
/ of a circle is pi x (radius squared). So if you double the radius, you
/ quadruple the circumference, etc, etc.
/
/ Crossing major geographical regions is best done by a super-duper backbone
/ pipe, NOT by satellites.

The importance of satellites is security. You can put in a land line
that gives you a direct link from the home office in NYC to a
subsidiary in Sydney, but someone could hook a deck up to that line
at any point. With a satelite uplink/downlink the physical security
is much better.

And, there are a lot of satelites for television transmission (how
many thousands of channels are there in SR?).

-David
--
"The best way to cheer yourself is to try to cheer somebody else up."
- Mark Twain
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 10
From: Scott <stu5609@*****.ATU.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:31:58 -0600
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> >Oh Rob, you couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. Their biggest
> >importance (as far as communication is concerned) is their ability to
> directly
> >skip from one continent to another -without- an information transfer point.
> >Remember, for every major RTG/CTG crossed, the decker's reaction is going
> to
> >slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts
> as
> >"1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....
>
> Bzzt... thanks for playing. Satellites are limited by LOS. Crossing the
> pacific would count as at _least_ 2 jumps, more likely 4.
>
Don't forget that with a geostationary above the pacific only one would
be needed because LOS would be
established between point A and Sat, and point B and Sat... No
repeaters necessary and a lot cheaper
to keep in orbit than a line across the ocean floor would be to
maintain.


> For an electronic signal to run around the world in a fibre loop would take
> less than a second, subject to delays while reboosting the signal. For that
> signal to run around a constellation of satellites would take significantly
> longer, as the distance is significantly larger. Remember, the circumference
> of a circle is pi x (radius squared). So if you double the radius, you
> quadruple the circumference, etc, etc.
>
> Crossing major geographical regions is best done by a super-duper backbone
> pipe, NOT by satellites.
>
I have to disagree wholeheartedly... You are making very odd
assumptions about the way sats work. Cross-
continental transfers are best done by fiber-op and cross-oceanic are
best done by sats. Remember that the
extremely slight difference in speed is not nearly as important as the
cost of the cabling and mainanence.

Scott
Message no. 11
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:02:44 -0600
Robert Watkins wrote:

> >slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts
> as
> >"1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....
>
> Bzzt... thanks for playing. Satellites are limited by LOS. Crossing the
> pacific would count as at _least_ 2 jumps, more likely 4.
>
> For an electronic signal to run around the world in a fibre loop would take
> less than a second, subject to delays while reboosting the signal. For that
> signal to run around a constellation of satellites would take significantly
> longer, as the distance is significantly larger. Remember, the circumference
> of a circle is pi x (radius squared). So if you double the radius, you
> quadruple the circumference, etc, etc.

Welcome to high-school physics!

The signal for the sattelites isn't travelling in a circle - it's travelling in
straight lines. The signal doesn't bend (much) from the gravitational attraction
of the earth.

Now, true, the actual -distance- might be shorter on ground, but the time it
will take is approximately the same. Why? Because of the fact that light travels
slower in any given medium than it does in a vaccuum! A fiber optic cable would
have to have an index of refraction of greater than the water itself. That means
some amount greater than 1.33. The speed of light is such a material is divided
by this index of refraction. So transmitting over a sattelite would be much
faster than a transcontinental optic fiber, even though the distance is a bit
greater.

Spider Murphy
Message no. 12
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:05:48 -0500
On 3 Mar 98 at 6:54, David Buehrer wrote:

> The importance of satellites is security. You can put in a land
> line that gives you a direct link from the home office in NYC to a
> subsidiary in Sydney, but someone could hook a deck up to that line
> at any point. With a satelite uplink/downlink the physical security
> is much better.

Actually, David, that's not entirely true, at least in my experience.
Satellite signals can be intercepted by any dish pointing at the
satellite, and tuned to the right frequency. Sure, the intercepted
signal has to be decoded, but getting the signal is half the battle.

The company I work for sells computer network components, and we sell
both wireless and wired networks (ethernet mostly). The advantages of
wireless (both omnidirectional and unidirectional transmitter/
receiver antennas and satellite uplinks) is not security, but the
ability to get the signal a long distance or to a remote site. It is
possible to intercept that data, as even the manufacturer of the
stuff will admit. Granted, it's next to impossible to use the data
intercepted, as it is digitally encoded, and transmitted over several
frequencies simultaneously, but it can be done by someone with the
intent, the equipment, and the know how.

Fiber is the most secure way to send a signal, as right now there is
no way to splice into it to intercept the data. The way I understand
it to work, I don't see that it will ever be possible, even with SR
tech. I believe one of the novels covered this topic. Some corp did
indeed claim to develop the technology, and everyone freaked. Was it
Shadowplay? I can't remember.

> And, there are a lot of satelites for television transmission (how
> many thousands of channels are there in SR?).

This just proves that satellites are not secure. How many times have
you heard of someone stealing channels and pay-per-view events with
home-made decoder boxes?

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
- DREKHEAD - |"Let's face it. Sometimes you're
- drekhead@***.net - | the pigeon, and sometimes
*-GridSec : Enforcer Division-* | you're the statue."
"To Protect and To Serve" | -Unknown
=================================================================
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
Message no. 13
From: westln@***.EDU
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:10:28 -0500
>Robert Watkins wrote:
>
>
>Welcome to high-school physics!
>
>The signal for the sattelites isn't travelling in a circle - it's travelling
>in straight lines. The signal doesn't bend (much) from the gravitational
>>attraction of the earth.
>
>Now, true, the actual -distance- might be shorter on ground, but the time it
>will take is approximately the same. Why? Because of the fact that light
>>travels slower in any given medium than it does in a vaccuum! A fiber
>optic >cable would have to have an index of refraction of greater than the
>water >itself. That means some amount greater than 1.33. The speed of
>light is such a >material is divided by this index of refraction. So
>transmitting over a >sattelite would be much faster than a
>transcontinental optic fiber, even though >the distance is a bit greater.
>
>Spider Murphy

Your physics is correct however you have guessed wrong on the numbers.
Geo stationary orbit I believe is about 22,000 miles. A one way trip
travels 22Kmiles up then 22Kmile down. Roughly 44K miles.
Transatlantic cable I believe is between 3 to 4 thousand miles.
Your right about the refraction index. Glass is between 1.4 and 1.6
roughly.

44Kmilesp796Km Light 3x10^8 Delay= 0.24 seconds
4Kmilesd36Km Light =3x10^8/1.5 Delay= 0.03 seconds

So a one way signal across the atlantic is significantly faster via
fiber cable than satellite.

In December I sat in on a seminar from one of the leading researchers involved
in fiber optic. Regretably I can't remember his name right now.

Here is a bit of what I remember from the lecture.
1) Tran's oceanic cables pay for themselves within 1 year of being layed.
2) Almost all phone calls go via fiber across the oceans. The delay for
sat transmissions is considered to long for any voice communications.
3) There is a project for a new cable to be layed all the way arround Africa
in the next 10 years. As well as a new one that goes from England
to Hongkong.
4) Sattelites are used for televisions channels. The delay does not
matter. The freq used by sat's work well for TV.
5) For remote locations sattelites are usefull, since you don't have to
cable to it.
6) The total bandwidth of the current fiber cable system is greater than
that sattelites.

As for the statement someone made about Sat's being more secure. Current
sats produce a rather large foot print arround their downlink
sites. Any dish within a mile or so of that point can pickup the
downlink signal. The uplink can be very hard to intercept. So for covert
units in the field wanting to report to home base it works well. It would be
hard to locate them if you broadcast the signal to them over a wide area
which sat's can do.

Hope this helps.
Message no. 14
From: CALMON PEDRO MARANHAO <calmpm1@*************.NICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:19:59 CST
> Fiber is the most secure way to send a signal, as right now there is
> no way to splice into it to intercept the data. The way I understand
> it to work, I don't see that it will ever be possible, even with SR
> tech. I believe one of the novels covered this topic. Some corp did
> indeed claim to develop the technology, and everyone freaked. Was it
> Shadowplay? I can't remember.

Yes, It was ShadowPlay indeed.
Pedro Maranhao Calmon
calmpm1@*************.nich.edu
PO BOX 2248
Thibodaux, LA 70310
(504)448-3863
Message no. 15
From: westln@***.EDU
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:51:20 -0500
>On 3 Mar 98 at 6:54, David Buehrer wrote:
>
>Fiber is the most secure way to send a signal, as right now there is
>no way to splice into it to intercept the data. The way I understand
>it to work, I don't see that it will ever be possible, even with SR
>tech. I believe one of the novels covered this topic. Some corp did
>indeed claim to develop the technology, and everyone freaked. Was it
>Shadowplay? I can't remember.
>
>--
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> - DREKHEAD - |"Let's face it. Sometimes you're
> - drekhead@***.net - | the pigeon, and sometimes
>*-GridSec : Enforcer Division-* | you're the statue."
> "To Protect and To Serve" | -Unknown
>=================================================================
> http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
>=================================================================

It has been possible for several years to tap a fiber optic link.
You place the cable in a rather expensive tester after removing
the sheath along a short length. Then you bend the cable slightly.
Enough light leaks from the cable that it can be decoded.

The problem with this method of tapping a optical cable is that
the signal strength drops due to the loss of light. This can
be detected with test equipment. Most systems won't note the
drop in signal strength.

This next piece I'm not 100% sure on.
This same technique I believe could be used to insert a signal, or
to boost a signal. This could in theory deal with the drop. You would
end up tapping the signal twice. First to read the signal. Then
further along the cable to insert a boosted version fo the orginal
signal to fix the loss. I believe some of the latest optical booster work
in a similar way.
Message no. 16
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:28:14 +0000
And verily, did Spider Murphy hastily scribble thusly...
|Now, true, the actual -distance- might be shorter on ground, but the time it
|will take is approximately the same. Why? Because of the fact that light travels
|slower in any given medium than it does in a vaccuum! A fiber optic cable would
|have to have an index of refraction of greater than the water itself. That means
|some amount greater than 1.33. The speed of light is such a material is divided
|by this index of refraction. So transmitting over a sattelite would be much
|faster than a transcontinental optic fiber, even though the distance is a bit
|greater.

Please.... STOP!
please?
I come to shadowrn to AVOID Communications Theory II, and all the other
lectures I get....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 17
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:25:50 +0000
And verily, did westln@***.EDU hastily scribble thusly...

First off. Don't quote .sigs.
|This next piece I'm not 100% sure on.
|This same technique I believe could be used to insert a signal, or
|to boost a signal. This could in theory deal with the drop. You would
|end up tapping the signal twice. First to read the signal. Then
|further along the cable to insert a boosted version fo the orginal
|signal to fix the loss. I believe some of the latest optical booster work
|in a similar way.


The problem with this is, the moment the signal is piped through any
circuitry, it immediately loses phase with the original signal, which would
just add noise to the line.

This would be even more detectable than the original power drop.

--------------------------------------------------- <fibre optic cable
-> the message going down the cable...............

/-tap.-\
-----------------------x------x--------------------
-> the message going down the cable..............
the cable............

^^^^ The added message lags, causing
interference.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 18
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:32:27 -0500
On 3 Mar 98 at 23:51, westln@***.EDU wrote:

> It has been possible for several years to tap a fiber optic link.
> You place the cable in a rather expensive tester after removing the
> sheath along a short length. Then you bend the cable slightly.
> Enough light leaks from the cable that it can be decoded.

Theoretically, maybe, but not practically. Most fiber used today is
of the multi-mode variety, meaning it carries several signals at
once, using different frequencies, and different angles of
refraction. When installing the cable, strict bend radius guidelines
have to be followed or the angle of refraction is corrupted, and the
data is lost.

And laser light doesn't "leak". That is why lasers are used.

> This same technique I believe could be used to insert a signal, or
> to boost a signal. This could in theory deal with the drop. You
> would end up tapping the signal twice. First to read the signal.
> Then further along the cable to insert a boosted version fo the
> orginal signal to fix the loss. I believe some of the latest optical
> booster work in a similar way.

Boosting a signal creates noise, and when your signal to noise ratio
gets out of whack, you have problems.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
- DREKHEAD - |"Let's face it. Sometimes your a
- drekhead@***.net - | pigeon, and sometimes your the
*-GridSec - Enforcer Division-* | statue."
"To Protect and To Serve" |-Unknown
=================================================================
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
Message no. 19
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:23:33 +0000
On 2 Mar 98 at 21:55, Ereskanti wrote:

> > Satellites are definitely there in SR (otherwise, deckers couldn't use
> > satellite uplinks), but they are nowhere near as important as they are
> > today, due to a vastly increased fibre backbone.
> >
> Oh Rob, you couldn't be more incorrect in this statement. Their biggest
> importance (as far as communication is concerned) is their ability to directly
> skip from one continent to another -without- an information transfer point.
> Remember, for every major RTG/CTG crossed, the decker's reaction is going to
> slow down just like it would for a satellite. Trick is, Satellite counts as
> "1 jump" while crossing the pacific counts as two (one of each end)....

Not really. Today, most trans-continental telephoning is done through
wires. The delay a TAW gives you is nothing compared to a satellite's, so
the sats are actually backup, should the wires not be enough for all calls.
Sure, if I have to get my data through 42 routers on my way over the
atlantic (for large numbers of 42, that is :)), the speed bonus is mood.
But then Rob was talking about a fiber-optic backbone, so you have maybe 4
routers, which is still a whole lot faster then a sat-uplink.

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 20
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:23:33 +0000
On 3 Mar 98 at 6:54, David Buehrer wrote:


> The importance of satellites is security. You can put in a land line
> that gives you a direct link from the home office in NYC to a
> subsidiary in Sydney, but someone could hook a deck up to that line
> at any point. With a satelite uplink/downlink the physical security
> is much better.

Bzzzt....thank's for playing. Stay in the phone and we'll send you a
t-shirt (<-didn't we already have that ?)
Try tapping a fiber-optic line without someone noticing it. You can't,
becuase you have to cut it to read the info inside. A sat? Well, they're
not exactly the most precise trasmitting units in existence. Basically,
they spead thier signal over a pretty large area and everyone within that
area can recieve it. Not secure...

> And, there are a lot of satelites for television transmission (how
> many thousands of channels are there in SR?).

Hmm...is TV in SR interactive? If it was, satellites would be useless...

No, I'm not saying there are not sats in SR. They're simply not the best
way to handle things.

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 21
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:37:14 -0700
Thus spake Drekhead:
>
> On 3 Mar 98 at 23:51, westln@***.EDU wrote:
>
> > It has been possible for several years to tap a fiber optic link.
> > You place the cable in a rather expensive tester after removing the
> > sheath along a short length. Then you bend the cable slightly.
> > Enough light leaks from the cable that it can be decoded.

One way that it can be done is to chop the fiber, reterminate the
resulting ends and put a sniffer and repeater in-line. Sure, it takes
longer, but most WAN backbone lines are long enough that this can be done
before the location is discovered. And once the connection is back up,
and tests good, the owner will probably take their time looking for the
break, if they even do.

> Theoretically, maybe, but not practically. Most fiber used today is
> of the multi-mode variety, meaning it carries several signals at
> once, using different frequencies, and different angles of
> refraction. When installing the cable, strict bend radius guidelines
> have to be followed or the angle of refraction is corrupted, and the
> data is lost.

Actually, for high-speed backbones, single-mode fiber is being used more
instead of multi-mode as it can handle much higher speeds. I believe
that OC-12 is the last multi-mode fiber spec and that only runs at
622Mbps. OC-48 is a single-mode fiber spec that runs at 2.5Gbps. OC-192
is being played with by some of the Telco's, but they won't tell you
this. I found that out from a Belden/Krone/Siecor rep.

> And laser light doesn't "leak". That is why lasers are used.

Depends on how close you look. Or listen.

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 22
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:45:13 -0700
Thus spake Zixx:
>
> On 3 Mar 98 at 6:54, David Buehrer wrote:
>
> > The importance of satellites is security. You can put in a land line
> > that gives you a direct link from the home office in NYC to a
> > subsidiary in Sydney, but someone could hook a deck up to that line
> > at any point. With a satelite uplink/downlink the physical security
> > is much better.
>
> Bzzzt....thank's for playing. Stay in the phone and we'll send you a
> t-shirt (<-didn't we already have that ?)
> Try tapping a fiber-optic line without someone noticing it. You can't,
> becuase you have to cut it to read the info inside. A sat? Well, they're
> not exactly the most precise trasmitting units in existence. Basically,
> they spead thier signal over a pretty large area and everyone within that
> area can recieve it. Not secure...

Unless it's a laser. You'd have to physically intercept the beam, and
the loss of signal, or drop in strength, in a secure system, would be
immediately dropped or rerouted. Like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Heisenberg's theory in action.

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 23
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:19:03 EST
In a message dated 98-03-04 13:33:51 EST, t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE
writes:

> Bzzzt....thank's for playing. Stay in the phone and we'll send you a
> t-shirt (<-didn't we already have that ?)
> Try tapping a fiber-optic line without someone noticing it. You can't,
> becuase you have to cut it to read the info inside. A sat? Well, they're
> not exactly the most precise trasmitting units in existence. Basically,
> they spead thier signal over a pretty large area and everyone within that
> area can recieve it. Not secure...
>
Tobias, I think you should be careful about what you "bzzt"...reading the
information is possible in theory, but requires a trick that is pretty
expensive now-a-days. You can read the information, without cutting the line,
but the practical usage of such is still a bit 'extreme' on the reach side.

Interupting / Tapping a satlink is possible, more so than fiber optics, today
as well, but again, you have to confront (usually) heavy encryption.

And then of course there is the fact that you are still using a LOT more real
world stuff to try and explain/refute stuff in a fictional element.

-K
Message no. 24
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:13:25 -0500
At 11:51 PM 3/3/98 -0500, westln@***.EDU wrote:
>It has been possible for several years to tap a fiber optic link.
>You place the cable in a rather expensive tester after removing
>the sheath along a short length. Then you bend the cable slightly.
>Enough light leaks from the cable that it can be decoded.
>
>The problem with this method of tapping a optical cable is that
>the signal strength drops due to the loss of light. This can
>be detected with test equipment. Most systems won't note the
>drop in signal strength.

I checked up on this, and I don't think you are correct, at least not for
current fibers, perhaps with the old multi-mode versions. In modern
versions of fiber optic cables used for communication, the core is
extremely narrow, and only one mode of light is transmitted. This means
that after about 20 meters when the other modes have died out, there is no
appreciable loss of the transmitted mode even if the cable is bent to an
extreme (which is why they can string cable for well above 50 km before
needing boosters -- way more than coax or even normal radio through the
atmosphere). This means you would have to actually cut into the cable to
intercept the signal, and there is no way to hide that.
>
>This next piece I'm not 100% sure on.
>This same technique I believe could be used to insert a signal, or
>to boost a signal. This could in theory deal with the drop. You would
>end up tapping the signal twice. First to read the signal. Then
>further along the cable to insert a boosted version fo the orginal
>signal to fix the loss. I believe some of the latest optical booster work
>in a similar way.

Yes and no. The boosters work by being activated by the signal and a laser
then re-transmitts as it is activated -- same frequencies and pulses, same
info. To do this with your own booster, you would have to again cut into
the cable itself, and then align the mode of your laser to the mode that
the cable will transmit. Having tried to do this today in my optics lab,
let me tell you it isn't all that easy or quick. Expect to be caught with
current tech. With SR tech, even if it were possible to mode match
instantaneously, you'd still have to cut into the actual fiber trunk, and
that will create a noticeable blip.

In short: fiber optic communication can be intercepted, but there is no way
to do so without alerting those at both ends.

--DT
Message no. 25
From: Janni Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:40:59 +0100
David Buehrer wrote:
> Robert Watkins wrote:
> / Ereskanti writes:
> The importance of satellites is security. You can put in a land line
> that gives you a direct link from the home office in NYC to a
> subsidiary in Sydney, but someone could hook a deck up to that line
> at any point. With a satelite uplink/downlink the physical security
> is much better.

Sorry to burst you bubble, but thats exactly the weak point in satelite
communication. Satelite networks are buses, that means that each and every
participant gets all the traffic. This being obviously very unsecure.

--
I've been asked if vi was an easy editor to learn, whether it was intuitive
or not. My general response to this question is: "Yes, some of us think so.
But most people think that we are crazy."
Message no. 26
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:51:25 +0100
Janni Fikouras said on 14:40/ 5 Mar 98...

Now there's a name I haven't seen for a long time... A long time...

:)

> Sorry to burst you bubble, but thats exactly the weak point in
> satelite communication. Satelite networks are buses, that means that
> each and every participant gets all the traffic. This being obviously
> very unsecure.

It's secure in as far that the original sender can be hard to trace, but
anyone near the recipient can tap into the signal, as you said.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> 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/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 27
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 01:46:39 +0000
In article <4319.199803041228@*****.teach.cs.keele.ac.uk>, Spike
<u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> writes
>Please.... STOP!
>please?
>I come to shadowrn to AVOID Communications Theory II, and all the other
>lectures I get....

And you a TA sparky :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 28
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:52:27 +0000
On 4 Mar 98 at 20:19, Ereskanti wrote:

> In a message dated 98-03-04 13:33:51 EST, t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE
> writes:
>
> > Bzzzt....thank's for playing. Stay in the phone and we'll send you a
> > t-shirt (<-didn't we already have that ?)
> > Try tapping a fiber-optic line without someone noticing it. You can't,
> > becuase you have to cut it to read the info inside. A sat? Well, they're
> > not exactly the most precise trasmitting units in existence. Basically,
> > they spead thier signal over a pretty large area and everyone within that
> > area can recieve it. Not secure...
> >
> Tobias, I think you should be careful about what you "bzzt"

I just like it that much. ;))

> ...reading the
> information is possible in theory, but requires a trick that is pretty
> expensive now-a-days. You can read the information, without cutting the line,
> but the practical usage of such is still a bit 'extreme' on the reach side.

How do you tab an underwater-fiber-optic-line without anyone noticing it?


> Interupting / Tapping a satlink is possible, more so than fiber optics, today
> as well, but again, you have to confront (usually) heavy encryption.

Well, thta depends. If I have a deck-able sat-link, I need the fastest
connection I'd get. So no 5sec-decryption.

> And then of course there is the fact that you are still using a LOT more real
> world stuff to try and explain/refute stuff in a fictional element.

Hey, it's called "science fiction". Not just "fiction", remember? :)

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 29
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:52:27 +0000
On 4 Mar 98 at 11:45, Mike Loseke wrote:

> Thus spake Zixx:

> > Try tapping a fiber-optic line without someone noticing it. You can't,
> > becuase you have to cut it to read the info inside. A sat? Well, they're
> > not exactly the most precise trasmitting units in existence. Basically,
> > they spead thier signal over a pretty large area and everyone within that
> > area can recieve it. Not secure...
>
> Unless it's a laser.

Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.
Go get yourself a laserpointer and go to a swimming-pool of your choice.
Then mark an X on the ground o fthe pool and try to fixate it with the
pointer from above the water. The water will break the light and make it
hop around the ground, seldom hitting the X. That's about what the
athmosphere does to your laser-satellite.

> You'd have to physically intercept the beam, and
> the loss of signal, or drop in strength, in a secure system, would be
> immediately dropped or rerouted. Like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
> Heisenberg's theory in action.

Hurgh? What does that have to do with Heisenberg?


Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 30
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:48:16 +0000
And verily, did Paul J. Adam hastily scribble thusly...
|
|In article <4319.199803041228@*****.teach.cs.keele.ac.uk>, Spike
|<u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> writes
|>Please.... STOP!
|>please?
|>I come to shadowrn to AVOID Communications Theory II, and all the other
|>lectures I get....
|
|And you a TA sparky :)

Not yet.
Still doing Radio Relay training, so that I know how to use the equipstuff
before I actually start training on how to repair it.
Besides, even when I am a full tech, I doubt most of the stuff they're
trying to teach us now will be relevant.

Repair and design are two totally separate things.
(Fortunately)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 31
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:22:13 -0700
Thus spake Zixx:
>
> On 4 Mar 98 at 11:45, Mike Loseke wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Zixx:
>
> > > Try tapping a fiber-optic line without someone noticing it. You can't,
> > > becuase you have to cut it to read the info inside. A sat? Well, they're
> > > not exactly the most precise trasmitting units in existence. Basically,
> > > they spead thier signal over a pretty large area and everyone within that
> > > area can recieve it. Not secure...
> >
> > Unless it's a laser.
>
> Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.

Oops, another misplaced bzzt.

> Go get yourself a laserpointer and go to a swimming-pool of your choice.
> Then mark an X on the ground o fthe pool and try to fixate it with the
> pointer from above the water. The water will break the light and make it
> hop around the ground, seldom hitting the X. That's about what the
> athmosphere does to your laser-satellite.

That doesn't mean that the beam will never hit the target. What about
the mirrors on the face of the moon that are used to splash lasers off of
from the surface of the Earth to constantly measure the distance between
the two? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that laser passes through the same
atmosphere as one would when talking to a satellite. This seems to be
working quite well. These lasers only need to be strong enough to get
light to splash off the mirrors so that it can be timed accurately,
resulting in the distance to +/- 1m (I think it's 1m). They aren't
carrying any data. A data-carrying laser will be a bit stronger and the
electronics on both ends is where the speed comes from, as well as error
checking (CRC's and the like).

> > You'd have to physically intercept the beam, and
> > the loss of signal, or drop in strength, in a secure system, would be
> > immediately dropped or rerouted. Like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
> > Heisenberg's theory in action.
>
> Hurgh? What does that have to do with Heisenberg?

To paraphrase Heisenberg, you cannot accurately measure a particle's
position without changing its position. It's like trying to grab an
especially slippery bar of soap using only two fingers: as soon as you
almost have a grip on it, zoom it goes, away from the point at which you
were trying to grab it. Not the best analogy, but I'm only up against
a swimming pool here.

Like I said, a secure, and well configured, system will have multiple
routes (sats to talk to) as well as some preventative measures like
shutting down on mid-link intercepts. The timing of the intercept tells
exactly (within a meter) where it is. If it is not inside either end's
electronics then I'd switch routes or shut it down. Kind of a "can't
catch me" scenario, or a reactive IP routing scheme.

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 32
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:10:03 +0000
On 9 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> > > > area can recieve it. Not secure...
> > >
> > > Unless it's a laser.
> >
> > Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.
>
> Oops, another misplaced bzzt.

Well, actually, yes, Bzzzt. Laser is NOT secure. The focussing is
enough of a problem, so the spot on the earth's surface won't be
small...

Of course, listening in on a laser beam would be very, very
difficult, but it would be possible...

[...]


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Hex Dump: Place for witches to get rid of used curses.
Message no. 33
From: Karl Low <kwil@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:31:28 -0700
From: Leszek Karlik, aka Mike <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>

>Of course, listening in on a laser beam would be very, very
>difficult, but it would be possible...


Suddenly the image came to mind of a big troll pressing his ear up to this
giant beam of laser-light...

"Bzzt" indeed. :)

Karl
Message no. 34
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:13:10 -0700
Thus spake Leszek Karlik, aka Mike:
>
> On 9 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
> writing:
>
> [...]
> > > > > area can recieve it. Not secure...
> > > >
> > > > Unless it's a laser.
> > >
> > > Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.
> >
> > Oops, another misplaced bzzt.
>
> Well, actually, yes, Bzzzt. Laser is NOT secure. The focussing is
> enough of a problem, so the spot on the earth's surface won't be
> small...

I opposed the bzzt for the security-related issues I described in
previous posts. Taken as a part of a whole, nothing is secure when the
term is thought to infer absoluteness. I just described simple steps
that could be taken to combat intercepts and line-tap methods similar
to those in use today. Especially when a single link is relied upon for
secure communications.

Here's a way to get around the focus problem from the sat to the
ground: have lower-atmosphere craft act as intermediaries and close area
relays. NASA has a project aircraft that cruises unmanned at 70,000
feet and is solar powered. It carries enough batteries to run through
the night into the next day when it can recharge. This type of plane
can stay in the air indefinitely.

The ground stations get a sync signal via radio/GPS or something
similar and initiate a laser connection to one of these planes.
This isn't crossing too many atmospheric changes if the plane is
circling a metropolitan area at about 15,000 feet so it can be a very
tight beam. The electronics (routers) on the plane would then route the
signal to another ground station, if it were local, or to a sat with a
high-power laser, firmware encrypted at both ends using the inverse square
of the geosynchronous last-link-termination location to crosscheck cloud
patterns at an indexed location as the key (thank you Tom Clancy). This
way, every individual link has a different key everytime a connection
is made that has the benefit of being somewhat difficult to break.

Keep in mind, this is just considering the integrity of the link and
not the security of the connection. One way to increase security is to
split the transmission out into several different threads, or frequencies
(all firmware encrypted), all taking different routes (uplinks) to get
to the destination to be "rewoven" and decrypted. Every uplink would
have to be tapped in order to compromise the connection, or at least
about 60% of them.

Another way is similar to the SINCGARS radios in use in the US Army,
using digital radio frequencies. These radios change freqs at an amazing
rate in a sequence that is incredibly complex and rekeyed about once
per month I think. I wonder if I'm even able to say that much...

> Of course, listening in on a laser beam would be very, very
> difficult, but it would be possible...

Sure it is, mostly for some of the reasons I've stated elsewhere. Mainly
in that with a well setup laser linkup it would be like trying to catch
a greased pig in the mud while it's raining and you're naked. Now make
that pig split up into about 10 different greased piggies and the task
gets even harder.

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 35
From: Brian Moore <mooreb@*****.FAC.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:01:48 -0500
Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM> said:
> ...
> Here's a way to get around the focus problem from the sat to the
> ground: have lower-atmosphere craft act as intermediaries and close area
> relays. NASA has a project aircraft that cruises unmanned at 70,000
> feet and is solar powered. It carries enough batteries to run through
> the night into the next day when it can recharge. This type of plane
> can stay in the air indefinitely.

Here's an interesting thought... Why not use such low-flying craft as
the equivalent of communication platforms? Sure they don't have the
POV of a real satellite, but they are a WHOLE lot cheaper to make. I
don't remember the formula for line-of-sight based on height, but I
suspect that a plane at 70,000 feet (13 miles) could cover at least
100 x 100 miles. With the right lightweight transmitters, a corp could
set up a network fairly cheaply and very quickly anywhere in the world.
You wouldn't have the delays associated with satellite communications.
Ideal for temporary high-bandwidth networks where proper communication
facilities (fiber) don't already exist.

And the key thing... Deckers could probably make their own high-altitude
relays based on similar principles. Great way to avoid the cops. "Um,
Control, We traced the signal to a tight-beam transmitter pointed up.
Where do we go now?" "This is Control, destroy the transmitter then
return to base. We'll have to use a SAM." [Surface-to-Air Missile]

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-
Message no. 36
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:46:42 +0000
On 9 Mar 98 at 9:22, Mike Loseke wrote:

> Thus spake Zixx:
> > Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.
>
> Oops, another misplaced bzzt.

It's getting a habit, yes.

> > Go get yourself a laserpointer and go to a swimming-pool of your choice.
> > Then mark an X on the ground o fthe pool and try to fixate it with the
> > pointer from above the water. The water will break the light and make it
> > hop around the ground, seldom hitting the X. That's about what the
> > athmosphere does to your laser-satellite.
>
> That doesn't mean that the beam will never hit the target. What about
> the mirrors on the face of the moon that are used to splash lasers off of
> from the surface of the Earth to constantly measure the distance between
> the two? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that laser passes through the same
> atmosphere as one would when talking to a satellite. This seems to be
> working quite well.

Well, I'm not that good informed about that, but a) the light is
redirected. No way around it. And b) are you sure these lasers are emitted
from earth and not some sat? Besides, I never said it'd NEVER hit tha
target. Just most of the time it doesn't.

> > > You'd have to physically intercept the beam, and
> > > the loss of signal, or drop in strength, in a secure system, would be
> > > immediately dropped or rerouted. Like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
> > > Heisenberg's theory in action.
> >
> > Hurgh? What does that have to do with Heisenberg?
>
> To paraphrase Heisenberg, you cannot accurately measure a particle's
> position without changing its position. It's like trying to grab an
> especially slippery bar of soap using only two fingers: as soon as you
> almost have a grip on it, zoom it goes, away from the point at which you
> were trying to grab it. Not the best analogy, but I'm only up against
> a swimming pool here.

Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
theorem is a bit more....abstract.)



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx
ICQ: 9293066

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 37
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:08:25 -0700
Thus spake Zixx:
>
> On 9 Mar 98 at 9:22, Mike Loseke wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Zixx:
> > > Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.
> >
> > Oops, another misplaced bzzt.
>
> It's getting a habit, yes.

Well, don't lose it completely! A little antagonism is a good thing!

> > > Go get yourself a laserpointer and go to a swimming-pool of your choice.
> > > Then mark an X on the ground o fthe pool and try to fixate it with the
> > > pointer from above the water. The water will break the light and make it
> > > hop around the ground, seldom hitting the X. That's about what the
> > > athmosphere does to your laser-satellite.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that the beam will never hit the target. What about
> > the mirrors on the face of the moon that are used to splash lasers off of
> > from the surface of the Earth to constantly measure the distance between
> > the two? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that laser passes through the same
> > atmosphere as one would when talking to a satellite. This seems to be
> > working quite well.
>
> Well, I'm not that good informed about that, but a) the light is
> redirected. No way around it. And b) are you sure these lasers are emitted
> from earth and not some sat? Besides, I never said it'd NEVER hit tha
> target. Just most of the time it doesn't.

I don't have a reference I can give you, I've just heard from several
unrelated sources over the years that the lasers are here on Earth. That
only makes sense as you couldn't be too exact if the lasers were in orbit
if you wanted to get a surface to surface measurement. I think it was
on a show on the Discovery channel talking about lasers and astromony.
I think that there's some relation to oceanography too, having to do
with tidal forces research.

> > > > You'd have to physically intercept the beam, and
> > > > the loss of signal, or drop in strength, in a secure system, would be
> > > > immediately dropped or rerouted. Like trying to nail Jello to the
wall.
> > > > Heisenberg's theory in action.
> > >
> > > Hurgh? What does that have to do with Heisenberg?
> >
> > To paraphrase Heisenberg, you cannot accurately measure a particle's
> > position without changing its position. It's like trying to grab an
> > especially slippery bar of soap using only two fingers: as soon as you
> > almost have a grip on it, zoom it goes, away from the point at which you
> > were trying to grab it. Not the best analogy, but I'm only up against
> > a swimming pool here.
>
> Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
> theorem is a bit more....abstract.)

I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given time. If
you know its exact location it is impossible, according to the theory,
to know its velocity. The opposite is also true. I was being a bit
abstract as well, but I think it was a fairly accurate application.
Maybe the greased pig one was better. :)

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 38
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:19:22 +0000
On 9 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> I don't have a reference I can give you, I've just heard from
> several
> unrelated sources over the years that the lasers are here on Earth.

That's what I heard, too. So I suppose it is true...

<snip>

> > Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
> > theorem is a bit more....abstract.)
>
> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given time.
> If you know its exact location it is impossible, according to the
> theory, to know its velocity. The opposite is also true. I was being
> a bit abstract as well, but I think it was a fairly accurate
> application. Maybe the greased pig one was better. :)

Actually, IIRC this refers to electrons, not objects. One can't
determine electron's velocity and location of an electron at the same
time. (aka "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle)


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Cyclist have it between their legs.
Message no. 39
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:07:36 -0500
At 12:19 AM 3/10/98 +0000, you wrote:

>> > Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
>> > theorem is a bit more....abstract.)
>>
>> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
>> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given time.
>> If you know its exact location it is impossible, according to the
>> theory, to know its velocity. The opposite is also true. I was being
>> a bit abstract as well, but I think it was a fairly accurate
>> application. Maybe the greased pig one was better. :)
>
>Actually, IIRC this refers to electrons, not objects. One can't
>determine electron's velocity and location of an electron at the same
>time. (aka "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
>
>
I may be totally wrong here, but from everything I've read, Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle doesn't affect just electrons, only everything. I
think that Dr. Stephen Hawking considers the Heisenberg one of the most
fundamental laws of the universe, affecting nearly everything in some way,
from black holes to the formation of the universe to you and I. So it
definitely refers to more than just electrons (I think it was first
discovered in relation to electrons though, wasn't it?).

Of course, my job is public relations flack, not engineer or physicist, so
I could be wrong.

Erik J.
Message no. 40
From: Wyrmy <elfman@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:18:10 -0600
> >> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
> >> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given >
>>time.
I'm Just a fourteen year old male so be easy on me ;^], But I know
exactly where my computer is(Well Duh...;^]),and I know its velocity(0
kph ;-])
Message no. 41
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:23:09 -0700
Thus spake Leszek Karlik, aka Mike:
>
> On 9 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
> writing:
>
> > > Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
> > > theorem is a bit more....abstract.)
> >
> > I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
> > object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given time.
> > If you know its exact location it is impossible, according to the
> > theory, to know its velocity. The opposite is also true. I was being
> > a bit abstract as well, but I think it was a fairly accurate
> > application. Maybe the greased pig one was better. :)
>
> Actually, IIRC this refers to electrons, not objects. One can't
> determine electron's velocity and location of an electron at the same
> time. (aka "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle)

I can't remember if it goes to particles or not, but for using it as
an analogy for communications security "object" works ok. And I think
you pegged the name right. I couldn't remember exactly what it was,
but at least I got the name right (and for only being about 17 hours
into a 108 hour Monday, I figure that ain't half bad. :)

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 42
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:28:28 +1000
Wrymy writes:
>> >> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
>> >> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given >
>>time.
>I'm Just a fourteen year old male so be easy on me ;^], But I know
>exactly where my computer is(Well Duh...;^]),and I know its velocity(0
>kph ;-])


No, that's not its velocity. That's its velocity relative to _you_. What's
its absolute velocity (more properly defined as its velocity relative to a
defined standard point, such as the centre of the universe)?

Furthermore, it's defined primarily at the quantum scale. Quantum effects
tend to be negated out by the "law" of averages on the macroscopic scale.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 43
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:52:51 -0800
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> Wrymy writes:
> >> >> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
> >> >> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given >
> >>time.

> >I'm Just a fourteen year old male so be easy on me ;^], But I know
> >exactly where my computer is(Well Duh...;^]),and I know its velocity(0
> >kph ;-])

> No, that's not its velocity. That's its velocity relative to _you_. What's
> its absolute velocity (more properly defined as its velocity relative to a
> defined standard point, such as the centre of the universe)?

Uh -- ain't no such thing as the center of the universe.

Also: Wyrmy's defined the velocity relative to his defined standard
point -- himself.

> Furthermore, it's defined primarily at the quantum scale. Quantum effects
> tend to be negated out by the "law" of averages on the macroscopic scale.

This is the answer you're looking for.

I'll leave off the science debate (and won't bash Hawking.. too much)
here.


-Matt

------------------------------------
I will work harder. -- Boxer: Animal Hero, First-Class

GridSec: SRCard
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 44
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:07:50 +0000
On 9 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> I opposed the bzzt for the security-related issues I described in
> previous posts. Taken as a part of a whole, nothing is secure when
> the term is thought to infer absoluteness. I just described simple
> steps that could be taken to combat intercepts and line-tap methods
> similar to those in use today. Especially when a single link is
> relied upon for secure communications.

Hmmm... Yes, I see your point.

[snip plane idea]

Nice one. Of course, average lifetime of a relay drone over a
battlefield would be rather short, but for covert ops, it's very
good. That is, unless the target can detect the drones, in which case
he's alerted to the team's presence. Ooops. ;>

[...]
> Another way is similar to the SINCGARS radios in use in the
> US Army, using digital radio frequencies. These radios change
> freqs at an amazing rate in a sequence that is incredibly complex
> and rekeyed about once per month I think. I wonder if I'm even
> able to say that much...

Well, I already heard (read, actually) about that, so I doubt you'll
be shot for betraying State secrets. ;>

[...]

> Sure it is, mostly for some of the reasons I've stated elsewhere.
> Mainly in that with a well setup laser linkup it would be like
> trying to catch a greased pig in the mud while it's raining and
> you're naked. Now make that pig split up into about 10 different
> greased piggies and the task gets even harder.

Heh. Basically, something that a capable NPC team *might* do. <eGMg>
(Which was my point - no PC should feel 100% secure. )


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Drive carefully - 99% of the population is caused by accidents!
Message no. 45
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:33:45 +1000
Matb writes:
>> >I'm Just a fourteen year old male so be easy on me ;^], But I know
>> >exactly where my computer is(Well Duh...;^]),and I know its velocity(0
>> >kph ;-])
>
>> No, that's not its velocity. That's its velocity relative to _you_.
What's
>> its absolute velocity (more properly defined as its velocity relative to
a
>> defined standard point, such as the centre of the universe)?
>
>Uh -- ain't no such thing as the center of the universe.


Uh -- yes there is. Any finite volume (and the universe is finite) has a
centre. We just don't know where it is. Oh, and I said such as...

>Also: Wyrmy's defined the velocity relative to his defined standard
>point -- himself.


Remind me to stay off the road when he gets his driver's license, then. He'd
always be driving at a velocity of 0. :)

You can define it relative to the Earth, but unless you can define it
relative to any other object, you don't know it _exactly_. (Just
pragmatically, but that's quantum physics for you)

>> Furthermore, it's defined primarily at the quantum scale. Quantum effects
>> tend to be negated out by the "law" of averages on the macroscopic
scale.
>
>This is the answer you're looking for.


That's why I said it. (Oh, I wasn't too clear before... the "it" that's
defined was the Uncertainty Principle)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 46
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:18:23 -0700
Thus spake Leszek Karlik, aka Mike:
>
> On 9 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
> writing:
>
> [snip plane idea]
>
> Nice one. Of course, average lifetime of a relay drone over a
> battlefield would be rather short, but for covert ops, it's very
> good. That is, unless the target can detect the drones, in which case
> he's alerted to the team's presence. Ooops. ;>

I was thinking more of a metropolitan type of implementation rather
than a tactical one. I think that there was something similar in use in
Snow Crash (excellent book) used for the "Earth" software. The RPV's
(pilotless?) were able to get much more detailed imaging around the
metropolitan areas then the sats the software used for longer range
imagery, but the two systems worked together.

> > Sure it is, mostly for some of the reasons I've stated elsewhere.
> > Mainly in that with a well setup laser linkup it would be like
> > trying to catch a greased pig in the mud while it's raining and
> > you're naked. Now make that pig split up into about 10 different
> > greased piggies and the task gets even harder.
>
> Heh. Basically, something that a capable NPC team *might* do. <eGMg>
> (Which was my point - no PC should feel 100% secure. )

Which sucks for me when playing with a tech-savvy GM. I can think
up a bjillion ways to implement security, both physical and computer,
and I know that they usually can too. Many of these just plain can't be
bypassed without an amazing amount of ingenuity, and I know that I'll
have to beat at least half of what I think *could* be in there... And I
can't start talking out loud too much cuz the less tech-savvy GM's will
say "What was that last thing? That sounds cool..."

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 47
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:01:13 +0000
On 10 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> I was thinking more of a metropolitan type of implementation rather
> than a tactical one. I think that there was something similar in use
> in Snow Crash (excellent book) used for the "Earth" software. The
> RPV's (pilotless?) were able to get much more detailed imaging
> around the metropolitan areas then the sats the software used for
> longer range imagery, but the two systems worked together.

Hmmm... Yes, I could see that work. The only question that is left
now is: Does Lone Star have enough money for that? <evil GM grin>

[...]
> > Heh. Basically, something that a capable NPC team *might* do. <eGMg>
> > (Which was my point - no PC should feel 100% secure. )
>
> Which sucks for me when playing with a tech-savvy GM. I can think
> up a bjillion ways to implement security, both physical and
> computer, and I know that they usually can too. Many of these just
> plain can't be bypassed without an amazing amount of ingenuity, and
> I know that I'll have to beat at least half of what I think *could*
> be in there... And I can't start talking out loud too much cuz the
> less tech-savvy GM's will say "What was that last thing? That sounds
> cool..."

Hmmm... Well, yes, I can see why it would suck for you. However, it
will work for my players, as they're not as tech-savvy, and rely on
their Rating 14 tactical commo, or stuff like that. ;>


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
(dirty look) Im sorry, Im not allowed to argue any more
Message no. 48
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:33:56 -0700
Thus spake Leszek Karlik, aka Mike:
>
> On 10 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
> writing:
> [...]
> > I was thinking more of a metropolitan type of implementation rather
> > than a tactical one. I think that there was something similar in use
> > in Snow Crash (excellent book) used for the "Earth" software. The
> > RPV's (pilotless?) were able to get much more detailed imaging
> > around the metropolitan areas then the sats the software used for
> > longer range imagery, but the two systems worked together.
>
> Hmmm... Yes, I could see that work. The only question that is left
> now is: Does Lone Star have enough money for that? <evil GM grin>

Who cares about Lone Star, I'm more worried about the corps that have
that kind of money to throw at surveillance and ops. I see your point,
though. Guys sitting on rooftops with big nasty sniper rifles and laser
commo pointed at low altitude (between 5,000 and 15,000 feet) relay drones
effectively can't be eavesdropped upon except by a drek-hot decker who
has to know what he looking for.

For instance, let's talk about these two corp snipers communicating
between themselves and a ground-based control via this relay drone. The
traffic between the drone and the ground station could be encrypted
and attached to a video signal (a skin flick, a weather report, the
700 Club...) to escape notice (how many channels does trid have?). The
signal between relay drone and snipers is burst traffic, or encrypted
and concealed in a burst of static designed to sound like a solar flare.

It's thoughts like this that make me not even bother to try to tap
hi-tech communications in SR. I always have my tech-related characters
play the low-tech route and go with what gear I can get from the rule
books. It makes it a pretty level playing field by doing this. The
Dataline Tap, for instance, doesn't delve into the specifics of exactly
what kind of dataline it taps. Isn't all dataline made from optic fiber
in SR? That's how we play it, but we never get to scientific on the
properties of the fiber, mainly because in our group I'm the only one
with knowledge on the topic and I don't want to ruin everyone else's fun.

--
Mike Loseke | The more you know, the more you doubt.
mike@*******.com | -- Voltaire, 1694-1778
Message no. 49
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:25:17 +0000
On 10 Mar 98, Mike Loseke disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

[...]
> > Hmmm... Yes, I could see that work. The only question that is left
> > now is: Does Lone Star have enough money for that? <evil GM grin>
>
> Who cares about Lone Star, I'm more worried about the corps that
> have
Lone Star is a corp, too. ;>

[...]

> It's thoughts like this that make me not even bother to try to tap
> hi-tech communications in SR. I always have my tech-related
> characters play the low-tech route and go with what gear I can get
> from the rule books. It makes it a pretty level playing field by

Yes, I think that's the only way not to lose it... Just use the BBB
and pay no heed to that pesky RL. (Luckily, my players don't know
enough about RL commo tech to gripe about it.)


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Amber fan and Star Wars junkie; UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; YMMV; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
Geek Code v3.1 GL/O d- s+: a19 C+++ W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O@ M- PS+(+++) PE Y+
PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
Toothpaste costs more than new teeth.
Message no. 50
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:07:46 +0000
On 9 Mar 98 at 15:08, Mike Loseke wrote:

> Thus spake Zixx:
> >
> > On 9 Mar 98 at 9:22, Mike Loseke wrote:

> > Well, I'm not that good informed about that, but a) the light is
> > redirected. No way around it. And b) are you sure these lasers are emitted
> > from earth and not some sat? Besides, I never said it'd NEVER hit tha
> > target. Just most of the time it doesn't.
>
> I don't have a reference I can give you, I've just heard from several
> unrelated sources over the years that the lasers are here on Earth.

Thinking of it, if you pu the lasers on pretty high montains, you'd get
much better results, as the air is thinner.

> That
> only makes sense as you couldn't be too exact if the lasers were in orbit

Oh well, use a radar-system for the distance between earth and the sat and
a laser for the rest. Should work, IMO.

> > > > Hurgh? What does that have to do with Heisenberg?
> > >
> > > To paraphrase Heisenberg, you cannot accurately measure a particle's
> > > position without changing its position. It's like trying to grab an
> > > especially slippery bar of soap using only two fingers: as soon as you
> > > almost have a grip on it, zoom it goes, away from the point at which you
> > > were trying to grab it. Not the best analogy, but I'm only up against
> > > a swimming pool here.
> >
> > Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
> > theorem is a bit more....abstract.)
>
> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given time. If
> you know its exact location it is impossible, according to the theory,
> to know its velocity.

Yup. Because if you measure the position, you'd change the pulse. If you
measure the position, you change the pulse again. Pretty much like throwing
stones too see. (OK, simplyfied again...)



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx
ICQ: 9293066

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:-- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+ w---() O-
M-- PS+(+++) PE- Y+>++ t+(++) 5+ X++
R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++ e>+++++(*)
h! r--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 51
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:09:07 -0600
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Matb writes:
> >> >I'm Just a fourteen year old male so be easy on me ;^], But I know
> >> >exactly where my computer is(Well Duh...;^]),and I know its velocity(0
> >> >kph ;-])

<Quantum physics mode> No you just know the reletive location of the
maximum of the Quantum Wave packet that is your computer. There is VERY
small but real chance that your computer could suddently be in the Alfa
Centari stystem.</Quantum physics mode> But for all practical purposes Yes
you do know the location of your computer.:)

> >> No, that's not its velocity. That's its velocity relative to _you_.
> What's
> >> its absolute velocity (more properly defined as its velocity relative to
> a
> >> defined standard point, such as the centre of the universe)?
<SNIP>
> You can define it relative to the Earth, but unless you can define it
> relative to any other object, you don't know it _exactly_. (Just
> pragmatically, but that's quantum physics for you)

No. the reletive velocities, refrence frames, ect is Reletivity theory
from our friend Albert. Quantum Mechanics just says ok i know the
macroscopic reletive velocities and positions but thats just the
probabilistic loaction of the wave packet that is the matter...

*Sigh* theres a reason i dropped out of Quantum Physics after 3/4 of the
semester and switched to CompSci with a (already completed) Physics minor.
Reletivity and Quantum were giving me headaches:)

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 52
From: Scott <stu5609@*****.ATU.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:43:28 -0600
Zixx wrote:
>
> On 9 Mar 98 at 9:22, Mike Loseke wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Zixx:
> > > Another "Bzzzzzzzt!", another t-shirt.
> >
> > Oops, another misplaced bzzt.
>
> It's getting a habit, yes.
>
> > > Go get yourself a laserpointer and go to a swimming-pool of your choice.
> > > Then mark an X on the ground o fthe pool and try to fixate it with the
> > > pointer from above the water. The water will break the light and make it
> > > hop around the ground, seldom hitting the X. That's about what the
> > > athmosphere does to your laser-satellite.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that the beam will never hit the target. What about
> > the mirrors on the face of the moon that are used to splash lasers off of
> > from the surface of the Earth to constantly measure the distance between
> > the two? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that laser passes through the same
> > atmosphere as one would when talking to a satellite. This seems to be
> > working quite well.
>
> Well, I'm not that good informed about that, but a) the light is
> redirected. No way around it. And b) are you sure these lasers are emitted
> from earth and not some sat? Besides, I never said it'd NEVER hit tha
> target. Just most of the time it doesn't.
>
> > > > You'd have to physically intercept the beam, and
> > > > the loss of signal, or drop in strength, in a secure system, would be
> > > > immediately dropped or rerouted. Like trying to nail Jello to the
wall.
> > > > Heisenberg's theory in action.
> > >
> > > Hurgh? What does that have to do with Heisenberg?
> >
> > To paraphrase Heisenberg, you cannot accurately measure a particle's
> > position without changing its position. It's like trying to grab an
> > especially slippery bar of soap using only two fingers: as soon as you
> > almost have a grip on it, zoom it goes, away from the point at which you
> > were trying to grab it. Not the best analogy, but I'm only up against
> > a swimming pool here.
>
> Nice way to see Heisenberg, actually. (My personal working-image of the
> theorem is a bit more....abstract.)
>

Lasers are tighter-beamed and much less affected by atmospheric
anomalies. :)

Scott
Message no. 53
From: Scott <stu5609@*****.ATU.EDU>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:47:28 -0600
Wyrmy wrote:
>
> > >> I think more correctly the theory is that you cannot know both an
> > >> object's exact location in space and its velocity at any given >
>>time.
> I'm Just a fourteen year old male so be easy on me ;^], But I know
> exactly where my computer is(Well Duh...;^]),and I know its velocity(0
> kph ;-])

Actually, nothing really has a zero velocity. All matter in the
universe
is constantly in motion unless (like it ever happens) it's temp is
at the zero mark (absolute).

Scott
Message no. 54
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:59:26 +0100
I don't know how satellite communication works. I seriously doubt it works
the same way in 2058. If signals are sent promiscuously then the bandwidth
would be far, far too narrow.(Same problem with high-speed ethernet and many
users.). So satellites are probably node - to node connections *or*
widebanders, but not both. Widebanders would be used for signal distribution -
TV, whatever. Real easy to eavesdrop on. Node to node could be made so
encrypted and narrow (but not with laser) that it could be quite hard to
eavesdrop on. (Requiring a dish in the same city block, among other things.).

Dedicated military commsats could use widebanding communication, to allow
ground troops and whoever with portable satcom gear to link up.
(Limited amount of traffic would make it useful) - but with the obvious
problem of eavesdropping. So encryption would likely be heavy.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about High Speed Matrix er, Internet Access, 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!