Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:39:28 -0700
Hey you all, remember when we were all whining and complaining about how
slow the weapons tech development was for Shadowrun? We said it was way
behind what it should be, and couldnt understand why it was so slow. Well
heres something to chew over.

I just got done reading Shadowplay and came accross a whole big enough for
FASA to slide on through and get out of jail free on. The "lost tech"
specificaly the 3m fiber optic line reader and the background that was
explored therein could explian why the weapons tech was so fragged up.

A good example was the Calaway car they used. Falcon just couldnt believe
that the car had been built in 1990's and so on. The crash of 29 ate a
hell of a lot o data.

Could this be the reason for the slow development of the weapons in
Shadowrun. Not that Im claiming that this is the party line from FASA but
sounds real reasnoable.

Later Edge.
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:04:53 -0500
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU> writes:

Paul> Hey you all, remember when we were all whining and complaining about
Paul> how slow the weapons tech development was for Shadowrun? We said it
Paul> was way behind what it should be, and couldnt understand why it was
Paul> so slow. Well heres something to chew over.

Actually, the reason is very simple. Take the rate of progression today,
and extrapolate to 2050. By that point, your avergage soldier will be
carrying weapons capable eliminating his target with one shot, every time.
Now, seing as this isn't Paranoia where you have 6 clones to go through,
FASA decided that this wouldn't be much fun at all, and deliberately left
weapons tech somewhere in the late 20th Century. The Crash of '29 was a
convenient excuse for that.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 3
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 12:38:14 -0500
On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, Paul Finch wrote:

> I just got done reading Shadowplay and came accross a whole big enough for
> FASA to slide on through and get out of jail free on. The "lost tech"
> specificaly the 3m fiber optic line reader and the background that was
> explored therein could explian why the weapons tech was so fragged up.
>
> A good example was the Calaway car they used. Falcon just couldnt believe
> that the car had been built in 1990's and so on. The crash of 29 ate a
> hell of a lot o data.

I still don't buy it. Take that Corvette. Even if all the data was
erased, all you have to do is get your hands on a real car and take
it apart to see how it works. Surely General Motors could get their
hands on another Corvette?

--Craig
Message no. 4
From: Eric Boatman <ElecDeath@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:12:36 -0500
I believe (They're not very clear on this) that the Crash of '29 resulted in
the loss of a lot of knowledge. FYI the Crash of 2029, is when all the
computers in the world (except for a very few exceptions) crashed taking all
preexisting knowledge (all that was on computers AKA the internet) with them.
I believe this explains why technology hasn't progressed as much as you would
assume for 50+ years.

Eric .. The MadMan
Message no. 5
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:19:49 -0700
On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Paul> Hey you all, remember when we were all whining and complaining about
> Paul> how slow the weapons tech development was for Shadowrun? We said it
> Paul> was way behind what it should be, and couldnt understand why it was
> Paul> so slow. Well heres something to chew over.

> Actually, the reason is very simple. Take the rate of progression today,
> and extrapolate to 2050. By that point, your avergage soldier will be
> carrying weapons capable eliminating his target with one shot, every time.
> Now, seing as this isn't Paranoia where you have 6 clones to go through,
> FASA decided that this wouldn't be much fun at all, and deliberately left
> weapons tech somewhere in the late 20th Century. The Crash of '29 was a
> convenient excuse for that.

I see that rat but I was just suggesting a party line for fasa to deal
with it. but to be honest as the newer responses have said, It makes real
good sense if you look at it. All I am asking is that we take a little
time to delve into the how and why the tech is slowed some. Justa
discussion thread if you will.

Edge
Message no. 6
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:26:37 -0700
On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Craig S Dohmen wrote:

> > I just got done reading Shadowplay and came accross a whole big enough for
> > FASA to slide on through and get out of jail free on. The "lost tech"
> > specificaly the 3m fiber optic line reader and the background that was
> > explored therein could explian why the weapons tech was so fragged up.
> >
> > A good example was the Calaway car they used. Falcon just couldnt believe
> > that the car had been built in 1990's and so on. The crash of 29 ate a
> > hell of a lot o data.
>
> I still don't buy it. Take that Corvette. Even if all the data was
> erased, all you have to do is get your hands on a real car and take
> it apart to see how it works. Surely General Motors could get their
> hands on another Corvette?

Well look at it this way. Granted the support tech for making weapons is
already here, and it would be after the crash hit, but think about this...

1) We all know that balistic charts for all sorts of stuff are around.
But the first time you try to desing a new round at the time right after
the crash, what do you need...A computer to calculate all the balistics.
That requires programs to do the math, and if its gone like in the crash,
how many of you out there can calculate balistic stuff. Especialy for new
ammunition which is(unless you have computers) a trial and error type thing.

2) Ok heres this... How many know how to make black powder? And what
kind of support tech do you need. And if all the suppliers fell short
after the crash how long would it take to get it back on line. And the
newer types of propellant need lots of biochem/chem engr assets. Guess
what all the research just died, set back what 5-10 years?

3) Ok now one last point from here. At the time of the crash the support
tech is still around and most of the people who know what to do in the various
facets of the weapons(any kind at this point in the discussion) manufacturing
biz are around. But are any of you familiar with the "I make this shield
then you make a big rock to go throught it, and over and over et al? Not
even looking into the areas of finding/fixing your target-another "I make
this ecm you make this eccm deal"-the imediate need for advanced weapons
was cut short when people grabed what they had on hand to protect their
assets they had right there. after things slowed down then the build up
started( or was probably going on but hadent gotten real advanced untill
then.)

Just some thoughts.
Edge
Message no. 7
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:39:46 -0700
On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Eric Boatman wrote:

> I believe (They're not very clear on this) that the Crash of '29 resulted in
> the loss of a lot of knowledge. FYI the Crash of 2029, is when all the
> computers in the world (except for a very few exceptions) crashed taking all
> preexisting knowledge (all that was on computers AKA the internet) with them.

I know this I was starting a thread from a discussion we had about weapons
a few weeks back. Noone could really understand why FASA was so dreked up
with weapons designs.

Edge
Message no. 8
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 20:49:30 -0500
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU> writes:

Paul> I know this I was starting a thread from a discussion we had about
Paul> weapons a few weeks back. Noone could really understand why FASA was
Paul> so dreked up with weapons designs.

Oh, well that's a completely different issue. See, the guys at FASA don't
know the first thing about firearms and weapons technologies, which they
freely admit I should add, so a lot of what you see in the rulebooks and
supplements is due to total ignorance and a lot of Hollywood.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | returned to its special container and
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | kept under refrigeration.
Message no. 9
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:19:16 -0500
>>>>> "Craig" == Craig S Dohmen
<dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU> writes:

Craig> I still don't buy it. Take that Corvette. Even if all the data was
Craig> erased, all you have to do is get your hands on a real car and take
Craig> it apart to see how it works. Surely General Motors could get their
Craig> hands on another Corvette?

It doesn't work that way. Once you pass a certain threshold it becomes
impossible to reverse engineer a particular technology from a lower
technological level. That threshold can vary widely between different
technologies; for example, while someone from the mid 1700's might be able
to figure out how an carburated internal combustion engine works, he'll
find a fuel-injected IC engine quite a bit more difficult, and he ceratinly
won't be able to figure out the computer that controls the fuel injection
system. With the crash of '29, a lot of information just went away,
forever, irrecoverably. A lot of that was technological in nature; ``just
how did they get a DEC Alpha running at 500MHz by mid 1995?'' for example
(that's what they're shooting for, BTW). Just because you have a piece of
technology doesn't mean you can reverse engineer it; if you don't have the
knoweldge base of what makes that particular piece of technology function,
you're lost. And even when you do, you can still make mistakes.

I forget the companies involved, but some auto company got their hands on
another company's really slick engine, took it apart to see how it worked,
and found that the fittings in the drive train were really bad. So they
redesigned it to closer tolerances, built their own... and it didn't work.
They couldn't figure out why not; everything added up on paper. So they
called the original manufacturer and explained what they did. Well, the
``loose'' fittings allowed the whole thing to function smoothly; they'd
tried with the close fittings fist and it didn't work, so they redisgned to
lower tolerances, and voila! they came up with one of the best engines on
the road today.

And, as I occasionally harp on, when commonplace technologies go beyond
that threshold, you end up with a population that doesn't understand it's
tools, and that eventually results in confusion and ultimately a kind of
urban shell-shock. And that's the foundation of what cyberpunk is really
about. That's why, for example, COBRA isn't cyberpunk but Hardwired is;
every COBRA soldier can tell you exactly what every bit of his
modifications does, how it works, how to keep it functioning at peak
efficiency, whereas Sarah couldn't tell you the first thing about how her
skillthreads function.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of skin.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 10
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 19:21:44 -0700
On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> Oh, well that's a completely different issue. See, the guys at FASA don't
> know the first thing about firearms and weapons technologies, which they
> freely admit I should add, so a lot of what you see in the rulebooks and
> supplements is due to total ignorance and a lot of Hollywood.

Yes i know this too, What I was asking was to start a thread discussing
what may have happend to cause the slowed tech. Not a big deal just a
place for us gun nuts to hash it out some!:)

Edge
Message no. 11
From: Paul Finch <pfinch@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 19:28:20 -0700
On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Craig> I still don't buy it. Take that Corvette. Even if all the data was
> Craig> erased, all you have to do is get your hands on a real car and take
> Craig> it apart to see how it works. Surely General Motors could get their
> Craig> hands on another Corvette?

{chop Rats whole post}
That was exactly what I was hoping to start.! Man you know your stuff,
lets keep it up!

Edge
Message no. 12
From: Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:48:35 -0500
On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Oh, well that's a completely different issue. See, the guys at FASA don't
> know the first thing about firearms and weapons technologies, which they
> freely admit I should add, so a lot of what you see in the rulebooks and
> supplements is due to total ignorance and a lot of Hollywood.

Kinda like they don't know the first thing about computers, eh (which
they also freely admit)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * PGP and Geek Code available *
* Will code HTML for food * Deny Everything * via WWW and upon request *
* We will nobly win or meanly lose * <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
-----------------------
"Win, lose or draw, this thing's going to know it was in a fight."
-- Garibaldi, "Infection"
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:57:37 +0930
>
> I still don't buy it. Take that Corvette. Even if all the data was
> erased, all you have to do is get your hands on a real car and take
> it apart to see how it works. Surely General Motors could get their
> hands on another Corvette?
>

I'll start with the car, explaining that from a perspective the Rat missed.
Then I'll give another for the rest...

Okay, we've got this wonderful Corvette. It's fast, it's mean, it requires
high-octane fuel, which by 2029 would almost certainly have become scare,
what with emission controls and all. Now, most refinerys THESE days are
computer controlled, so after the Crash there wouldn't have been much
high-octane around. Electric cars would become popular (I'm assuming no-one
put their nuclear and hydrodynamic plants on the 'Net). So car makers look
at things like the Corvette and extract some pieces of tech, but not the
rest. I mean, why bother? No one would ever buy a car that needs a unique
type of fuel, that only big heavy trucks still use.

The other point is: right now, research is relatively open. People patent
inventions and designs, explaining in detail WHAT they have done, and can
legally stop other people from using it without permission. Researchers
publish papers, get feedbacks and comments, etc. This makes research go on
in a sort of synergy. After the Crash, this atmosphere has vanished.
Corporations have extraterritoriality. But they lack legal protection on
patents, etc ("Oh, so sorry, but RenrakuLand (TM) doesn't recognise
external patents"). So they take the risk and DON'T patent things until
someone's about to duplicate it anyway. Research and data is invaluable.
Oops, no more papers being published. No more feedback and synergy.

Finally, even if they COULD reverse engineer something like a Colt, or
other weapon they want to look at, the climate changed. Weapons research
(of all kinds) is pushed by the prospect of having to use said weapons. The
only major war of any kind since the Crash was the EuroWar, and that's too
close to the Crash to have had much research done during it. Corps don't
fight wars all that much (the Desert War skirmishes are nothing major),
and governments fight with heavy combinations of special ops, tank
battalions, and magical support. Special ops don't require wiz bang
weaponary all that much, tanks have come along just fine, thank you, and
magical support, well we don't even have that right now.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 14
From: Gregory Reade <readeg@***.GOV>
Subject: Re[2]: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 09:22:09 EST
I'll jump on as well... knowing the government's and most major
corporations view on data, what about backups? No one had a backup or
isolated computer system that kept a record of corporate data? Or
even a tape(disc, rom, etc.)? Thats very hard to believe given the
large number of cynics and doomsayers that sell disaster recovery
equipment.


Gregory


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Author: northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU at unix-mail
Date: 01/24/95 09:48 PM


On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Oh, well that's a completely different issue. See, the guys at FASA don't
> know the first thing about firearms and weapons technologies, which they
> freely admit I should add, so a lot of what you see in the rulebooks and
> supplements is due to total ignorance and a lot of Hollywood.

Kinda like they don't know the first thing about computers, eh (which
they also freely admit)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * PGP and Geek Code available *
* Will code HTML for food * Deny Everything * via WWW and upon request *
* We will nobly win or meanly lose * <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
-----------------------
"Win, lose or draw, this thing's going to know it was in a fight."
-- Garibaldi, "Infection"
Message no. 15
From: "Thomas W. Craig" <Craigtw1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:13:16 -0500
Remember during the time period AFTER the Crash of'29, violent corporate
takeovers were the norm and much of the data that had been backuped was
destroyed to prevent the competition from getting a hold of it. "If we are
going to get taken over for 'item', then we'll eliminate it; therefore making
us less valuable for suchandsuch."
Tom Craig
Message no. 16
From: Gregory Reade <readeg@***.GOV>
Subject: Re[4]: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:44:32 EST
True... but that would also mean those corps doing those most takeovers would
have their own records plus many others they were able to get to before they
were destroyed. You'd have several Ultra-Powerful corps and many smaller ones?

Gregory

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Slowed Weapon Tech
Author: Craigtw1@***.COM at unix-mail
Date: 01/25/95 10:13 AM


Remember during the time period AFTER the Crash of'29, violent corporate
takeovers were the norm and much of the data that had been backuped was
destroyed to prevent the competition from getting a hold of it. "If we are
going to get taken over for 'item', then we'll eliminate it; therefore making
us less valuable for suchandsuch."
Tom Craig
Message no. 17
From: Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re[2]: Slowed Weapon Tech (fwd)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:19:46 -0500
This was sent directly to me when I believe it was the author's original
intent to send it to the list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 09:22:09 EST
From: Gregory Reade <readeg@***.GOV>
To: SHADOWRN@*****.nic.SURFnet.nl, northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU
Subject: Re[2]: Slowed Weapon Tech

I'll jump on as well... knowing the government's and most major
corporations view on data, what about backups? No one had a backup or
isolated computer system that kept a record of corporate data? Or
even a tape(disc, rom, etc.)? Thats very hard to believe given the
large number of cynics and doomsayers that sell disaster recovery
equipment.


Gregory


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Author: northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU at unix-mail
Date: 01/24/95 09:48 PM


On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Oh, well that's a completely different issue. See, the guys at FASA don't
> know the first thing about firearms and weapons technologies, which they
> freely admit I should add, so a lot of what you see in the rulebooks and
> supplements is due to total ignorance and a lot of Hollywood.

Kinda like they don't know the first thing about computers, eh (which
they also freely admit)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * PGP and Geek Code available *
* Will code HTML for food * Deny Everything * via WWW and upon request *
* We will nobly win or meanly lose * <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
-----------------------
"Win, lose or draw, this thing's going to know it was in a fight."
-- Garibaldi, "Infection"
Message no. 18
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:41:02 -0800
On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> (of all kinds) is pushed by the prospect of having to use said weapons. The
> only major war of any kind since the Crash was the EuroWar, and that's too
> close to the Crash to have had much research done during it. Corps don't

???? Weapons research peaks *during* and after wars. Look at
all the major innovations that occured after the American Civil War
(repeating rifles), WWI (tanks, airplanes, SMGs), WWII (too numerous to
mention), Korea and Vietnam. Who says research has to be done by computer?

> fight wars all that much (the Desert War skirmishes are nothing major),

Actually, Desert Wars provides a nice annual way for the Corps to
test their military tech. Read "Corporate Shadowfiles" under "Ares
Macrotech". Nothing like having good, hard experimental data under
combat conditions.

> and governments fight with heavy combinations of special ops,
tank > battalions, and magical support. Special ops don't require wiz bang

???? Night scopes, sniper rifles, body-chemistry sniffers,
bunker busters and flash-grenades were developed for special forces and
their ilk.
In general, I don't think the Crash would have completely
stultified research. What about backups? What about other data storage
media? Did the researchers themselves die?
It's sort of like that nice newspaper reporter who posted to the
Internet, trying to claim that people wouldn't have to learn to read in
10 years. Oooh, how shocking. How avante-garde. But when you look at
the details, you find the assertation is just a tad flimsy.

> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 19
From: Eric Boaen <alexd@***.III.NET>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:16:36 EST
About those Isolated Computers
I just got the Lone Star book and it says that most of Lone
Star's Computers weren't linked to the Matrix, (mostly because of
good ol' paranoid ExCEO Clay Wilson). So, maybe they haven't lost
tech, but are keeping it from being released? I mean, if someone's
got a tech advantage, it would be devastating to those who don't.
For example, just look at FASA's Battletech, with their invading
Clans vs. the Inner Sphere.
FASA has a past history of this type of
error anyways, again using the Clan tech as an example...imagine a
17th century calvalry unit going up against a 20th century armored
tank division. The same thing SHOULD've happened with the Clans, but
in order to make the game fair, they didn't.

P.S. Also, how do I make an alias for myself within the MailList?

_____________________________________________________________________
I'm not obnoxious, I'm tact-challenged!
Dragon Magizine
_____________________________________________________________________
Message no. 20
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 21:37:50 -0500
On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Eric Boaen wrote:

> About those Isolated Computers
> I just got the Lone Star book and it says that most of Lone
> Star's Computers weren't linked to the Matrix, (mostly because of
> good ol' paranoid ExCEO Clay Wilson). So, maybe they haven't lost
> tech, but are keeping it from being released?

Thing is, how much tech does Lone Star develop? The idea I got is
that they obtain most of it from Ares and other companies. Of course,
Lone Star *does* have the best stuff, second only to the military.

> P.S. Also, how do I make an alias for myself within the MailList?

Can't be done -- however, on many systems you can make an alias
for yourself which will affect all mail sent out. Contact your system
administrator for more info.

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| "My lockpick of choice has always been the Panther Assault Cannon." |
| -David L. Hoff |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 21
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 15:26:58 +0930
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Eric Boaen wrote:
>
> > About those Isolated Computers
> > I just got the Lone Star book and it says that most of Lone
> > Star's Computers weren't linked to the Matrix, (mostly because of
> > good ol' paranoid ExCEO Clay Wilson). So, maybe they haven't lost
> > tech, but are keeping it from being released?
>
> Thing is, how much tech does Lone Star develop? The idea I got is
> that they obtain most of it from Ares and other companies. Of course,
> Lone Star *does* have the best stuff, second only to the military.
>
If you read the Lone Star sourcebook, you'll find out that Lone Star does
do a LOT of cutting edge research, but they don't tend to actually produce
the stuff they develop. They license it to others (such as that Ruger
Thunderbolt), as they don't have the push to be able to market it.

And why would they have the best stuff? They're just a corp, not even one
of the top 10. They're not the cops everywhere in the UCAS, either. They're
just a corp, like every other corp. They get what they pay for.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 22
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 15:38:36 +0930
>
> About those Isolated Computers
> I just got the Lone Star book and it says that most of Lone
> Star's Computers weren't linked to the Matrix, (mostly because of
> good ol' paranoid ExCEO Clay Wilson). So, maybe they haven't lost
> tech, but are keeping it from being released? I mean, if someone's
> got a tech advantage, it would be devastating to those who don't.
> For example, just look at FASA's Battletech, with their invading
> Clans vs. the Inner Sphere.

Ah... why would Lone Star have lost tech? Let's face it. Lone Star is not
all that big, as megacorps go. Furthermore, at the time of the Crash, Lone
Star was run by Clay Wilson and his goons. Can you see anyone who is
portrayed the way those goons are as devolping lost tech?

Lone Star doesn't do manufacturing. So no industrial knowledge would have
been kept. They didn't do cyber research. They didn't do ANY research at
that time, and they didn't need any of the "lost tech" knowledge. As long
as there was a supply of guns, Clay was happy.

> FASA has a past history of this type of
> error anyways, again using the Clan tech as an example...imagine a
> 17th century calvalry unit going up against a 20th century armored
> tank division. The same thing SHOULD've happened with the Clans, but
> in order to make the game fair, they didn't.
>
First of all... the Clans aren't that large. Their Mechs aren't much more
advanced then when they left, in many ways. Furthermore, they are
outnumbered by a LOT. Finally, they would have kicked the Inner Sphere's
collective butt, except that they got suckered into that set-piece honour
match, and narrowly lost.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 23
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:00:25 +0930
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> > (of all kinds) is pushed by the prospect of having to use said weapons. The
> > only major war of any kind since the Crash was the EuroWar, and that's too
> > close to the Crash to have had much research done during it. Corps don't
>
> ???? Weapons research peaks *during* and after wars. Look at
> all the major innovations that occured after the American Civil War
> (repeating rifles), WWI (tanks, airplanes, SMGs), WWII (too numerous to
> mention), Korea and Vietnam. Who says research has to be done by computer?
>

Me. Lets face it, computers speed things up so much that doing it without
them is pointless.

During the Euro-Wars, everyone on both sides didn't have the resources to
research much. The reformed Soviet block threw everything it could into it,
Western Europe needed every thing they could lay their hands on to stop the
Soviets. The 'Brits, who stayed neutral for a large part, DID do research,
and came out with the Nightwraith at the very least. After the war,
everyone was concentrating on rebuilding. Look at WWI again. Did the French
do that research? Did the Germans (prior to Hitler) do research afterwards?
No. The Brits did, the Americans did, the Soviets did when they weren't
shooting everyone in sight, etc. The countries that got fragged didn't. But
in the Eurowars, everyone got fragged.

> > fight wars all that much (the Desert War skirmishes are nothing major),
>
> Actually, Desert Wars provides a nice annual way for the Corps to
> test their military tech. Read "Corporate Shadowfiles" under "Ares
> Macrotech". Nothing like having good, hard experimental data under
> combat conditions.
>
> > and governments fight with heavy combinations of special ops,
> tank > battalions, and magical support. Special ops don't require wiz bang
>
> ???? Night scopes, sniper rifles, body-chemistry sniffers,
> bunker busters and flash-grenades were developed for special forces and
> their ilk.

And, uh, gee... they still have them in SR. Not to mention better body
armour, and lots of things more.

> In general, I don't think the Crash would have completely
> stultified research. What about backups? What about other data storage
> media? Did the researchers themselves die?

Backups were trashed. WHAT other data storage media? Paper? Don't make me
laugh. Did the researchers die? Some would have (statistical certainty),
most would have been out of a job, and had to start over again. Oh, and
don't remember VITAS III came along about this time. :) And goblinisation,
a decade earlier. And the continous upheavals in North America. And lots of
other things...

Another point: who's going to PAY for that research? The corps? Way way way
too many corps went under. Heck, at one stage Global Financial Services
almost went. (GFS had replaced the World Bank, and later on went on to
become the Zurich Orbital Gemeinschaft Bank). The majority of financial
institutions went under. Can we say bank crash? Without the banks, the
majority of corps drop. Almost all corporations now, and undoubtably in the
future as well, owe vast amounts of money to banks, or have assests in the
form of stocks and securitys. Well with the banks gone, the stock markets
are gone to crash as well, and securitys are worhtless. If you can even
prove you owned them. Most such things are owned electronically NOW. They
stay in a nice vault, and records of ownerships are updated in a big
database. The governments have got their own problems.

See? It's not just a case of you wake up one morning, the computer isn't
working, you lose a few data files, and you get on with your life. A
worldwide computer crash would devastate the world economy, and could quite
possibly trigger a world war. Actually, the more I think about it, the more
I'm surprised the SR world is in as good a shape as it is.

> It's sort of like that nice newspaper reporter who posted to the
> Internet, trying to claim that people wouldn't have to learn to read in
> 10 years. Oooh, how shocking. How avante-garde. But when you look at
> the details, you find the assertation is just a tad flimsy.
>

Of course we'll have to learn to read (a bit). But look at the world NOW.
How many people in the US are illiterate? Heck, almost all universities
offer courses which amount to Remedial English. (No, I'm not just picking
on the US. It's just the worst example)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 24
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:09:32 +0930
>
>True... but that would also mean those corps doing those most takeovers would
>have their own records plus many others they were able to get to before they
>were destroyed. You'd have several Ultra-Powerful corps and many smaller ones?

Ah well, that's Shadowrun for you. That's exactly what the situation is.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 25
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:14:10 +0100
>Remember during the time period AFTER the Crash of'29, violent corporate
>takeovers were the norm and much of the data that had been backuped was
>destroyed to prevent the competition from getting a hold of it. "If we are
>going to get taken over for 'item', then we'll eliminate it; therefore making
>us less valuable for suchandsuch."

That sounds like the example somebody gives in Corporate Shadowfiles, of
Aztechnology blowing up its own lab so Mitsuhama can't get it


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"What do you call not believing in what you did see?" "Politics?"
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?
Message no. 26
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:14:32 +0100
> Thing is, how much tech does Lone Star develop? The idea I got is
>that they obtain most of it from Ares and other companies. Of course,
>Lone Star *does* have the best stuff, second only to the military.

From what I read in the Lone Star book, LS does have its own research
department, which is pretty top-notch. They just don't have the
manufacturing facilities. The Ruger Thunderbolt is actually an in-house LS
design, licensed to Ruger so that it could get manufactured.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"What do you call not believing in what you did see?" "Politics?"
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?
Message no. 27
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 08:07:59 -0500
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

(quoting me)
> If you read the Lone Star sourcebook, you'll find out that Lone Star does
> do a LOT of cutting edge research, but they don't tend to actually produce
> the stuff they develop. They license it to others (such as that Ruger
> Thunderbolt), as they don't have the push to be able to market it.
>
> And why would they have the best stuff? They're just a corp, not even one
> of the top 10. They're not the cops everywhere in the UCAS, either. They're
> just a corp, like every other corp. They get what they pay for.

Based, again, on the Lone Star sourcebook, their tech is certainly
cutting-edge (though, again, most sci-fi enthusiasts would venture to say
that more should be seen my the 2050's.) Just imagine how much bandwidth
(in the wireless/radio sense) is taken up by their failsafes alone!
Be interesting to see books, or portions of books, devoted to
other security corps, just as comparison.

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| "Beyond your tunnel vision reality fades |
| Like shadows into the night." -Pink Floyd |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 28
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:15:26 -0800
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Me. Lets face it, computers speed things up so much that doing it without
> them is pointless.

Research without computers is feasible. Furthermore, research on
*isolated* computer systems is rather prevalent. I know personally of a
certain biotech firm here that refuses to network its computers so they
won't have viruses, wasted time, etc. etc. This biotech firm, by the
way, produces a fair number of products/patents, and would never be
susceptible to something like the "Crash".
See, I'd prefer using AutoCAD for mechanical drawings, but that's
not always necessary. Nice, yes, and necessary for CNC milling, but the
Industrial Revolution was underway long before this.

> and came out with the Nightwraith at the very least. After the war,
> everyone was concentrating on rebuilding. Look at WWI again. Did the French
> do that research? Did the Germans (prior to Hitler) do research afterwards?

I beg to differ. The French came up with an A-bomb right quick,
and the Germans were prohibited from doing military research by the
Allied Occupation. A number of late-war production weapons were produced
and refined after the war in time for Korea. In fact, all the countries
began reforming their armed forces after the war (the U.S. "pentatonic"
organization model), and some of them (Soviets) never came down from
wartime production.

> No. The Brits did, the Americans did, the Soviets did when they weren't
> shooting everyone in sight, etc. The countries that got fragged didn't. But
> in the Eurowars, everyone got fragged.

Any country that wasn't occupied continued military research,
fragged or not.

> And, uh, gee... they still have them in SR. Not to mention better body
> armour, and lots of things more.

You missed my point, which was that Special Forces *do*
require/use neat wizzer gear; the Shadowrun book doesn't have a lot of
it because the folks at FASA are not weapon designers.

> Backups were trashed. WHAT other data storage media? Paper? Don't make me

How is an isolated backup machine trashed? How about WORM
drives? CD's? Holographic crystals? In general, media which can only
be written to a certain number of times, or which are physically off-site
(as backups in my department are) are immune to the crash.

> laugh. Did the researchers die? Some would have (statistical certainty),

I'd bet that VITAS hit harder on the lower strata of the
socio-economic scale, which researchers were NOT. And goblinization
prejudices would've probably been a little less towards your star
scientist ...

> most would have been out of a job, and had to start over again. Oh, and

This argument doesn't make sense. You're saying in a time when a
lot of research data was lost, companies would be firing their research
staff? Not likely.

> a decade earlier. And the continous upheavals in North America. And lots of
> other things...

Again, the ugly thing about these "upheavals" was they mostly
affected "have-nots". Scientists aren't usually in this catagory.

> Another point: who's going to PAY for that research? The corps? Way way way

You're saying if a corp loses valuable data on their next years'
product line, and their future product line, that they're not going to
pay to recover it? I don't think so.

> See? It's not just a case of you wake up one morning, the computer isn't
> working, you lose a few data files, and you get on with your life. A
> worldwide computer crash would devastate the world economy, and could quite

I can guarantee you that during the Great Depression it was not
the scientists/university professors that went without jobs. Devastated
economies usually create the "fortress mentality". People buy up things
as soon as they get paid so inflation doesn't claim more of their
income. Barter, trade, and hoarding become more common. Fights erupt
over supplies. And people get hired to guard these supplies, these
fortresses. Now, if you're an arms-maker, you've just seen your demand
triple. So why would your technology falter? It wouldn't.

> Of course we'll have to learn to read (a bit). But look at the world NOW.
> How many people in the US are illiterate? Heck, almost all universities
> offer courses which amount to Remedial English. (No, I'm not just picking
> on the US. It's just the worst example)

Not being able to read and lacking a functional necessity to read
are two separate things. The reporter was claiming the latter, not the
former.

> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 29
From: Code I Network Admin <Admin@*****.HQ.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 15:14:00 PST
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, acgetche@****.ucdavis.edu said:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> > Me. Lets face it, computers speed things up so much that doing it without
> > them is pointless.
>
> Research without computers is feasible. Furthermore, research on
> *isolated* computer systems is rather prevalent. I know personally of a
> certain biotech firm here that refuses to network its computers so they
> won't have viruses, wasted time, etc. etc. This biotech firm, by the
> way, produces a fair number of products/patents, and would never be
> susceptible to something like the "Crash".
> See, I'd prefer using AutoCAD for mechanical drawings, but that's
> not always necessary. Nice, yes, and necessary for CNC milling, but the
> Industrial Revolution was underway long before this.
>

However, since it took months and years for everything to die:

When Research Software Inc. released it's new version of Gunpowder (v6.2) to
BioTech and they installed it... *poof*

When William B. Geek installed Quiver(r) (son of Quake) on his personal
workstation... *poof*

When Mr. Georges' computer died and the tech came out to investigate, ran
diags on the computer... *poof*

Bill Geek: "Hey, my computer just crapped out AGAIN! Can I use yours to run
this calc?"... *poof*

Just my digital $0.02

Carl Schelin | My son's taken over, he's quite the bright lad,
NASA HQ | Bringing life to the dead just like his old dad.
Code I | He does things now with computers and lasers,
Washington DC | That I once would perform with straight edged razors.
Message no. 30
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:24:24 -0800
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Code I Network Admin wrote:

> When Research Software Inc. released it's new version of Gunpowder (v6.2) to
> BioTech and they installed it... *poof*
> [deletia]

They aren't connected to the network, they're aware of virii, and
they don't install new software.
When they do install new software, their president has to
authorize it and they check it out for several weeks before they consider
another machine. And their backups are done manually, every week, to
separate archives.
Speaking towards the future, people would be aware of the
presence of virii and would institute even more draconian measures.
People would be paranoid of the slightest little thing wrong with their
computer as being the virus.

> Carl Schelin | My son's taken over, he's quite the bright lad,

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 31
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:00:26 +0930
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> > Me. Lets face it, computers speed things up so much that doing it without
> > them is pointless.
>
> Research without computers is feasible. Furthermore, research on
> *isolated* computer systems is rather prevalent. I know personally of a
> certain biotech firm here that refuses to network its computers so they
> won't have viruses, wasted time, etc. etc. This biotech firm, by the
> way, produces a fair number of products/patents, and would never be
> susceptible to something like the "Crash".
> See, I'd prefer using AutoCAD for mechanical drawings, but that's
> not always necessary. Nice, yes, and necessary for CNC milling, but the
> Industrial Revolution was underway long before this.
>
What do you do for simulating chemical compounds? Ballistic tests? 3D
modelling? Version control? Lots of other things?

> > and came out with the Nightwraith at the very least. After the war,
> > everyone was concentrating on rebuilding. Look at WWI again. Did the French
> > do that research? Did the Germans (prior to Hitler) do research afterwards?
>
> I beg to differ. The French came up with an A-bomb right quick,
> and the Germans were prohibited from doing military research by the
> Allied Occupation. A number of late-war production weapons were produced
> and refined after the war in time for Korea. In fact, all the countries
> began reforming their armed forces after the war (the U.S. "pentatonic"
> organization model), and some of them (Soviets) never came down from
> wartime production.
>
Wow... the French got an A-Bomb just after World War One?? (Yeah, I know,
you misread it.)

As I said in the post, World War II didn't really stop war. The Cold War
came on us, and we had a strong incentive to do weapons research.

> > No. The Brits did, the Americans did, the Soviets did when they weren't
> > shooting everyone in sight, etc. The countries that got fragged didn't. But
> > in the Eurowars, everyone got fragged.
>
> Any country that wasn't occupied continued military research,
> fragged or not.
>
No. The fact is, after World War _One_, most of Europe didn't do anything
for about 8 years while they were rebuilding. Spain fell into a civil war,
Germany was suffering under a vast financial burden (which Hitler ignored
after he got in, which is why he could build a military). France had a
shattered countryside to rebuild, and the Maginot(sp?) line to build up.
Britian, the USSR, and the States were the only ones doing research until
the mid '20s.

> > Backups were trashed. WHAT other data storage media? Paper? Don't make me
>
> How is an isolated backup machine trashed? How about WORM
> drives? CD's? Holographic crystals? In general, media which can only
> be written to a certain number of times, or which are physically off-site
> (as backups in my department are) are immune to the crash.
>
Fine. I've got a virus. I (somehow) wipe the drive, disconnect the machine
from the Net, etc. I go to restore the backups. But this virus can't be
defeated by just wiping the drive. If it could, it would have been fixed a
lot easier. So either it's still there in the minimal suite of utilities I
use to restore the backup, or (more likely), it was a sleeper virus which
is actually ON the backups.

As to how an "isolated backup machine" could get trashed: it's got to be
connected SOME of the time, otherwise it's only backing up itself.

> > laugh. Did the researchers die? Some would have (statistical certainty),
>
> I'd bet that VITAS hit harder on the lower strata of the
> socio-economic scale, which researchers were NOT. And goblinization
> prejudices would've probably been a little less towards your star
> scientist ...
>
In the USA, the lowest strata of the socio-economic scale didn't get
touched (the AmerIndians).

As for goblinisation, fine, my star scientist just turned into a Troll. Oh,
shucks, lose 2 Intelligence points. While still bright, he's no longer my
star scientist, is he?

And one in ten of EVERYONE goblinised.

> > most would have been out of a job, and had to start over again. Oh, and
>
> This argument doesn't make sense. You're saying in a time when a
> lot of research data was lost, companies would be firing their research
> staff? Not likely.
>
No... I'm saying, at the same time research data was lost, companies were
collapsing.

> > a decade earlier. And the continous upheavals in North America. And lots of
> > other things...
>
> Again, the ugly thing about these "upheavals" was they mostly
> affected "have-nots". Scientists aren't usually in this catagory.
>
> > Another point: who's going to PAY for that research? The corps? Way way way
>
> You're saying if a corp loses valuable data on their next years'
> product line, and their future product line, that they're not going to
> pay to recover it? I don't think so.
>

You don't see it. Research is a LUXURY. When you can't afford to keep your
doors open, you don't spend on luxuries.

> > See? It's not just a case of you wake up one morning, the computer isn't
> > working, you lose a few data files, and you get on with your life. A
> > worldwide computer crash would devastate the world economy, and could quite
>
> I can guarantee you that during the Great Depression it was not
> the scientists/university professors that went without jobs. Devastated
> economies usually create the "fortress mentality". People buy up things
> as soon as they get paid so inflation doesn't claim more of their
> income. Barter, trade, and hoarding become more common. Fights erupt
> over supplies. And people get hired to guard these supplies, these
> fortresses. Now, if you're an arms-maker, you've just seen your demand
> triple. So why would your technology falter? It wouldn't.
>

The Great Depression is the wrong analogy. In the GD, people still had
money. They just didn't want to spend it, on the most part, and when you
don't spend money, you don't have an economy.

In the Crash, people DON'T have money. Of, the cash still exists, lying
around in vaults, but it doesn't belong to anyone! In the GD, the cash did
belong to people. In the Crash, it doesn't. There are food fights because
people can't afford to buy food. They can't afford to, because they don't
have money. Corps can't pay people with money to guard their supplies,
cause the corps don't have money either. Arms makers can't build their
weapons, cause they can't pay for parts and materials and employees to
build them.

The Crash would not be like the GD. In the GD, some people lost jobs,
others didn't. Except for the loss of confidence, the ones who didn't
weren't affected. In the Crash, EVERYONE is effected. They can't dip into
savings to pay for food, the savings are GONE. There is no money except for
the small change in your pockets.

Okay, it wouldn't have got that bad. Not everyone crashed, for starters, so
some banks (which are the important ones here) would have some cash
records. The governments would have moved in to guarantee food supplies,
etc, and would probably distribute money to their employees and their
suppliers. But one thing I can guarantee you, is that NOBODY would have
done anything with that cash except what they need to do. And research is
not one of those things.

> > Of course we'll have to learn to read (a bit). But look at the world NOW.
> > How many people in the US are illiterate? Heck, almost all universities
> > offer courses which amount to Remedial English. (No, I'm not just picking
> > on the US. It's just the worst example)
>
> Not being able to read and lacking a functional necessity to read
> are two separate things. The reporter was claiming the latter, not the
> former.
>
*shrug* Why DO you have to read? You know a few symbols, you'd probably
need to know your numbers (so you don't get ripped off at stores), but you
certainly don't need the ability to look at a string of letters and words
and be able to decipher their meaning. And that's right now.

"Iconliteracy" is quite a feasible future. After all, if so many college
students take those Remedial English courses, what about the larger
proportion of the population who haven't been to college and probably never
will?

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 32
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:11:54 +0930
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Code I Network Admin wrote:
>
> > When Research Software Inc. released it's new version of Gunpowder (v6.2) to
> > BioTech and they installed it... *poof*
> > [deletia]
>
> They aren't connected to the network, they're aware of virii, and
> they don't install new software.

A sleeper virus is on their network. It got on prior to the first instance
of virus being found (ie when they were still connected). Boom, they fall
over.

> When they do install new software, their president has to
> authorize it and they check it out for several weeks before they consider
> another machine. And their backups are done manually, every week, to
> separate archives.
For how far back? Let's say this sleeper virus sleeps for a year or two.
Odds are it's on the software you are installing, so now YOU'VE got the
virus too. A year later, you fall over. Are your backups going to any good?

> Speaking towards the future, people would be aware of the
> presence of virii and would institute even more draconian measures.
> People would be paranoid of the slightest little thing wrong with their
> computer as being the virus.
>
Yeah, but to put it bluntly, there's only so much you can do.
There's a story one of my lecturers likes to tell. Back when he was in the
Air Force (New Zealand one), he got to visit a US base. On this base, he
was told they had one UNIX box. "But why do you have a UNIX box? Isn't that
a security risk" he asks. "Oh no, we'll show you how we keep it secure."

Fine. They go onto the base. They cross a moat filled with snapping
aligators, through a razor wire fence, with gun posts at the corners (he
also thought the ground between the fences was mined), into this concrete
bunker. They go down into the bunker's basement, and stop outside this
really thick metal door. After four or five minutes of fumbling with the
locks, the guide slowly pushes the door open. There's two more like this
(oh, and they're guarded.) Finally, they get into this room, with gold
sheeting lining the walls, making it into a Faraday cage. Sitting in the
dead center of the room is a PDP-11. Undoubtably, it would run UNIX, except
that it's not plugged in. The whole point of this story is that they found
a way to make the computer completely secure.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 33
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:27:13 -0700
>1) We all know that balistic charts for all sorts of stuff are around.
>But the first time you try to desing a new round at the time right after
>the crash, what do you need...A computer to calculate all the balistics.
>That requires programs to do the math, and if its gone like in the crash,
>how many of you out there can calculate balistic stuff. Especialy for new
>ammunition which is(unless you have computers) a trial and error type thing.


Here's some more to think about

by 2029 - EVERYTHING will be computer controlled EVERYTHING (well, there will
be a few things that aren't but they aren't many)

First off, I belive that besides killing computer data - it also started to
physically fry computer chips - I could be very wrong on this part.

I DID seek the most protected data like Top Secret and R&D
Also - BANK DATA - your bankrupt!!!!

Big problems -

Computer Chips are made by computer. - no info - no chips
Phone lines are controlled by computer - no police calls, no calling the
washington branch,
Power to buildings is routed by computer - not enough, or too much power to your
business (possible fire)
Fire Supression systems - they go off and ruin things, they don't go off and
your business burns
Traffic Jams gallore
No air travel and lots of accidents
No mail - the mail services use character recognition to send mail. Most
of what businesses send out is in bar code.

Rioting - people loot buildings

NO BANK RECORDS - You want to by those systems you lost in the Crash - how do
you pay for


THE CRASH WAS BAD!!!!!!


Nightfox

DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU - Daniel Waisley - DJW2@****.UCC.NAU.EDU
- Insanity is such a delightful state of mind.
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Geek code V2.1 GE d-? H++ s+:->++: g+ p? !au(-) a21! w++ v+* C++$(++++)
U(-) p? L !3 E? N K- W M+ V+ -po+(---) Y+ t+ 5+++! j-x R+(++) G' tv
b+(+++) D(+) B--- e+ u+*(++)(**) h(*) f+(*) r-->+++ !n- y+*>++
Message no. 34
From: Eric Boaen <alexd@***.III.NET>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 16:42:13 EST
>First off, I belive that besides killing computer data - it also started to
>physically fry computer chips - I could be very wrong on this part.

Yeah, I seem to remember something along those lines, from SRII. I
mean, if they can fry a human, what's to prevent something from toasting the
chips?
Message no. 35
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 16:55:05 -0500
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Boaen <alexd@***.III.NET> writes:

Eric> Yeah, I seem to remember something along those lines, from SRII. I
Eric> mean, if they can fry a human, what's to prevent something from
Eric> toasting the chips?

The small fact that there's no way for software to control the voltage
going to the CPU is one very good reason.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | Earth, presumably from outer space.
Message no. 36
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 13:58:20 -0800
On Fri, 27 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> What do you do for simulating chemical compounds? Ballistic tests? 3D
> modelling? Version control? Lots of other things?

1) Run it in a test reactor 2) Gather data on the firing range
3) Use wind tunnels and scaling laws 4) Do comparitive field analysis
5) Lots of other techniques ...

> As I said in the post, World War II didn't really stop war. The Cold War
> came on us, and we had a strong incentive to do weapons research.

As part of Roosevelt bungling the Yalta conference, but I won't
go into that...

> No. The fact is, after World War _One_, most of Europe didn't do anything
> for about 8 years while they were rebuilding. Spain fell into a civil war,
> Germany was suffering under a vast financial burden (which Hitler ignored
> after he got in, which is why he could build a military). France had a
> shattered countryside to rebuild, and the Maginot(sp?) line to build up.
> Britian, the USSR, and the States were the only ones doing research until
> the mid '20s.

Wrong again. The Germans invented nerve gas, blitzkrieg tactics,
improved submarines and had a preponderence of the atomic scientists after
World War _One_ [_Albert Einstein_ fled Germany in the early '30s, along
with numerous other physics luminaries]. The process for getting
Ammonium nitrate out in large quantites was a German innovation around
1923, which led directly to improved pesticides and ultimately nerve gas
soon after. Einstein published the photoelectric effect in the early
'20s, while a German citizen.

> Fine. I've got a virus. I (somehow) wipe the drive, disconnect the machine
> from the Net, etc. I go to restore the backups. But this virus can't be
> defeated by just wiping the drive. If it could, it would have been fixed a
> lot easier. So either it's still there in the minimal suite of utilities I
> use to restore the backup, or (more likely), it was a sleeper virus which
> is actually ON the backups.

There are several things wrong with this argument, including the
fact that it is circular. That is, I can't have an uninfected computer
because the backups are infected. Secondly, randomizing the memory
registers in storage devices (i.e. a _full format_) is not going to leave
virus or any other software code intact.
Let's start at initial conditions: the computer is not
infected. If it never connects to a network that is infected, if it is
not interconnected with other machines in the office (as in the case of
my friend's biotech company), the only source of infection is outside
software, which is not passed from machine to machine. And if they
simply refuse to buy new software (they're running on Lotus, Microsoft
2.2a and Word 3) for several years, and do extensive testing, there is no
reason for them to expect significant virus infection and damage. And,
obviously, this *was* the case or the world wouldn't have recovered from
the Crash at all. I think it is not as big a deal as you make it.

> As to how an "isolated backup machine" could get trashed: it's got to be
> connected SOME of the time, otherwise it's only backing up itself.

One, the "backup" is simply removable storage media on the
computer itself (i.e. disks), and two it is trivial to configure a backup
server which only connects to the machine it backs up. And if one was
sufficiently paranoid about a worldwide virus, one would have one backup
machine for each machine, to minimize cross-infection.
Keeping tabs on a virus is exactly like keeping tabs on an
epidemic. Minimize disease vectors, isolate the infected from being able
to infect others, etc.

> In the USA, the lowest strata of the socio-economic scale didn't get
> touched (the AmerIndians).

They aren't the lowest strata. And, lucky for them, they were
into hating the white man and keeping white man away, which also kept
away his diseases.

> As for goblinisation, fine, my star scientist just turned into a Troll. Oh,
> shucks, lose 2 Intelligence points. While still bright, he's no longer my
> star scientist, is he?

Older researchers tend to be productive not for their
intelligence, but for their experience and the way they can collate their
life work together. Read the study about aging in _Scientific American_.

> No... I'm saying, at the same time research data was lost, companies were
> collapsing.

Only if they didn't act quickly to recover the product-line
information they lost.

> You don't see it. Research is a LUXURY. When you can't afford to keep your
> doors open, you don't spend on luxuries.

Tell that to Intel, IBM, AT&T. Research is not a luxury, it's a
necessity. Especially when you have bad floating point processors, you
need an answer quickly, and you're going to pay to keep your scientists
and engineers. And this trend will continue as products get more and
more technical.

> The Great Depression is the wrong analogy. In the GD, people still had
> money. They just didn't want to spend it, on the most part, and when you
> don't spend money, you don't have an economy.

No, the Great Depression is the *exact* analogy, with runs on
banks, lost confidence in currency, and a vast array of societal ills
resulting from a collapsing economy. Study some macroeconomics, and
you'll agree.

> weren't affected. In the Crash, EVERYONE is effected. They can't dip into
> savings to pay for food, the savings are GONE. There is no money except for
> the small change in your pockets.

That was the case in the Great Depression, if you'd studied it
more closely. Where do you get your savings? From the bank. But
everyone tries to get them, so the bank can't cover it. If you'd hoarded
your savings, you'd be okay except that runaway inflation made them
almost completely worthless. See above.

> *shrug* Why DO you have to read? You know a few symbols, you'd probably
> need to know your numbers (so you don't get ripped off at stores), but you
> certainly don't need the ability to look at a string of letters and words
> and be able to decipher their meaning. And that's right now.

Sure, if you lack a functional necessity for a job then you
don't need to read. You still need to be able to read a menu to work at
McDonald's (well, not quite but that's about the only job you can have.)
If you want to be a computer programmer, secretary, engineer, etc. then
you need to be able to read. Right now.
Functional necessity means requiring something in order to
function in the required capacity. I don't care how many icons you can
point and click to, you still can't access all the information out
there. Certainly not the vast majority of scientific research. There's
no way to render equations of state into icons. And so on.

> "Iconliteracy" is quite a feasible future. After all, if so many college

Only feasible if you aren't in any sort of scientific, economic,
language or medical field of study.

> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 37
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:03:35 -0800
On Fri, 27 Jan 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> A sleeper virus is on their network. It got on prior to the first instance
> of virus being found (ie when they were still connected). Boom, they fall
> over.

They were never connected to the network in the first place.
Boom, your argument falls over.

> [story deleted]
> that it's not plugged in. The whole point of this story is that they found
> a way to make the computer completely secure.

Actually, I thought the point of the story was not to take
ridiculous security measures. Some well thought-out measures will suffice.
Anything can be carried too far, and I think this discussion is
approaching it (not that I'm not amenable, I just think we should take it
to private e-mail).

> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 38
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:54:13 -0800
On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Nightfox wrote:

> >1) We all know that balistic charts for all sorts of stuff are around.
> >But the first time you try to desing a new round at the time right after
> >the crash, what do you need...A computer to calculate all the balistics.
> >That requires programs to do the math, and if its gone like in the crash,
> >how many of you out there can calculate balistic stuff. Especialy for new
> >ammunition which is(unless you have computers) a trial and error type thing.

A programmable calculator will do nicely. Which brings me to my
second point ...
Is it a UNIX/Mac/PC/VMS etc. world out there? Can a Mac virus
infect a PC? Can it affect an HP workstation?
I submit that the virus cannot run on every platform (just like
Novell/Windows NT/ A/UX). So, for example, a dedicated firmware
processor (like the guts of a Bridgeport CNC Miller) isn't going to be
affected by software, etc. etc. Neither is my nice programmable HP
calculator, which does all the math I need.

> by 2029 - EVERYTHING will be computer controlled EVERYTHING (well, there will
> be a few things that aren't but they aren't many)

See above.

> [Mass chaos deleted]

Only if every computer everywhere ran the same software. Sort of
like in "Lawnmower Man" -- he can't ring all the telephones in the world
because he can't get to them all, they don't have the same protocols, etc.

> THE CRASH WAS BAD!!!!!!

Relatively speaking, yes. But not as bad as the meteor impact 65
million years ago.

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 39
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:59:16 -0800
On Fri, 27 Jan 1995, Eric Boaen wrote:

> Yeah, I seem to remember something along those lines, from SRII. I
> mean, if they can fry a human, what's to prevent something from toasting the
> chips?

Surge suppressors. IC doesn't actually fry a human, rather it
induces lethal biofeedback. The energies involved are actually quite
small.

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/Adam/getchell.html
Message no. 40
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 14:46:38 +0930
>
> >>>>> "Eric" == Eric Boaen <alexd@***.III.NET> writes:
>
> Eric> Yeah, I seem to remember something along those lines, from SRII. I
> Eric> mean, if they can fry a human, what's to prevent something from
> Eric> toasting the chips?
>
> The small fact that there's no way for software to control the voltage
> going to the CPU is one very good reason.
>

Ah, Rat, I hate to disagree with you, but most power plants are computer
controlled... I'm sure a massive surge down the lines will fry a few chips
here and there.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 41
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 14:52:20 +0930
> I submit that the virus cannot run on every platform (just like
> Novell/Windows NT/ A/UX). So, for example, a dedicated firmware
> processor (like the guts of a Bridgeport CNC Miller) isn't going to be
> affected by software, etc. etc. Neither is my nice programmable HP
> calculator, which does all the math I need.
>
That's NOW... the computing industry is moving towards multiple layers of
abstraction. What this means is that any given app will be able to be
compiled (at least) for any given OS without source code changes, and that
any OS can run on any hardware platform.

A really sexy mutating virus could use this to have binaries for all OSes
and platforms in it.

> > by 2029 - EVERYTHING will be computer controlled EVERYTHING (well, there will
> > be a few things that aren't but they aren't many)
>
> See above.
>
> > [Mass chaos deleted]
>
> Only if every computer everywhere ran the same software. Sort of
> like in "Lawnmower Man" -- he can't ring all the telephones in the world
> because he can't get to them all, they don't have the same protocols, etc.
>

Yes they do (well, almost all...), all you have to do is dial the number.

> > THE CRASH WAS BAD!!!!!!
>
> Relatively speaking, yes. But not as bad as the meteor impact 65
> million years ago.
>
Too right. The meteor impact affected every species. The Crash only affects
humans.


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 42
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 21:58:37 -0500
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
writes:

Robert> That's NOW... the computing industry is moving towards multiple
Robert> layers of abstraction. What this means is that any given app will
Robert> be able to be compiled (at least) for any given OS without source
Robert> code changes, and that any OS can run on any hardware platform.

Almost. Take, for example, the Apple Newton. At the core of the OS is a
p-machine, a byte-code interpreter. In theory, you could put any kind of
CPU in the heart of a system, port the Newton OS to it, and any app written
for any Newton will run on it. In fact, Apple was experimenting with an
Intel 80486 Newton, but the power draw was just too high to make it useful.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | head.
Message no. 43
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Slowed Weapon Tech
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 22:14:17 -0500
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
writes:

Eric> Yeah, I seem to remember something along those lines, from SRII. I
Eric> mean, if they can fry a human, what's to prevent something from
Eric> toasting the chips?

>> The small fact that there's no way for software to control the voltage
>> going to the CPU is one very good reason.

Robert> Ah, Rat, I hate to disagree with you, but most power plants are
Robert> computer controlled... I'm sure a massive surge down the lines will
Robert> fry a few chips here and there.

Apples and oranges. There is no way for a virus, or any other piece of
software for that matter, which can be run by your home computer's CPU, to
take control over the power running to said CPU. This is an archetectural
impossiblity. Taking control of the main power grid is a completely
different matter, and there are plenty of things that aren't on regulated
power supplies that will burn out much faster than your CPU will.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Slowed Weapon Tech, 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!