| From: | jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | SR4: matrix -- first impression [warning: contains volatile |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:14:58 -0800 (PST) |
> According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 5-11-05
> 13:37 the word on the
> street was...
> The difference is exactly the one you point out
> yourself: if it had been
> fully thought through in advance, the game world
> would have been
> different.
I hope you agree that there's no use crying over spilt
milk. Your words don't seem to support this, though.
> Coming up with an explanation afterward
> means you have to fit
> your explanations to that game rules while still
> making them sound
> plausible, instead of making the rules fit the
> world.
The determinant of an explanation's plausibility is
how well it explains the phenomenon it is explaining.
Any explanation of canon that does not contradict
canon is as plausible as canon. If we consider canon
to include certain "extra-canon plausibility rules"
which involve preserving the identity of the setting,
then these rules are part of canon and not outside of
it. Besides, it's always possible to invent new rules
that supervene on the current ones under certain
circumstances.
> Talking about game
> rules/game world interaction is not the same as
> talking about real-world
> stuff where the explanation after the fact can be as
> valid as one you
> could come up with beforehand :)
Statements concerning rules and the game world are
statements of equal existence to statements
concerning, say, gravity and emmenthaler. Both these
types of statements therefore interact according to
the same principles. One of these principles could be
that the past determines the present, meaning that an
explanation made up beforehand will be determinative
of an event, whereas an explanation made up afterwards
can never alter the actual event.
> > In your case one fundamental premiss seems to
> > be that (techno)logical matters in SR somehow
> match
> > the current way of doing things in a recognizable
> way.
>
> Mostly because I don't see why they wouldn't. Sure,
> the Crash of '29
> wiped out lots of data. But since the same people
> would build up the
> Matrix as worked in the computer industry before,
> they would probably
> make much the same choices ...
People do the strangest things under pressure. If the
mission a team of designers is set is to "kill the
goddamn virus ASAP!" then certain parts of the design
process might end up being implemented in a sloppy
manner.
> > I'm still uncertain what the joke was as it
> probably
> > involved your own implicit interpretation of the
> > matrix architecture. I can try to infer it, but
> I'd
> > prefer you to try and be more explicit since
>
> I'm trying to think back to what caused me to make
> that comment in the
> first place ... IIRC it was you saying that in a
> world using simsense VR
> systems, firewalls {w|c}ould take the shape of IC
> attacking the decker.
> Which lead me to think that if you design your
> system in such a way that
> you need lots of bolt-on IC instead of building your
> security directly
> into the system itself, you are working at the level
> of Windows and its
> service packs.
...how would one go about building IC INTO a system?
If the function of the IC remain the same, they just
happen to be part of the system. In some sense the
system is therefore more exploitable if the IC are
found to have a weakness.
If we say that being part of a system means that the
procedure calls of the IC are so fundamental that they
can't be supervened upon or prevented, then this would
entail some kind of perfect security. The only perfect
security I know of is a perfectly static, or
unutilised system. In other words: security entails
being useless.
To milden the case for security, I suppose that in
order to limit use-instances to certain selected
applications one can build in verifications that
determine whether the signal that leads to a
use-instance is part of the set of signals that is
"supposed" to do so. Any method of determining (the
criteria of) set membership is fallible, which makes
perfect security an impossibility.
So in practical terms, it's just as well having an
operating system that's not bogged down with security
if this means one can tack on the security when it's
needed.
If you ask me, IC is merely the stuff that makes the
(simsense) neurofeedback happen to the decker. The
system ratings are the in-built matrix architecture
security. So what you're arguing for is already there,
you just didn't see it from the right perspective.
As to the shape it takes: consider interesting-looking
boxes with blinkenlights that the sammie finds on a
run and can curiously link the ol' datajack to... now
push this glowing button here and... BLAM! Suddenly
he's messed up. Better take a decker along next time
(or get BG computing 1 :).
Decking is not broken or unrealistic: it's an activity
that was invented for the sole purpose of allowing a
team of only a few people to eliminate an adapting
virus from every computer connected to a network at a
vast personal risk. Does this make it strange that
corporations still haven't figured out a way to
properly defend their systems against it? If you
underestimate it's power it is.
> > your own opinion isn't a joke.
>
> That's what you think ;)
That's what you think about what I think (ad
infinitum)
It so happens I took the time and energy to type a
sentence related to your opinion. If you take refuge
in relativism you are risking that I treat all your
opinions as jocular from now on. I have neither the
time, nor the inclination to deal with someone at this
level of conversation who requires my constant
attention as to whether he is being serious or not
(sorry for the rebuke, but this is what you get if
you're going to maintain that). If you say or do
something you mean it and will reliable act on it
unless you state something to the contrary in advance.
There is such a thing as the inappropriate joke (in
fact all jokes can be considered a luxury) and I
pointed out that you seemed to have made one. Your
answer that this is my thought or opinion is only
repeating the glaringly obvious and in everyday real
life will generally speaking vindicate most people
with even the vaguest desire to overrule anything you
happen to think (ahh, glad to get that crap out of my
head).
> > A factor of game balance probably contributed to
> decks
> > being priced as they are
>
> I think it's the only factor. I can find no real
> reason why decks (or
Ergo: my reasons aren't real to Gurth, I live in
another dimension. I suggest you treat me as a space
alien from Betelgeuse from now on :-p.
> computers* in SR are about 50 to 100 times too
> expensive compared to
> real-world prices, and the only reason I can think
> of why that is, is
> because the prices were arbitrarily set to levels
> high enough that only
> specialized characters would want to spend that kind
> of money on them.
I suppose I don't compare a deck to a normal everyday
computer: it's a deck. Decks are for specialists who
want to perform abnormal feats of computing (i.e.:
somehow getting into the vastly powerful and
well-defended computing centres of a corporation on a
whim and without much in the way of preparation). All
the other users have desktop-type computers with a DNI
interface or a trode web if they're worth it.
> > -Decks have a simsense interface that allows one
> to
> > input to (digital) computing devices in a vastly
> more
> > efficient manner and interpret their output a
> > magnitude quicker than is possible using one's
> > ordinary sensory input.
>
> That is something I don't necessarily agree with.
> You would probably be
> able to devise traditional GUI interfaces and
> helpers that make things
> much easier on the user than a VR environment would
> -- but then again,
> this is one of those things that'll never be proven
> either way, so we
> can debate this until St. Juttemis :)
You might be right, but surely such a debate could be
productive if we use our imagination a bit? As I
unerstand it, the VR is representative of a number of
vastly complex actions. It's not like someone is still
typing letters by virtue of having to move their
hands; this type of "mind-reading" is something the
DNI interface can already do. In the case of simsense
the whole body is part of the computing environment...
all that happens is the user thinking "X" and presto:
the desired digital output appears. This would be
ideal simsense and I suppose UV host simsense
environments get the user close to this type of
perfect interface.
The actual implementation of the process is more or
less efficient depending on the hardware. While in
perfect simsense a secretary might wordlessly desire,
or mentally utter the need for a letter, the everyday
application would probably be a mental uttering of
"letter, neutral tone..." and a generic description of
the contents. The simsense reads the users' intended
input very efficiently, provides some feedbacks that
fulfill any queries left after its quantum logic (or
insert your own amazing computing tech here) has
figured out some things, looks at the reaction from
the user, etc. In effect it is doing a considerable
part of the (rote) conscious thinking for the user so
that the user can concentrate on setting goals and
their related tasks instead of having to perform them.
> > -These simsense interfaces are expensive to use
> (they
> > require cybersurgery, the actual deck and skill
> > training).
>
> But the point of simsense computing is that it will
> be easy and has
> little or no learning curve ...
Since the simsense interface is imperfect one might
claim that in order to achieve better (faster) results
the user needs certain simsense input skills. It's not
a requirement, but the best deckers would probably do
it just to get an edge. As it is such a skill isn't
part of canon, but since its possibility is at best a
result of my conceptions I don't mind. I suppose it's
just a way to give a high-powered decker a BG-type
skill to marginally improve those rolls.
To once again attempt to encompass your main
complaints: you're saying a fictional world has
"unrealistic" instantiations of things that resemble
human activities that are currently taking place.
While I'm all in favour of suspension of disbelief,
the game is built to be entertaining.
For example, I imagine the nitty gritty of an actual
burglary will be very unexciting if done correctly and
not very entertaining at all. Therefore, if computer
systems appear to be pieces of crud from a security
point of view then this is only so for practical,
supervenient reasons.
I'd appreciate some concrete examples of the faults
you find with the matrix architecture, because you're
not been very forthcoming except with a jocular remark
about windows service packs. I'd like to be able to
have the option of applying your supposedly more
realistic view to games, but since it's so implicit it
doesn't appear to be very real.
cheers,
Jan Jaap
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
