Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Michael E. Cating" <bs601@*********.FREENET.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1993 22:21:22 -0400
>
>I suppose that this is the best place to ask about this. Lately, I've been
>wondering about some representations in the Matrix and their real-world
>components. For instance, what exactly is a data node in real life? Is it like
>a directory or a hardware component like a HD or a tape drive? Also, what is
>distance a representation of? What is distance in the Matrix really?

(Please note that these may be just my opinions, from what I've read of
SR books...)

I understand that distance in the Matrix is just for a user's comfort,
to provide realistic perspective and make the user work more effectively
in the virtual reality. Distance is meaningless anyway, since the
electronic signals (assuming you're saying that every Matrix component
has a real-world component) would allow you to move nearly
instantaneously. Finally, there's also a small comment in _Virtual
Realities_ that says something to the effect that a system can be set up
to make something appear near or far (to confuse an intruder). This
means that distance has no virtual importance, except to affect the
user's/decker's/intruder's psyche.

Now, on the Matrix objects having real-world counterparts. Some things
are obvious (the I/O ports, slave nodes, etc.). Other things are more
difficult. I don't believe SANs have real-world parts. I read in _Into
the Shadows_ that, by shooting a real-world component (a large computer,
um, console), an SPU was crashed and the deckers inside were dumped. So,
yeah, I guess SANs could have real-world parts.


Another
>thing, when you're in the Matrix, not in a sytem construct, where exactly are
>you? When you're in a system construct, you're interfacing with a specific
>computer. When you're in the Matrix, then, what are you interfacing with?

I figure you're interfacing with the telecomm grid (essentially the
phone co.). Also, when you're in a system construct, you are not only
interfacing with it but also with the telecomm grid (you're using the
telecomm lines to send data back and forth with the system, remember).
>From your first question in this quote, I think that you're forgetting
that a decker doesn't really "go" anywhere when he jacks in. He's just
interfacing with a communication grid. Sure, that grid is giving a great
deal of information, but it's still just like a phone line.

I hope this helps some. Feel free to comment! (I'm sure everyone
will...)

Mike
bs601@*********.freenet.edu


>
>
Message no. 2
From: "Michael E. Cating" <bs601@*********.FREENET.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 00:26:53 -0400
>
>I suppose that this is the best place to ask about this. Lately, I've been
>wondering about some representations in the Matrix and their real-world
>components. For instance, what exactly is a data node in real life? Is it like
>a directory or a hardware component like a HD or a tape drive? Also, what is
>distance a representation of? What is distance in the Matrix really?

(Please note that these may be just my opinions, from what I've read of
SR books...)

I understand that distance in the Matrix is just for a user's comfort,
to provide realistic perspective and make the user work more effectively
in the virtual reality. Distance is meaningless anyway, since the
electronic signals (assuming you're saying that every Matrix component
has a real-world component) would allow you to move nearly
instantaneously. Finally, there's also a small comment in _Virtual
Realities_ that says something to the effect that a system can be set up
to make something appear near or far (to confuse an intruder). This
means that distance has no virtual importance, except to affect the
user's/decker's/intruder's psyche.

Now, on the Matrix objects having real-world counterparts. Some things
are obvious (the I/O ports, slave nodes, etc.). Other things are more
difficult. I don't believe SANs have real-world parts. I read in _Into
the Shadows_ that, by shooting a real-world component (a large computer,
um, console), an SPU was crashed and the deckers inside were dumped. So,
yeah, I guess SANs could have real-world parts.


Another
>thing, when you're in the Matrix, not in a sytem construct, where exactly are
>you? When you're in a system construct, you're interfacing with a specific
>computer. When you're in the Matrix, then, what are you interfacing with?

I figure you're interfacing with the telecomm grid (essentially the
phone co.). Also, when you're in a system construct, you are not only
interfacing with it but also with the telecomm grid (you're using the
phone line while you're getting sensory input from the system...).
>From your first question in this quote, I think that you're forgetting
that a decker doesn't really "go" anywhere when he jacks in. He's just
interfacing with a communication grid. Sure, that grid is giving a great
deal of information, but it's still just like a phone line.

I hope this helps some. Feel free to comment! (I'm sure everyone
will...)

Mike
bs601@*********.freenet.edu


>
>
Message no. 3
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 00:40:44 EDT
For the most part, the Matrix doesn't really have real-world analogues.
This is simply because the Matrix is an implementation of William Gibson's
"consensual hallucination" which, given how computers work, can't and/or
won't exist. But let me try:

A lot of what Shadowrun calls "nodes" are actually whole computers set up
with a limited purpose, or programs running throughout the network, or
dedicated pieces of hardware. Matrix "nodes" are discrete entities; in the
real world, all the components of a computer (and a network of computers)
are interdependant upon each other--if a major component goes off-line, the
whole thing goes down.

System Access Node: some means of gaining access to a computer or network
of computers. Things like terminal servers, modem banks, or "gateway"
machines which are set up as a single way in or out of the network.

Central Processing Unit: some kind of hook into the lowest levels of the
operating system or firmware. On a network this could be on one of the
central server machines.

Slave Processing Unit: "demon" and "daemon" programs running on one or
more
machines [note: a demon is a program which is constantly running in the
background, such as clocks; a daemon is a program which sits idle until you
call it, such as print spoolers--neither of these are any kind of ICE].

Dataline Junction: part of the physical wiring of the network. Very similar
to a bridge box or network router.

Datastore: file storage.

Slave Module: the hardware end of the SPU; the SPU software tells the SM
hardware what to do and the hardware does it. Printers, FAXes, things like
that.

Input/Output Port: any connection between two physical devices.


I mentioned that the Matrix can't exist, given how computers work today.
These are some of the major reasons:

* Processing Power: it takes a tremendous amount of computer processing
time to generate real-looking graphics. Given a production environment,
there are much more important things to have your expensive equipment do
besides make pretty pictures.

* Data Transfer Rates: given that maybe there is enough computing power to
generate a virtual reality like the Matrix, the amount of time required
to transmit it from physically close systems would prevent it from being
usable as a real-time system.

* Speed: anyone (and I mean *anyone*) who takes bypassing computer security
seriously doesn't use pre-packaged, off-the-shelf programs to do so. They
either write their utilities themselves or borrow them from trusted
associates. Furthermore, they don't go at it from the high end (ie, using
a COPY program on your MS-DOS machine), they attack the operating system
at the lowest level, or access firmware routines directly [firmware is
software written permanantly into the ROM of a computer]. And it's not
like a firefight where the target falls in a few seconds of hacking; it
takes hours, days, even months to penetrate the security of a well-
defended computer system. And that usually takes a lot of physical work,
trying to find holes or potential holes in that security.

* Security: finally, any system that works with sensitive data (financial
records, research and design projects, anything anyone would find
valuable) is going to be on SneakerNet(1), unaccessable to any real-time
network. [SneakerNet: you download the data onto some kind of writable
media (disk, tape), walk to another machine (making use of your
Sneakers), and copy the data from the media. It's a hassle, but nobody
can break in from the outside.]

* Security (part 2): actually, there are ways of making a sensitive system
secure without taking it off "the Net." You place a firewall machine
between the sensitive one and the network. The firewall is set up so that
it can talk to either the network or the sensitive machine, but not both
simulataneously. This will usually include some physical hardware
mechanism to ensure that one "door" is always closed. It's a lot like an
airlock; only unlike an airlock, when one "door" closes, your connection
gets disconnected--there's no way to run such a firewalled system. [There
are systems like this today: "whitehouse.gov" is such a firewall.]

* Security (part 3): even simpler than firewalls (but sometimes less secure
under some very specific circumstances) is to not run things like
"telnetd" (the daemon program that runs on a machine and lets you telnet
to it). If you're not running software on your machine that lets people
connect to it, they can't. Do this on a firewall and it's impossible for
anyone to get in from the outside [whitehouse.gov is set up this way].

--Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
There are very few personal problems which cannot be solved with a suitable
application of high explosives.
Message no. 4
From: Chris Ryan <chrisr@*******.FIT.QUT.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 15:04:42 EST
I agree with most of what you say Rat, however I'd like to point out a couple
of things.

> I mentioned that the Matrix can't exist, given how computers work today.
> These are some of the major reasons:
>
> * Processing Power: it takes a tremendous amount of computer processing
> time to generate real-looking graphics. Given a production environment,
> there are much more important things to have your expensive equipment do
> besides make pretty pictures.

Processing power is increasing all the time, so generating real-looking graphics
will be easier as time goes on. It's 60+ years to the SR era, and a lot of advances
can occur during this time.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of production environments using 'pretty pics'
in development. We have no idea presently how visualisation could be used for
programming in the future. Think of the advances in programming in just 20 or
so years - from assembler to complex object oriented programming and beyond.

> * Data Transfer Rates: given that maybe there is enough computing power to
> generate a virtual reality like the Matrix, the amount of time required
> to transmit it from physically close systems would prevent it from being
> usable as a real-time system.

This will not be a problem. Telecommunication systems are being upgraded all the
time for increased bandwidth. Also compression techniques are improving to
reduce the amount of data needing to be sent. RT video, real-looking images will
be able to be moved around the network within ten/fifteen years, I believe (it
will probably be less, but I'm being cautious).

The rest of your article on security I agree 100%.

Chris
Message no. 5
From: Hobbes Patrol Headquarters <TYGER@****.WINONA.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 19:45:51 -0500
> Also, what is distance a representation of? What is distance in the Matrix
> really? Another thing, when you're in the Matrix, not in a sytem construct,
> where exactly are you? When you're in a system construct, you're interfacing
> with a specific computer. When you're in the Matrix, then, what are you
> interfacing with?

Ok, In order (?)

Distance in the matrix is all relative. Think of the internet. I can
reply and (slowly) interact with people here, regardless of space
phisically bertween us all. So, in theory, you can see ad-infanitum in the
Matrix. It kinda gets mind boggling, so as a GM I just let it ride. If a
player wanted to look at Chiba, they can, but it's gonna be streching the
'ol sensors program!

And the matrix? I dunno. I guess it's a bunch of phone lines and the
'hangout' is somewhere in AT&T...

(AIGH!!! THE CYBERCARP!)

-Tyger

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
!Nikki was a loser. A street kid, left to fend for himself at a young age.
!He was independent, and unpredictable, but harmless. Except now !
!he had a philosophy, and that made him dangerous. !
! -From "Operation LIVEcrime" !
! Queensryche
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Message no. 6
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 17:20:05 -0400
| * Security: finally, any system that works with sensitive data (financial
| records, research and design projects, anything anyone would find
| valuable) is going to be on SneakerNet(1), unaccessable to any real-time
| network.

Don't bet too hard on that, actually. Even today, with low-grade
networking, there are enough advantages of being on the network (such
as not having to run duplicate sets of cabling) so that such
conservative groups such as University Controllers (aka the people
with the money) are putting their administrative systems on Unix boxes
on the campus network.

Oh, there's LOTS of security. But they're still sort of vaguely
accessable from the network, if you work at it hard enough.

In 2050, with the assumption of ubiquitous networking, expect this to
be even more so.

- cks
Message no. 7
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Matrix (real-world components and relation to
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 21:30:11 EDT
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Siebenmann
<cks@********.utcs.toronto.edu> writes:

| * Security: finally, any system that works with sensitive data (financial
| records, research and design projects, anything anyone would find
| valuable) is going to be on SneakerNet(1), unaccessable to any real-time
| network.

Chris> Don't bet too hard on that, actually.

I do. In fact, a friend of mine works for a company that writes software
for several major financial firms in Boston. None of these firms is on
anything even resembling a modem; you should hear her bitch about getting
new code on their systems.

Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el v1.5
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
It is a proud and lonely thing to be a Stainless Steel Rat.
--`Slippery' Jim DiGriz

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The Matrix (real-world components and relation to, 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.