Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Chad S. Mawson" <csm2747@************.EDU>
Subject: Virtual Reality/The Matrix
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 22:27:40 CDT
I guess that I have seen an awful lot about the way the matrix works, based
on todays existing systems. I agree that the decking system is slow and
somewhat cumbersome. BUT...

All the computers by 2050 are based on light _not_ magnetic, as per the
rulebook. The processors could be specifically designed "at the lowest
level" to be graphical. There already exists RISC (Reduced Instruction
Set Computer) making less code = faster computer. When data moves at the
speed of light, lots of data can be passed in a very short amount of time.
The fastest data lines now can pass millions of bytes per second. VR can
also be put in your deck via Reality Filters.

Just some of my opinions, even though a quick resolution system is my
preferred way of decking while on a run. Otherwise an entire adventure
can be tailored to work in the Matrix.

csm2747@******.nebrwesleyan.edu
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Chad Mawson *-* Nebraska Weseleyan University <> Lincoln, Nebraska *-* |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Message no. 2
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality/The Matrix
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 09:50:25 EDT
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad S Mawson <csm2747@************.edu>
writes:

Chad> All the computers by 2050 are based on light _not_ magnetic, as per
Chad> the rulebook. The processors could be specifically designed "at the
Chad> lowest level" to be graphical.

Optical circuitry does *NOT* mean graphical. It means using glass fibers
instead of copper (or gold) wires. Telephone companies today use optical
circuitry for long distance transmissions. So do most high speed Ethernets.
And there's a research group in Scotland which has managed to make a
functional optical transistor (the core of any modern computer). But they
most certainly aren't "graphical" in any respect. They just use light as a
carrier for data rather than electricity. (Which has a lot of benefits and
a number of problems).

Chad> There already exists RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) making
Chad> less code = faster computer.

No. RISC doesn't mean less code. RISC (vs. SISC) means that it takes less
time (clock cycles) to implement each instruction. Less time to implement
instructions = faster throughput.

Chad> When data moves at the speed of light, lots of data can be passed in
Chad> a very short amount of time.

Chad? Open mouth, insert foot. Electricity flows at "the speed of light."
Computers today use electricity. Therefore data today flows at the speed of
light. You can't get any faster than that. The trick is increasing the
width of the data path. The wider the data path, the more data can flow
through in a given time frame. Kind of like comparing a single lane street
with the Autobahn--more lanes means more cars can get through.

--Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el v1.5
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss/With all these marbles in my mouth
--`Weird Al' Yankovic, Smells Like Nirvana
Message no. 3
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality/The Matrix (fwd)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 11:39:56 -0400
> Reply-To: ratinox@***.NEU.EDU
> Optical circuitry does *NOT* mean graphical. It means using glass fibers
> instead of copper (or gold) wires. Telephone companies today use optical
> circuitry for long distance transmissions. So do most high speed Ethernets.
> And there's a research group in Scotland which has managed to make a
> functional optical transistor (the core of any modern computer). But they
> most certainly aren't "graphical" in any respect. They just use light as a
> carrier for data rather than electricity. (Which has a lot of benefits and
> a number of problems).

Also the speed of the optical transistor is under debate. I have seen
test results that have put the speed at around Shotky TTL rates. (Slow
as drek) Theoretically the speed of them is limited to how the optical
junction is done. (Similar to the limit of regular FETs and BJTs). The
junction is were the actual work happens. In theory the junction
should allow the speed to be raised to delays of 0.0001 nanosecs. But
theoretically so can the speed of GaAs. And it is already reached
close to its theoretical limit.

>
> Chad> There already exists RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) making
> Chad> less code = faster computer.
>
> No. RISC doesn't mean less code. RISC (vs. SISC) means that it takes less
> time (clock cycles) to implement each instruction. Less time to implement
> instructions = faster throughput.
>

Not really. RISC machines have more room for larger caches, more
registers, and the instructions are implemented in less clock cycles.
The clock speeds are usually slower for reasons that have to do with
total system reliability. The details on this can be found in IEEE
Computer. I think the issue is about 2 yrs old. The speed of
instructions is really acheived by eliminating the instruction set to
just the basics (Add, Move, etc.). If code written for an i486DX2
(CISC architecture) is implemented on a Sun RISC then the performance
is very poor. The 486 is much faster in clock speed (66MHz vs. 40 MHz)
the average latencie per instruction is something like 2-3 for the 486
and 1-2 for the RISC. It almost levels out. But by writting the code
to use the larger cache and the registers more frequently, the machine
can perform much faster.

> Chad> When data moves at the speed of light, lots of data can be passed in
> Chad> a very short amount of time.
>
> Chad? Open mouth, insert foot. Electricity flows at "the speed of light."
> Computers today use electricity. Therefore data today flows at the speed of
> light. You can't get any faster than that. The trick is increasing the
> width of the data path. The wider the data path, the more data can flow
> through in a given time frame. Kind of like comparing a single lane street
> with the Autobahn--more lanes means more cars can get through.
>

True, very true. One of my professors who works in VLSI and ULSI told
me that with GaAs (Galium Arsenide) that the speed of light is really
a problem. IMHO optics will only help with transmission of signals.
The reasons are numerous, less power loss, easier to synchronize.
SOmetimes, just as in regular transmission lines, the signal needs to
be slowed so that it can be in-synch with the whole system. Light, I
have been told, is easier to delay than adding inductors/capacitors to
change the phase of transmissions. This is all very old though. I have
not had a tranmission line class in over 1.5 yrs. Optics are also of
tremendous use in storage. But I see very little use for optics as the
logic elements of processors. This is only opinion. But I have been
thinking about doing a paper on it and have been looking into it.
ANyone with some documented info would be vastly appreciative.


-- Quiktek
a.k.a. Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu


> --Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel
Rat
> PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el
v1.5
> ||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|||||
> It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss/With all these marbles in my mouth
> --`Weird Al' Yankovic, Smells Like
Nirvana
>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Virtual Reality/The Matrix, 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!