Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700
On 4/13/07, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> That said, while I do think the wireless Matrix in SR4 is fairly implausible, there
are so many things in Shadowrun that are so much more implausible it's really not worth
worrying about.

I'm not all that familiar with SR4, but what's inherently implausible
about a wireless Matrix? Is it that wireless has became the norm for
secure communications, or that the requirements of a Matrix link
shouldn't be able to function over wireless?

Mark
Message no. 2
From: n.kobschaetzki@**********.com (Niels_KobschÀtzki)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:33:45 +0200
On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Mark wrote:

> On 4/13/07, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
>> That said, while I do think the wireless Matrix in SR4 is fairly
>> implausible, there are so many things in Shadowrun that are so
>> much more implausible it's really not worth worrying about.
>
> I'm not all that familiar with SR4, but what's inherently implausible
> about a wireless Matrix? Is it that wireless has became the norm for
> secure communications, or that the requirements of a Matrix link
> shouldn't be able to function over wireless?

Wired-Matrix crashed, they made all new, Wireless is "cool" (I by
myself like wires more). You can add in the augmented reality and if
you want to have true security you can go by cable anyway… (data-
jacks are still there and e.g. I would suggest you to put a skinlink
in your hand for using your smart link…you don't want that to be
hijacked…)
The security by the rules is a mess

Niels



--
Jammern für Anfänger: Niels K. (25) Jammerbacke -- auch
für
professionelles Jammern zu haben
http://jammern.wordpress.com
Und ansonsten: 徒然 - Ergüsse aus Langeweile
http://tsurezure.wordpress.com
Message no. 3
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:41:08 +0200
Mark wrote:
> On 4/13/07, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
>> That said, while I do think the wireless Matrix in SR4 is fairly
>> implausible, there are so many things in Shadowrun that are so much
>> more implausible it's really not worth worrying about.
>
> I'm not all that familiar with SR4, but what's inherently implausible
> about a wireless Matrix? Is it that wireless has became the norm for
> secure communications, or that the requirements of a Matrix link
> shouldn't be able to function over wireless?


A couple of things, that all are important:

Wireless broadcasts everything to everybody. Although you can encrypt
the transmission, an attacker would have a set of data that he can try
to break.

Then, there's latency, depending on how far away you are from a sender.

Additionally, there's a bandwidth issue. You can even perceive that
nowadays: 802.11g (54bit/s) has this bandwidth in theory, under the best
conditions, with only two devices.

And bandwidth is very, very limited in wireless transmissions, as only a
couple of frequencies are usable for efficient data transfer.

Together with bandwidth, you have the problem of overhead: Not only do
the packets need an address, but the wireless devices need one two, to
know if a specific "frame" (as it is called) is intended for them.

Last but not least, waves keep on going and going and going.


Except for the first two points and the last one, all these can be
solved in Shadowrun, but it hinges on what you are willing to accept
(suspension of disbelief, or your eagerness for escapism ;).

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #48:

The number of items on a project's to-do list always grows or remains
constant.
Message no. 4
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:57:33 -0600
On 4/13/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@**********.com> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > On 4/13/07, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> >> That said, while I do think the wireless Matrix in SR4 is fairly
> >> implausible, there are so many things in Shadowrun that are so much
> >> more implausible it's really not worth worrying about.
> >
> > I'm not all that familiar with SR4, but what's inherently implausible
> > about a wireless Matrix? Is it that wireless has became the norm for
> > secure communications, or that the requirements of a Matrix link
> > shouldn't be able to function over wireless?
>
>
> A couple of things, that all are important:
>
> Wireless broadcasts everything to everybody. Although you can encrypt
> the transmission, an attacker would have a set of data that he can try
> to break.

Yep.

> Then, there's latency, depending on how far away you are from a sender.

This is a big issue for me. I've been playing MMOGs since 1998.
Latency and packet loss sucks in a virtual world and can have a huge
impact on a task that you're trying to perform.

Packet loss: I start moving my character forward and my system goes
along with that, sending the "move" command to the game server.
Something happens to the packet and it gets lost. The server sends me
a packet with the current location of everything in my vicinity,
including me where it thinks I am. Never having gotten the move
command it tells my system I never moved. My system says "oops" and
puts me back where I was before I started moving.

Latency: I start moving and my system moves me and sends the command
that I'm moving foward. I turn left. The server is notified that I'm
moving forward. When it moves me to the point where I turned left it
keeps me going forward smack into bad guy. The bad guy attacks me and
hits and the server logs the damage and sends a damage update to me.
The server gets the command that I turned left back at the last
intersection and *does not* undo the damage. I'm toodling down an
empty cooridor when I suddenly take damage from a bad guy that isn't
anywhere near me.

Granted, using the matrix isn't a do or die event like it is in a
MMOG, but I don't even want to imagine what rubberbanding would be
like in a fully immersive virtual environment. Imagine what it would
be like in real life if there was latency or packet loss. In a worst
case scenario you wake up and go the the bathroom and take a dump,
wipe yourself, and flush the toilet. Latency or packet loss occurs
and you're waking up again and have to take a dump. Virtual reality
is almost real and similar things would happen with latency and packet
loss. You can't avoid latency with radio waves. You can set it up so
that the users system doesn't "move" them until the system confirms
the movement but that would suck and nobody would use it. And the
worst thing is that all it takes is a simple radio jammer to disrupt a
wireless network.

> Except for the first two points and the last one, all these can be
> solved in Shadowrun, but it hinges on what you are willing to accept
> (suspension of disbelief, or your eagerness for escapism ;).

4th ed matrix is just on of those things that requirs suspension.
Once you do that it runs pretty smoothly and serves its purpose well
:)

--
-Graht
Message no. 5
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:02:58 +0200
On 13 Apr 2007, at 20:13, Mark wrote:

> I'm not all that familiar with SR4, but what's inherently implausible
> about a wireless Matrix? Is it that wireless has became the norm for
> secure communications, or that the requirements of a Matrix link
> shouldn't be able to function over wireless?
>
> Mark


Can't talk for the others, but my main gripe with it is that after
having the big global network blow up in its face *twice* with dire
consequences (even though the second iteration was specifically
designed to be immune to this class of problems), the world decided:

1. To build a third one (fine by me, it's useful for many things),
2. To make it inherently less secure than both previous iterations
("This stick of dynamite tore both my hands off when it exploded due
to improper handling -- therefore, I will now proceed to play soccer
with those nitroglycerine-filled vials"),
3. To connect each and every single thing ever listed in a dictionary
to it. Wi-fi enabled doors, cyberlimbs, guns, umbrellas, shoes, hot
dogs, toilet paper... One would think that the Internet's and the
Matrix's consecutive demises (not to mention Windows and its botnet
friends in the 2000's) would have taught anyone with half a brain
that over-reliance on a single pervasive global network is a
*horribly bad* idea, if anything.


Rules-wise, point 3. is what bothers me. The dynamics, compared to
SR3, are completely inverted, in that the decker (yeah, I know,
"hacker" -- :sigh: they couldn't even get *this* right) becomes a
near-omniscient creature that scans every hertz of the radio spectrum
every time the team thinks of making a move.

I used to think over-planning in SR3 was a problem (where plans were
usually made in order to get the decker to the point where she could
work her magic). That's because I hadn't seen yet what happens in a
game where the decker can *always* crack something useful.

Infiltration: "I'll get into the guards' cybereyes so that I can tell
the ninja-adept when to move." Firefights: "I'll shut down the bad
guys' guns so the street sam has an easier job -- oh, even better,
I'll detonate their grenades so the street sam doesn't have to do
anything." Legwork: "It's okay, Face, you can stop talking, I've
cracked his PDA and headware memory, we have all the info we need."

You hear that sound in the distance? It's the street sam's, adept's
and face's players. They're playing Guitar Hero.

-- Wild_Cat
Message no. 6
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:07:42 -0300
On 4/13/07, Mark <toast.in.the.machine@*****.com> wrote:
> I'm not all that familiar with SR4, but what's inherently implausible
> about a wireless Matrix? Is it that wireless has became the norm for
> secure communications, or that the requirements of a Matrix link
> shouldn't be able to function over wireless?

The requirements of a Matrix link are pure fantasy anyway, so it
shouldn't matter whether it's wireless or not :).

The reasons for thinking wireless is implausible are probably one or
more of the following (I helpfully included explanations of why I
don't think they're valid :) ):

a) the way it was introduced by SR's metaplot was implausible. Can't
say I disagree, but since I think SR's metaplot sucks anyway, it's
easy for me to chuck it out along with the rest and just say it has
always been like this.

b) It doesn't fit with real-world knowledge of wireless networks. Big
deal - the Matrix from SR1-3 didn't fit with real-world knowledge
either. SR4 also abstracts things out a lot more than previous
editions did, and it's a bit contradictory to look for technical
detail in a system designed to skip it.

c) Literal interpretations and erroneous extrapolations of the line
that says wireless, Matrix-enabled devices are "everywhere". This
leads to people assuming it's possible to "possess" other people's
cyberware, equipment, and underpants. In truth, if it makes absolutely
no sense for something to be wireless, it probably isn't, and I'm
surprised it needs to be spelled out in the book.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 7
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:34:03 -0700
On 4/13/07, Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/13/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@**********.com> wrote:
> > Then, there's latency, depending on how far away you are from a sender.
>
> This is a big issue for me. I've been playing MMOGs since 1998.
> Latency and packet loss sucks in a virtual world and can have a huge
> impact on a task that you're trying to perform.

I can see packet loss happening more often in a wireless matrix (but
we already had similar rules for MIJI(sp?) and riggers), but latency
didn't seem to be a big deal in previous editions. I've played my
share of MMOGs over a wireless link before, and the wireless latency
is miniscule compared to sending it from my WAP to the server.
Previous editions let you bounce your link off a satellite with only
minor penalties.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding SR4 wireless, but I don't see latency being
any higher than running a cable from your deck to the jack point, and
definitely better than decking in from a remote coffin motel, which
was standard for many deckers. Is SR4 wireless more like WiMax than
WiFi or Bluetooth?

Mark
Message no. 8
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:42:01 +0200
Mark wrote:

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding SR4 wireless, but I don't see latency being
> any higher than running a cable from your deck to the jack point, and
> definitely better than decking in from a remote coffin motel, which
> was standard for many deckers. Is SR4 wireless more like WiMax than
> WiFi or Bluetooth?

If it is close to anything, it's closer to WiMax. For me, the ping
(latency) of servers has doubled using a Wifi 802.11g link, compared to
a 100MBit/s cable link.

Latency isn't just a factor of the distance, but of overhead, too. The
information has to be grabbed off the air, checked if it is addressed to
the link, unpacked into data, and the data processed again. Granted, for
a normal user in the real world or in SR4, this is a non-issue.

But as soon as you do something more (for example fighting black ICE),
it becomes a life and death issue. But in an interactive link (with
"interactive" meaning that you are doing more than click through
Horizon's newest marketing campaign), this becomes highly relevant. But
you can safely claim, IMHO, that Matrix initiative covers that.

Again, it's a question of how much you are willing to work within the
reality of the rules, and not your own reality.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #15:

If you like it, let the author know. If you hate it, let the author
know why.
Message no. 9
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:54:31 +0000
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 09:02:58PM +0200, Max Noel wrote:
>
> 3. To connect each and every single thing ever listed in a dictionary
> to it. Wi-fi enabled doors, cyberlimbs, guns, umbrellas, shoes, hot
> dogs, toilet paper... One would think that the Internet's and the
> Matrix's consecutive demises (not to mention Windows and its botnet
> friends in the 2000's) would have taught anyone with half a brain
> that over-reliance on a single pervasive global network is a
> *horribly bad* idea, if anything.
>

This is the point that bothers me the most as well. Sure, you can make valid arguments
about the technical requirements for the SR4 wireless matrix in terms of bandwidth,
maintaining connections, etc., but ultimately it's just a game and I think trying to model
all those details would just be a pain in the ass and not very fun. What makes the SR4
wireless matrix so ridiculous is its inane pervasiveness.

I say inane pervasiveness because I feel it's perfectly reasonable for the wireless matrix
to be pervasive to some degree. Wireless is quite common today and is only going to
become more so. I actually think the concept of AR in a social context is pretty neat.
Imagine going to the store and having specials and advertisements being displayed in front
of you, being able to get detailed information on a product just by looking at it, etc.
However there are a ton of things in SR4 that the rules explicitly state have wireless
connections where it makes absolutely no sense for there to be a wireless connection.

Can you imagine getting cyberware installed, having parts of your body replaced with
things that are constantly broadcasting for no particular reason and can be hacked and
taken control of by any semi-competent hacker in a few seconds (seconds!!!!)?! First of
all, you'd have to be insane to agree to that. Second of all, in many cases there is
absolutely no benefit to the wireless 'features' but they're still there by default. It's
not just cyberware, either. Security doors connect to the building security system
wirelessly. They're doors! They're not going anywhere. Is it that hard to stick a
couple wires in them? And again, the security of the wireless connection is so incredibly
bad that it only takes a few seconds to hack in and open that door. What kind of security
is that?!

These changes were made in order to make 'hackers' more active members of the team, but
they just make no fraggin' sense. Personally, if you want to involve deckers more I would
have gone the opposite direction: Make it so that any information of real value is on
isolated systems or networks, not connected to the Matrix so that the decker *has* to
physically break in with the rest of the team. Similar effect, except that decking
becomes a tool instead of a magic wand. Oh yeah, and it actually makes sense.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 10
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Ritter)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:12:42 -0400
On 4/13/07, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> These changes were made in order to make 'hackers' more active members of the team,
> but they just make no fraggin' sense. Personally, if you want to involve deckers
more I
> would have gone the opposite direction: Make it so that any information of real
value is
> on isolated systems or networks, not connected to the Matrix so that the decker *has*
to
> physically break in with the rest of the team. Similar effect, except that decking
> becomes a tool instead of a magic wand. Oh yeah, and it actually makes sense.

That's largely what I've done in my games.

My basic thought was that there are several factors at work:

1) wireless is convenient. Which means it'll creep in lots of places
where it doesn't make good security sense. Convenience is ever the
enemy of security.
2) AR and omnipresent wireless takes some brain-adjusting. I think
some of the authors "got it" and some didn't. We see the result.

So I edit things. Yes, most everything has wireless. A good deal of
it is "read-only". SOME of that is hackable (as in, it was _intended_
to be read-only but the nature of the hacker is todo the possible but
unintentional.)

Truly secure places are locked down. Most places are not quite truly secure.

Gamers tend to scoff at poor security as if it's unrealistic (we also
tend to scoff at PC morals the same way). In reality, it's rife.
It'd be insane to offer bank systems with the ability to transfer funs
open to anonymous connection with thin authentication systems. It'd
be foolish to pass out necessary authentication information over the
phone because someone called and asked for it. It'd be nuts to accept
a pretty piece of paper in exchange for actual cash on the assumption
that it's a valid check. It'd be outright foolish to accept a short
string of numbers over an anonymous internet connection or phone call
as proof that you are indeed the creditcard holder.

But this is the norm. Heck, My last job had a set of doors requiring
a passcard...but they had a gap between them and a motion sensor on
the other side to unlock the doors for people leaving. My tests
showed than an average of 3 manila folders tossed between the doors
would unlock them. Insane, right?

The SR book does stress, for some unknown reason, the ubiquitousness
of wireless controls, on somethings that don't make a lot of sense.
But interpreted with a grain of salt, it works pretty well given how
people actually work.
--
Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 11
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:18:28 +0200
David Kettler wrote:

<snip rant>

You know, the rules can't take away common sense.

Any street same worth his brain in orichalcum will go and disable any
and all wireless features he doesn't need.

And don't forget that cyberware is a corporate product, mass marketed to
a truckload of people. Take a look at the Zune with his WiFi, or the
rumored new iPod with WiFi adaptability. Take a look at how pervasive
RFID is becoming in passports or supermarkets.

And now, just for a moment, consider that SR4 is Orwellian in this
regard, taking today's trends, and and creating a world where you don't
exist, if you aren't in the marketing databases of the megacons, where
it's either conforming to the whims of faceless entities or you perish.

Instead of clinging to rules that are difficult to believe (and using a
double standard at the same time, as neither magic nor meta-races are
likely to happen anytime soon, given that the Mayan calendar had to be
corrected; or ask a stunt driver concerning the driving rules; or a gun
expert on the weapons rules, or..), apply some frikken' common sense.

*No* research lab will use wireless as the main means of connecting its
security systems, but it is useful to track patrols of security guards,
or other monitoring tasks.

If you allow a decker to crack into a security system easily, even
though you meant it to be difficult, scold yourself for not taking the
decker's power level into account, instead of blaming the rules.

It's pointless to whine over rules, when it is in your power to either
change them, or to use your brains. Rules never, ever can replace common
sense and colorful descriptions of what actually happens.


Keep in mind, that rules first, and foremost, have to be usable and as
unobtrusive to a game as possible, while still making it possible to
make the game enjoyable to a wide range of people, who, God forbid,
don't care how the wireless Matrix *should* work, if they don't even
care that there are other OSes in the real world than just their
pre-installed Office 2000 (I'm exaggerating here, but not by much).


Really, think about it: You are able to accept ghosts, but your brain
gets a deadlock when thinking about the wireless Matrix, that you can't
perceive the possibility of engineers adapting the hardware for sale to
their needs?

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #37:

Duplicate effort is inevitable. Live with it.
Message no. 12
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:04:15 +0000
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 12:18:28AM +0200, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>
> You know, the rules can't take away common sense.
>

Rules can, and certainly sometimes do, defy common sense. You are then left with the
choice of either ignoring common sense or ignoring the rules. Neither option is as
satisfying as having rules that follow common sense in the first place.

> Any street same worth his brain in orichalcum will go and disable any
> and all wireless features he doesn't need.
>

If that were the case, then why are those features there in the first place? Maybe for
cheap consumer stuff, but many (if not most) upgrades a street sam is going to involve
illegal, security or military grade equipment that shouldn't be manufactured with such
gaping security holes in the first place.

> And don't forget that cyberware is a corporate product, mass marketed to
> a truckload of people. Take a look at the Zune with his WiFi, or the
> rumored new iPod with WiFi adaptability. Take a look at how pervasive
> RFID is becoming in passports or supermarkets.
>
> And now, just for a moment, consider that SR4 is Orwellian in this
> regard, taking today's trends, and and creating a world where you don't
> exist, if you aren't in the marketing databases of the megacons, where
> it's either conforming to the whims of faceless entities or you perish.
>
> Instead of clinging to rules that are difficult to believe (and using a
> double standard at the same time, as neither magic nor meta-races are
> likely to happen anytime soon, given that the Mayan calendar had to be
> corrected; or ask a stunt driver concerning the driving rules; or a gun
> expert on the weapons rules, or..), apply some frikken' common sense.
>

And yet people can and do spend hours arguing about the finer points of some little detail
in the magic rules. It's not about realism, it's about internal consistency.

> *No* research lab will use wireless as the main means of connecting its
> security systems, but it is useful to track patrols of security guards,
> or other monitoring tasks.
>

And yet, canon states otherwise. Yes, you can ignore canon, but if you do it too much
then you're not even playing the same game anymore.

> If you allow a decker to crack into a security system easily, even
> though you meant it to be difficult, scold yourself for not taking the
> decker's power level into account, instead of blaming the rules.
>

Yes and no. First of all, the rules do give guidelines for what level typical security
systems you should encounter. Of course, once again you are free to ignore those levels.
But even then, the rules simply are not flexible enough to encompass all possible
situations just by tweaking levels. The transition from trivially hackable to basically
impossible without spending edge is too quick.

> It's pointless to whine over rules, when it is in your power to either
> change them, or to use your brains. Rules never, ever can replace common
> sense and colorful descriptions of what actually happens.
>

See my first comment. Is desiring rules that follow common sense such a bad thing?

>
> Keep in mind, that rules first, and foremost, have to be usable and as
> unobtrusive to a game as possible, while still making it possible to
> make the game enjoyable to a wide range of people, who, God forbid,
> don't care how the wireless Matrix *should* work, if they don't even
> care that there are other OSes in the real world than just their
> pre-installed Office 2000 (I'm exaggerating here, but not by much).
>

I haven't said a word about the technical issues. What I'm talking about *is* the common
sense part.

>
> Really, think about it: You are able to accept ghosts, but your brain
> gets a deadlock when thinking about the wireless Matrix, that you can't
> perceive the possibility of engineers adapting the hardware for sale to
> their needs?
>

Brain gets a deadlock? Excuse me? I was the one who kicked off this whole discussion
with the statement, "it's really not worth worrying about". But, since I was
asked, I thought I would give my opinion. That is all.

For the record, when common sense conflicts with canon I will almost always pick common
sense. However, other GMs might do things differently, and if there are too many
instances of such conflicts then it starts to feel like you're playing different games.
All I am doing is pointing out what I perceive as flaws in the system. Responding,
"Sure that's a problem, but you can always change it," is irrelevant to the
discussion. I know I can change it. I do change it. So what? I could also forget about
Shadowrun and write my own system from scratch (as a matter of fact, I have been working
on a such a system on and off), but right now I'm talking about Shadowrun.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 13
From: jon.gilmour@*****.com (Jon Gilmour)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:25:37 -0400
I think comparing todays technology to tommorows fictional technology kinda
like comparing apples to flying goats.
Just look at the leap between 802.11g to 802.11n

802.11g:
Date Rate (Typ) - 24Mbps
Data Rate (Max) - 54 Mbps
Range (Indoor) - ~30 meters (~98 ft)

802.11n
Date Rate (Typ) - 200 Mbps
Data Rate (Max) - 540 Mbps
Range (Indoor) - ~50 meters (~165 ft)

802.11g was released in June of 2003, N is soon to be released (Possibly Oct
2008), but equipment is allready avaible on the market. I could certainly
see the state of wireless technology being where Shadowrun puts it in
another 62 years. But they also thought we would have flying cars 30 years
ago, and my fat ass is still landbound.

So to me saying that the tech in the game doesn't make sense by todays
standards, I would agree. but we are not playing a game based on todays
technology.

Just my .02
Message no. 14
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:20:24 +0200
According to Jon Gilmour, on 18-4-07 15:25 the word on the street was...

> So to me saying that the tech in the game doesn't make sense by todays
> standards, I would agree. but we are not playing a game based on todays
> technology.

I think the main problem most people who complain have with the tech, is
that it simply doesn't make sense to them -- not because it doesn't fit
with RL tech, but because it leaves great big gaping holes to exploit
that no sensible designer _would_ leave. The wireless-controlled
cyberarms are a good example, IMHO: there's no reason to make them with
this feature, and every reason to disable it if you buy such an arm.

It reminds me of something I read a while ago: someone in the EU had the
idea to embed RFID tags in euro banknotes, which would be handy for all
sorts of applications (counting large quantities of money, for example).
However, this would also mean that any criminal with an RFID scanner
would know exactly who to hit over the head ...

And think of it like a manufacturer: if market research shows that
every customer disables the wireless tech, why would you keep making
them like that, if you can save money by not including the wireless
stuff in the first place? (There's a footnote in a Discworld novel about
autocondimentors that would apply here :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wij komen van Ertvelde.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Ritter)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:40:01 -0400
On 4/18/07, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> with RL tech, but because it leaves great big gaping holes to exploit
> that no sensible designer _would_ leave.

I've already made my argument about how I think the book emphasizes
poorly, but the argument that the needs of the normal person (and the
fears of the normal person) aren't the same as a runner.

> The wireless-controlled
> cyberarms are a good example, IMHO: there's no reason to make them with
> this feature, and every reason to disable it if you buy such an arm.

What if it was a wireless status-check that had to have access to
certain minor movement commands. A hacker is able to tell it to do
things that it isn't intended to. But it's a reasonable feature - it
has a security layer!

Recall the discussions of alignments and adjustments from
Cybertechnology (I think). A feature like this would be a major
convenience in the life of someone with cyber. While at home your
pre-authorized adjustment program can run on your commlink while you
have aa chat with someone. 10 minutes later, all necessary
adjustments have been made with no effort on your part.

Not trying to get caught up in the example, just pointing out that the
attitude "that feature makes NO sense! Any hacker would have a field
day!" isn't the right approach. Figure out what "convenience"
features could be offered, and there you go. Security will always
take a back seat to sellable convenience features. What security
exists will often be for show than for real, because show security
sells better.

If that weren't true, we wouldn't have unencrypted linksys access
points that all have SSID linksys and password "admin". We wouldn't
have to toss all but minor amounts of liquid to get on a plane. We
wouldn't have the entire concept of "checks" as acceptable payment.

I can go on and on, but approaching these concepts from a runner's
point of view is a wrong-headed approach. Heck, having a world that
is highly vulnerable to abuse is half the fun. The Bad Boys don't
(usually) play with such weak toys, but the average man on the street
does.

(Side note: I had an office locked with keypad in one of my
adventures, modeled off of my workplace. The runners broke through
the plaster drywall to enter the office, which I allowed because it
would absolutely work at that self-same workplace. Oops)

> And think of it like a manufacturer: if market research shows that
> every customer disables the wireless tech, why would you keep making
> them like that,

Because most customers don't disable them and the convenience features
sells a few more models.

--
Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 16
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:42:22 +0200
Gurth wrote:
> According to Jon Gilmour, on 18-4-07 15:25 the word on the street was...
>
> I think the main problem most people who complain have with the tech, is
> that it simply doesn't make sense to them -- not because it doesn't fit
> with RL tech, but because it leaves great big gaping holes to exploit
> that no sensible designer _would_ leave. The wireless-controlled
> cyberarms are a good example, IMHO: there's no reason to make them with
> this feature, and every reason to disable it if you buy such an arm.

And some problems still remain (there is a shortage on efficient
frequencies that you can use to transfer data reasonably fast, for
example, and it would require a lot of processing power to compress data
on the fly, to achieve a hight throughput, but I see that as a given in SR).


> And think of it like a manufacturer: if market research shows that
> every customer disables the wireless tech, why would you keep making
> them like that, if you can save money by not including the wireless
> stuff in the first place? (There's a footnote in a Discworld novel about
> autocondimentors that would apply here :)

Would be nice if it were that easy. Corporations are slow moving, even
nowadays (take a look at how long it takes MS to announce and release
software, or how it took them to recognize that there was a community
around Visual Studio Express, and they provided Coding4Fun). Add to
that, that there's always infighting to defend one departments turf over
another (Nokia with the business and / consumer divisions for example),
and the possibility that some high standing manager says "I want
Wireless in our cyberarms! No matter what!", you can still have hardware
in the SR markets, that suffers from featuritis (or is bloatware out of
the box. that's not limited to software alone. Bad design is the
standard, not the exception..).

Multiply all of the above with a megacon, and you have the product
listings in the SR rulebook.

(And we all know that the suits in a megacon love to throw dirt at each
other!)


--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #7:

Release early, release often. Clean compilation is optional.
Message no. 17
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:50:41 -0500
> Multiply all of the above with a megacon, and you have the product
> listings in the SR rulebook.
>
Just think of every product released in SR as being released by Micro$oft
and it'll all make sense. "hey, we're going to put all the pretty things in
this so that it'll appeal to more people and they'll buy them. (we won't
tell them that there are MASSIVE security holes that we'll be releasing
software updates and patches for the next 10 years for it and it still won't
be good enough that we couldn't make more, we'll just quit making them) yay
for "ourproduct" buy it now!"
Message no. 18
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:54:21 +0200
According to Brett Ritter, on 18-4-07 16:40 the word on the street was...

> What if it was a wireless status-check that had to have access to
> certain minor movement commands. A hacker is able to tell it to do
> things that it isn't intended to. But it's a reasonable feature - it
> has a security layer!

That, though, isn't the image I get from SR4 material :)

> Security will always
> take a back seat to sellable convenience features. What security
> exists will often be for show than for real, because show security
> sells better.

As proved by Windows Vista ;)

> We
> wouldn't have the entire concept of "checks" as acceptable payment.

I thought we don't ... Oh, wait, you're an American ;P

> I can go on and on, but approaching these concepts from a runner's
> point of view is a wrong-headed approach.

It depends, IMHO. You have to look at it from several directions,
including "Is this written like this because that lets shadowrunners
exploit it?" the SR1/2/3 Matrix is an excellent example of that: the
whole thing is set up as something for decker PCs to do, rather than as
something that might plausibly be created for real work, and that
happens to also have features for a decker to exploit.

> (Side note: I had an office locked with keypad in one of my
> adventures, modeled off of my workplace. The runners broke through
> the plaster drywall to enter the office, which I allowed because it
> would absolutely work at that self-same workplace. Oops)

That's just thinking outside the box, and coming up with a reasonably
clever solution to the problem. The keypad would work against most
people because they either won't think of breaking the wall, or because
they don't want to leave a trace and so don't want to break through the
wall.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wij komen van Ertvelde.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 19
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:51:43 -0400
On 4/18/07, Jon Gilmour <jon.gilmour@*****.com> wrote:
>
> I think comparing todays technology to tommorows fictional technology
> kinda
> like comparing apples to flying goats.
> Just look at the leap between 802.11g to 802.11n
>
> 802.11g:
> Date Rate (Typ) - 24Mbps
> Data Rate (Max) - 54 Mbps
> Range (Indoor) - ~30 meters (~98 ft)
>
> 802.11n
> Date Rate (Typ) - 200 Mbps
> Data Rate (Max) - 540 Mbps
> Range (Indoor) - ~50 meters (~165 ft)
>
> 802.11g was released in June of 2003, N is soon to be released (Possibly
> Oct
> 2008), but equipment is allready avaible on the market. I could certainly
> see the state of wireless technology being where Shadowrun puts it in
> another 62 years. But they also thought we would have flying cars 30 years
> ago, and my fat ass is still landbound.
>
> So to me saying that the tech in the game doesn't make sense by todays
> standards, I would agree. but we are not playing a game based on todays
> technology.
>
> Just my .02
>

The 802 standard would not be able to keep up for 60 years. All they are
doing is increasing the Megahertz of the frequency (more waves = more
bandwidth). The problem is that the higher the Mhz the more interference
and the shorter (relative) range. The only way the new 802.11n got more
range was due to the watt increase.

Think of it like this, there are low Mhz (Bass tunes) and High Mhz (Tiny
Bells). When your next door neighbor has his stereo loud what do you hear
most? The high frequencies or does your walls shake with the drums and
bass? ( I guess it depends on your neighbor :P )

Low frequencies travel better with less interference and for longer
distances. (In many cases that is why older model wireless phones work
better then the 'newest' ones. Especially in large houses with thick walls)

==
This is where I stand, not that I am trying to convince anyone...

Statement :"Satellite matrix technology can not exist without
Faster-Then-Light data transfer."

Proof: Geostationary Satellites are around 20,000 miles above the earth,
which means that light must go 20,000 miles up and then 20,000 miles down
(40,000 miles) to get back to Earth.

Even at the speed of light, that takes 0.215 seconds (40,000 miles / 186,000
Miles/Second), or over 2 tenths of a second lag time. For Matrix actions
where "combat happens in nanoseconds" there is no way to have that sort of
delay without the Matrix seeming like running through mud.
Message no. 20
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:05:09 -0700
On 4/18/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> This is where I stand, not that I am trying to convince anyone...
>
> Statement :"Satellite matrix technology can not exist without
> Faster-Then-Light data transfer."
>
> Proof: Geostationary Satellites are around 20,000 miles above the earth,
> which means that light must go 20,000 miles up and then 20,000 miles down
> (40,000 miles) to get back to Earth.

I hate to nitpick what's threatening to become the SR equivalent of a
discussion about the scientific accuracy of warp speed, but there's an
unnecessary assumption in there that a satellite has to be
geosynchronous.

Mark
Message no. 21
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:24:06 +0200
On 4/19/07, Mark <toast.in.the.machine@*****.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I hate to nitpick what's threatening to become the SR equivalent of a
> discussion about the scientific accuracy of warp speed, but there's an
> unnecessary assumption in there that a satellite has to be
> geosynchronous.
>
> Mark
>

Not to mention the assumption that such communication has to be via
satellite...

Even today, most international data is via transoceanic cable - cheaper,
higher capacity and lower latency. You're still limited by the speed of
light, but a 10000km cable is still a tenth of the round-trip distance to
even the lowest, shortest-lived satellites.
Message no. 22
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:25:50 -0400
Mark Wrote:

> > I hate to nitpick what's threatening to become the SR equivalent of a
> > discussion about the scientific accuracy of warp speed, but there's an
> > unnecessary assumption in there that a satellite has to be
> > geosynchronous.
> >
> > Mark


True, but even a LEO Satellite would have at least a .001 second delay. In
the Nanosecond world of the Matrix that may be enough to break the whole
damn thing.

Allen Wrote:
Not to mention the assumption that such communication has to be via

> satellite...
>
> Even today, most international data is via transoceanic cable - cheaper,
> higher capacity and lower latency. You're still limited by the speed of
> light, but a 10000km cable is still a tenth of the round-trip distance to
> even the lowest, shortest-lived satellites.
>

Allen are you being argumentative just to be spiteful? Satellite Matrix has
been in the books since version 1, and I am just proving a point that it has
'law of nature' flaws. Also, 10000km cable = 600 miles? (.003 seconds)
second delay at the speed of light. Again, this kind of 'law of nature'
delay is what i feel a real problem vs. Matrix reality.

If you can still believe in this then cool.. enjoy. What I was discussing
was my own feelings and how I got there.

Its threads like this that make me realize why I never post on these
discussions. Nobody ever reads them with 'best intentions' in mind.

All I was trying to prove was that the books have several technologies that
seem to go against laws of nature (Speed of light, etc.). These are not
issues that can be explained away with ("well its 60 years+ in the
future") if the matrix is working "Faster then Light" then that should
have
been stated somewhere in the history / (pseudo) technology sections.

That is why I feel I have to "house rule" many things, just to regain that
sense of realism.
Message no. 23
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:49:55 +0200
According to Mightyflapjack, on 19-4-07 13:25 the word on the street was...

> 10000km cable = 600 miles?

±6000 miles.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wij komen van Ertvelde.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 24
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:29:44 -0300
On 4/19/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> Mark Wrote:
> True, but even a LEO Satellite would have at least a .001 second delay. In
> the Nanosecond world of the Matrix that may be enough to break the whole
> damn thing.

Thing is, /today's/ computers and networks are already a "nanosecond
world". And they're perfectly usable.

Really, matters of latency and bandwidth should be glossed over in
play exactly to avoid this sort of discussion.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 25
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:00:46 -0500
On Thursday 19 April 2007, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote about 'Re:
Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)':
> On 4/19/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> > Mark Wrote:
> > True, but even a LEO Satellite would have at least a .001 second
> > delay. In the Nanosecond world of the Matrix that may be enough to
> > break the whole damn thing.
>
> Thing is, /today's/ computers and networks are already a "nanosecond
> world". And they're perfectly usable.

As someone that regularly performs system administration over WANs using
telnet (ugh) and ssh, I beg to differ. Latency is on the order of 100ms,
more if you have to go trans-oceanic or over a satellite link (ugh,
again).

For large transfers this usually isn't a big deal, since you may be able to
send many, many, packets before you hear your first ACK (or equivalent),
if need be. For interactive applications this can be very bad. (You
probably won't see MMORPG players from the U of Mars on your terran
servers unless we find that FTL communication is possible.)

> Really, matters of latency and bandwidth should be glossed over in
> play exactly to avoid this sort of discussion.

To a large extent, I agree. But, some hacker or technomage intentionally
trying to obscure their datatrail by going through multiple hosts should
be both a benefit (harder to trace and analyze forensically) and penalty
(e.g. to initiative).

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 26
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Thing is, /today's/ computers and networks are already a
> "nanosecond world". And they're perfectly usable.

I seriously doubt we have nanosecond networks (1 x 10^-9 or
.000000001 seconds). I assume the fastest Matrix hosts perform at
microsecond speeds (1 x 10^-6 or .000001 seconds), and that traffic
on the grids slows to millisecond (1 x 10^-3, .001 seconds, modern
day) speeds.

What I further assume is that packet size is larger. Much larger.
It is not the speed at which data travels, but the volume of
information traveling at those speeds, that makes SR networking
superior. Think of a water pipe... at the same flow rate, a larger
cross section means more water is getting from point A to B in the
same amount of time.

I also don't get so bogged down in the details when running a game.
Making the rules internally consistent is much more important than
making them externally consistent (about an 80-20 proportion, IMO).

======Korishinzo
--Headline: Decker Fragmented! - Accidentally Bit Torrents Self

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 27
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:45:15 -0600
On 4/19/07, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> > Mark Wrote:
> > True, but even a LEO Satellite would have at least a .001 second delay. In
> > the Nanosecond world of the Matrix that may be enough to break the whole
> > damn thing.
>
> Thing is, /today's/ computers and networks are already a "nanosecond
> world". And they're perfectly usable.

But today's world doesn't use virtual reality to interact with basic
applications. International lag is barely noticable when surfing the
net with your browser. But it would be noticable if you were wearing
trodes and pumping massive amounts of data (because the amount of data
gathered on anything is just going to keep increasing) via local
wireless connections and international satelites.

--
-Graht
Message no. 28
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:48:06 -0600
On 4/19/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> Mark Wrote:
>
> Its threads like this that make me realize why I never post on these
> discussions. Nobody ever reads them with 'best intentions' in mind.

Except for those of us who did and didn't reply to your post because
we knew what you meant and didn't want to argue for the sake of
argueing.

;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 29
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:36:07 +0200
On 4/19/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Wrote:
>
> > > I hate to nitpick what's threatening to become the SR equivalent of a
> > > discussion about the scientific accuracy of warp speed, but there's an
> > > unnecessary assumption in there that a satellite has to be
> > > geosynchronous.
> > >
> > > Mark
>
>
> True, but even a LEO Satellite would have at least a .001 second
> delay. In
> the Nanosecond world of the Matrix that may be enough to break the whole
> damn thing.
>
> Allen Wrote:
> Not to mention the assumption that such communication has to be via
>
> > satellite...
> >
> > Even today, most international data is via transoceanic cable - cheaper,
> > higher capacity and lower latency. You're still limited by the speed of
> > light, but a 10000km cable is still a tenth of the round-trip distance
> to
> > even the lowest, shortest-lived satellites.
> >
>
> Allen are you being argumentative just to be spiteful? Satellite Matrix
> has
> been in the books since version 1, and I am just proving a point that it
> has
> 'law of nature' flaws. Also, 10000km cable = 600 miles? (.003 seconds)
> second delay at the speed of light. Again, this kind of 'law of nature'
> delay is what i feel a real problem vs. Matrix reality.


Um. No, not really. I just enjoy a good technical debate. I would've
thrown in smileys but there weren't any jokes :)
Anyway, IW as responding to Mark, not you.

If I had a point, it would be exactly what you're trying to say - hardly any
of the rules make any sense in the real world. Doesn't stop us from playing
and enjoying the game, though.
Message no. 30
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:24:16 -0400
Thanks for the support Graht.

No worries Allen. Sounds like we agree. You just 'shrug' at things that
don't make sense, I just try and 'house rule' fix them.

Gurth you are correct 6000 miles, I dropped a zero (Sorry, botched the math
roll). Still it makes my point even better with a longer delay (0.03second)

For me, part of the fun of Gamemastering is getting into the system and the
world to try and feel what it would be like in that place. I have even
written "Daily Life" stuff like how would their "washing machine" be
different. How does an Auto-Chef work? What 'black market' services would
be available (anonymous package delivery (using drones), encrypted phone
services (Voice Mail, Call Forwarding,etc.), etc.

I guess this all started when Mark said that "Wireless Matrix" was less
impossible then other shadowrun technologies. I will agree that this is a
matter of opinion. All I was doing was giving my own opinion on Wireless
Matrix.

As to what is the hardest Shadowrun thing to believe? Hmm.. I would have to
say "Nacho Cheese Nerps" No way there is a market for those! =)
Message no. 31
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:25:32 +0200
On 4/20/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the support Graht.
>
> No worries Allen. Sounds like we agree. You just 'shrug' at things that
> don't make sense, I just try and 'house rule' fix them.
>
> Gurth you are correct 6000 miles, I dropped a zero (Sorry, botched the
> math
> roll). Still it makes my point even better with a longer delay (
> 0.03second)
>
> For me, part of the fun of Gamemastering is getting into the system and
> the
> world to try and feel what it would be like in that place. I have even
> written "Daily Life" stuff like how would their "washing machine"
be
> different. How does an Auto-Chef work? What 'black market' services
> would
> be available (anonymous package delivery (using drones), encrypted phone
> services (Voice Mail, Call Forwarding,etc.), etc.
>
> I guess this all started when Mark said that "Wireless Matrix" was less
> impossible then other shadowrun technologies. I will agree that this is a
> matter of opinion. All I was doing was giving my own opinion on Wireless
> Matrix.
>
> As to what is the hardest Shadowrun thing to believe? Hmm.. I would have
> to
> say "Nacho Cheese Nerps" No way there is a market for those! =)
>

It's easy to shrug it away, if you've already accepted a future world full
of orcs and trolls *grin*
Message no. 32
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:54:55 -0600
On 4/19/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Gurth you are correct 6000 miles, I dropped a zero (Sorry, botched the math
> roll). Still it makes my point even better with a longer delay (0.03second)

Actually, 12,000 miles. The user says, "I want to do this," and that
message travels 6,000 miles. The server says, "I react by doing
this," and that message travels 6,000 miles back to the user. Now
we're up to .06 second :) There's a very good reason that the popular
MMO games set up European and Asian servers for players in those
countries...

...which might solve part of the wireless lag problem. Companies
could set up mirror servers for their customers around the world.
Let's face it, computer power and memory is relatively cheap in SR.
The mirror servers would periodically update eachother and lag
wouldn't be an issue for that.

--
-Graht
Message no. 33
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
> Actually, 12,000 miles. The user says, "I want to do this," and
> that
> message travels 6,000 miles. The server says, "I react by doing
> this," and that message travels 6,000 miles back to the user. Now
> we're up to .06 second :) There's a very good reason that the
> popular
> MMO games set up European and Asian servers for players in those
> countries...

TCP/IP is a triple handshake process before anything actually
happens. Now we getting into the 180 ms range.

Imagine coping with 180ms delays when facing Black IC residing on the
host, enjoying those sexy "<1 ms" ping times.

*evil grin*

======Korishinzo
--Ran chkdsk on my brain, lot of corrupted sectors, some in the
MBR... maybe that is why I have such a hard time getting started in
the morning

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 34
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:20:33 -0300
On 4/20/07, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> Imagine coping with 180ms delays when facing Black IC residing on the
> host, enjoying those sexy "<1 ms" ping times.

It's still 180ms before it gets to you, tough.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 35
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:45:26 +0200
Ice Heart wrote:

> TCP/IP is a triple handshake process before anything actually
> happens. Now we getting into the 180 ms range.

Which implies, that TCP/IP is used. Given, that even today we have a
trend in (as of now) academic-technical circles to "rebuild" the
Internet infrastructure with today's technology (and the Internet tech
is 40+ years old, too), I can fathom speed increases.

Not to mention, that the Matrix doesn't *have* to be a "nanosecond"
world, as it can be easily perceived as such (DNI could seem that fast,
since our perception of time is somewhat bogus, with "seconds flying by"
and "creeping along" at the same time).

> Imagine coping with 180ms delays when facing Black IC residing on the
> host, enjoying those sexy "<1 ms" ping times.

While the black ICE has to request processing time. Ping isn't the end
all, be all of "reaction time" for computer software.

Other stuff matters, too:
* Language and compiler used
* Hardware (CPU, RAM, IO speeds)
* Other services running on the host (and security in SR isn't limited
to the entry point, so there's already a conflict of interest)
* Priority of above services
* OS of the host, and it's capabilities (there's a difference between MS
Windows and real-time OSes, and there's no reason to suspect that these
distinctions aren't relevant anymore)


And all of this, can be handled by SRs initiative.


Not to mention, that most people aren't tech-savvy, or gun-nuts, or
hermetic/shamanistic/theurgic mages, or Shaolin Monk Ki-Adepts, but are
still able to enjoy the game.

In all these "debates" I've witnessed on this list, it's always the
#{@*****}-savvy, that have a problem with the realism of this particular
area. (And gun-nuts should never play Feng-Shui, nor should fencers play
7th Sea. :P)

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #34:

Every successful project will eventually spawn a sub-project
Message no. 36
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:14:59 -0600
On 4/20/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@**********.com> wrote:
>
> Not to mention, that most people aren't tech-savvy, or gun-nuts, or
> hermetic/shamanistic/theurgic mages, or Shaolin Monk Ki-Adepts, but are
> still able to enjoy the game.

<sigh> It's a cross we just have to bear ;)

However, the tech savy can come up with the following :)

What if we're looking at this completely wrong?

What if an operating system or hardware technology came out that
allowed and *encouraged* the creation of a distributed network. Just
about everything connected to the matrix not only allows access but it
becomes part of the matrix. There's only one OS and that OS *is* the
matrix, a virtual world made up of the component pieces of the
internet, interdependant and whole. Your files aren't saved on your
computer, they're saved on the matrix. And it's all good.

Until 2029 when a virus comes along that moves throught the matrix
like a fish through water. But it's defeated and the lessons learned
allow corporations to build constructs in the matrix to restrict
access to their data, and they make entities similar to the virus to
protect their data.

--
-Graht
Message no. 37
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Which implies, that TCP/IP is used. Given, that even today we have
> a trend in (as of now) academic-technical circles to "rebuild" the
> Internet infrastructure with today's technology (and the Internet
> tech is 40+ years old, too), I can fathom speed increases.

As can I.

> Not to mention, that the Matrix doesn't *have* to be a "nanosecond"
> world, as it can be easily perceived as such (DNI could seem that
> fast, since our perception of time is somewhat bogus, with "seconds
> flying by" and "creeping along" at the same time).

I am well aware.

> While the black ICE has to request processing time. Ping isn't the
> end all, be all of "reaction time" for computer software.
>
> Other stuff matters, too:
> * Language and compiler used
> * Hardware (CPU, RAM, IO speeds)
> * Other services running on the host (and security in SR isn't
> limited to the entry point, so there's already a conflict of
> interest)
> * Priority of above services
> * OS of the host, and it's capabilities (there's a difference
> between MS Windows and real-time OSes, and there's no reason to
> suspect that these distinctions aren't relevant anymore)

All things I am very well aware of.

> And all of this, can be handled by SRs initiative.

I agree.

> Not to mention, that most people aren't tech-savvy, or gun-nuts, or
> hermetic/shamanistic/theurgic mages, or Shaolin Monk Ki-Adepts, but
> are still able to enjoy the game.

What if a person were all of those? *grin*

> In all these "debates" I've witnessed on this list, it's always the
> #{@*****}-savvy, that have a problem with the realism of this
> particular area. (And gun-nuts should never play Feng-Shui, nor
> should fencers play 7th Sea. :P)

Perhaps I did not have enough smiley faces in my post to indicate
that I not actually weighing in seriously on the debate.

I have been running Shadowrun games since 1989. When a rule flat out
does not work, I "patch" it (house rule). Often, I try to paraphrase
the flavor text and descriptions to make more sense, without changing
any of the actual mechanics.

I might describe things in terms of packets, round trip times, and
file systems, but still use the dice/TN rules as written.

=======Korishinzo
--Insert smiley faces where appropriate

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 38
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:16:49 +0200
From: "Graht" <graht1@*****.com>
>
> However, the tech savy can come up with the following :)
>
> What if we're looking at this completely wrong?
>
> What if an operating system or hardware technology came out that
> allowed and *encouraged* the creation of a distributed network. Just
> about everything connected to the matrix not only allows access but it
> becomes part of the matrix. There's only one OS and that OS *is* the
> matrix, a virtual world made up of the component pieces of the
> internet, interdependant and whole. Your files aren't saved on your
> computer, they're saved on the matrix. And it's all good.

It's already there, it's called Amoeba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_distributed_operating_system

> Until 2029 when a virus comes along that moves throught the matrix
> like a fish through water. But it's defeated and the lessons learned
> allow corporations to build constructs in the matrix to restrict
> access to their data, and they make entities similar to the virus to
> protect their data.

I'll buy it, and my players will have to :-)

Lars
Message no. 39
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:30:33 +0200
Graht wrote:

> Until 2029 when a virus comes along that moves throught the matrix
> like a fish through water. But it's defeated and the lessons learned
> allow corporations to build constructs in the matrix to restrict
> access to their data, and they make entities similar to the virus to
> protect their data.

IIRC, several novels and supplements hinted, that something close to
that happened, and black ICE is, supposedly, a direct descendant of that
virus.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #6:

The user is always right unless proven otherwise by the developer.
Message no. 40
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:09:04 -0600
On 4/20/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@**********.com> wrote:
> Graht wrote:
>
> > Until 2029 when a virus comes along that moves throught the matrix
> > like a fish through water. But it's defeated and the lessons learned
> > allow corporations to build constructs in the matrix to restrict
> > access to their data, and they make entities similar to the virus to
> > protect their data.
>
> IIRC, several novels and supplements hinted, that something close to
> that happened, and black ICE is, supposedly, a direct descendant of that
> virus.

Yes, but the arguement against it has always been, "Why didn't they
restore data from backups?" Everyone's always assumed that data was
stored in central locations when the crash of 29 happened and those of
us who are tech savvy never bought it. But if it's decentralized then
data loss can happen easily. Well, not easily because
decentralization would also indicate redundancy but if the virus of 29
was native to the matrix then it could destroy all the data. And
decentralization also solves the lag/latency issue of the wireless
world of SR4, imho.

I'm just tossing it out there for people to use, or not :)

--
-Graht
Message no. 41
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Hi all,

Are there any physicists around who can explain to me
why entangled qubits are not a convenient carpet to
sweep this FTL discussion under?

cheers,

jj


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 42
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:35:10 -0500
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:56:01 Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:
> Are there any physicists around who can explain to me
> why entangled qubits are not a convenient carpet to
> sweep this FTL discussion under?

Because entangled particles still don't allow you to violate causality by
transmitting information faster than the speed of light.

Entangling particles is like putting a white ball and a black ball in two
identical, unmarked, opaque boxes then mixing up the boxes and sending one
of them to me. If I open my box and see a while ball, I'll know that no
matter when (or where) you open your box you'll get a black ball.

Of course, your ball has always been black, but you won't know it's black
until (a) you open your box or (b) I use standard STL communication to
tell you it's black. (Conversely, my ball was always white, even before I
opened it; just no one knew that.)

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 43
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:00:24 -0400
Seriously, we have Star Trek "Warp Drive", we have "Star Wars"
Hyperspace...
We have a lot of sci-fi references to 'faster-then-light' so I don't see the
problem for using it with Matrix transmissions and FTL computers.
(especially for 'data' and not people or things).

As long as I can house rule that "matrix transmissions are FTL" it all makes
sense to me.





On 4/24/07, Da Twink Daddy <DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:56:01 Jan Jaap van Poelgeest wrote:
> > Are there any physicists around who can explain to me
> > why entangled qubits are not a convenient carpet to
> > sweep this FTL discussion under?
>
> Because entangled particles still don't allow you to violate causality by
> transmitting information faster than the speed of light.
>
> Entangling particles is like putting a white ball and a black ball in two
> identical, unmarked, opaque boxes then mixing up the boxes and sending one
> of them to me. If I open my box and see a while ball, I'll know that no
> matter when (or where) you open your box you'll get a black ball.
>
> Of course, your ball has always been black, but you won't know it's black
> until (a) you open your box or (b) I use standard STL communication to
> tell you it's black. (Conversely, my ball was always white, even before I
> opened it; just no one knew that.)
>
> --
> Da Twink Daddy
> DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
> ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
>



--
Feel Free to Encrypt your replies to me, my public PGP:
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=paldoreq%40yahoo.com
Message no. 44
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
> As long as I can house rule that "matrix transmissions are FTL" it
> all makes sense to me.

For most of its existence, SR computing has been described as
entirely optical. I could be wrong, but I thought light did not
travel faster than itself.

Then again, I can't think of any reason that FTL networking is
needed, so I'm not sure why we are arguing it. In anything like a
common-sense universe, wireless networking will happen at the speed
of radio waves in air. The problem in the descriptions for SR
wireless lies with signal bandwidth more than signal speed. There is
a limit to how much data a given radio spectrum can transmit at once.

Instead of hand-waving that computers are suddenly capable of
relativistic stunts where your packets are parsed before you send
them, why not the much simpler hand-waving to say that the book is
explaining how fast it "seems" to the user, and that the signal is
really only moving as fast as radio waves in air or light in fiber?
Then the only pseudo-tech you need is the technology to put insanely
large amounts of data through the available bandwidth. And that
particular pseudo-tech has been around since Shadowrun's inception,
in the abstraction of "megapulses".

I find it amusing that when someone raises a realistic objection to
Shadowrun's wireless matrix on the grounds of physical laws, that the
most vocal defense is "faster-than-light" data transmission. That is
like committing a crime, then mounting the defense that you would be
innocent if everyone pretended that law didn't exist.

Prosecution: "Shadowrun computing displays a fundamental ignorance of
physical constraints such as the absolute speed of radio waves in
air, and the maximum amount of information that can be conveyed at a
given frequency."

Defense: "Not if you ignore physics!"

Prosecution: "..."

Judge: "Alright then... henceforth, data shall be teleported. And
gravity is only allowed on Saturdays. Court adjourned."

======Korishinzo
--I sent you relativistic email tomorrow... it should arrive at your
inbox yesterday.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 45
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:37:52 +0200
On Apr 24, 2007, at 15:20 , Ice Heart wrote:

>> As long as I can house rule that "matrix transmissions are FTL" it
>> all makes sense to me.
>

No need for FTL. Just make transmissions from one site to another
occupy a 100 THz wide frequency centered at 500 THz. You can
transmit tons of data really quickly. What presents itself as a
problem is when you are far from the server and its ICE is beating on
you. You should be penalized for that because you cannot react as
quickly because signals need to pass from the server to you and back
to the server again. Playing WoW from Europe on a US server adds a
little spice to the game. :-)

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 46
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Ritter)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:26:28 -0400
On 4/24/07, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
> transmit tons of data really quickly. What presents itself as a
> problem is when you are far from the server and its ICE is beating on
> you.

If the ICE is beating on you, it's beating on your commlink or your
brain, so it has the same lag you do.

Lag would only affect you if:

1) Your connection/account on their system is under attack
or
2) Their own files/system status are being affected.

Both of which I can fudge without any real worry aobut being able to
sleep that night :)

--
Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
US2003011110
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 47
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:43:16 -0600
On 4/24/07, Brett Ritter <swiftone@********.org> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
> > transmit tons of data really quickly. What presents itself as a
> > problem is when you are far from the server and its ICE is beating on
> > you.
>
> If the ICE is beating on you, it's beating on your commlink or your
> brain, so it has the same lag you do.
>
> Lag would only affect you if:
>
> 1) Your connection/account on their system is under attack
> or
> 2) Their own files/system status are being affected.
>
> Both of which I can fudge without any real worry aobut being able to
> sleep that night :)

Or if a tracer program is looking for you and your tracking it.

"Heh, it's 5 seconds away from finding me, plenty of time." (snicker)

One second later: (Ding!) I found youuuuuuu.

"Wtf! F'ing lag!"

Here's another problem I have: it's radio waves. They aren't
directional and go everywhere. All you need is a reciever to listen
in on a file transmission. Run the data through your own dedicated
server farm to decrypt and analyze it and you know just about
everything you want to know.

And then there's the cable network crash which just doesn't make
sense. No one is going to just throw away that kind of
infrastructure. I don't mind a mix of wireless and cables, but 100%
wireless just doesn't fly. A little solar activity would shut down
the entire matrix.

--
-Graht
Message no. 48
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:45:54 +0200
On Apr 24, 2007, at 17:26 , Brett Ritter wrote:

> On 4/24/07, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>> transmit tons of data really quickly. What presents itself as a
>> problem is when you are far from the server and its ICE is beating on
>> you.
>
> If the ICE is beating on you, it's beating on your commlink or your
> brain, so it has the same lag you do.
>

Not really. When in the matrix you have a presence on their server
as well as on your system. The ICE attacks your presence on their
system and that attack will not be recorded by you (including black
ICE effects, etc.) until the data arrives at your system. If, for
example, a system slows the communication from their server to your
system so you do not realize what is happening, it could do a trace
through another channel.

What drove me crazy was the concept of a one-way SAN. Technically
there is no way a decker could follow it because there is no way to
return the signal back to the deck through that SAN. One could
always make up something about the signal finding another path back
to the deck, but in reality that path would have to be found out and
that cannot be done by the decker since they have lost their avatar
down a one-way SAN.

> Lag would only affect you if:
>
> 1) Your connection/account on their system is under attack
> or
> 2) Their own files/system status are being affected.
>
> Both of which I can fudge without any real worry aobut being able to
> sleep that night :)
>

All the matrix is fudged, and needs to be otherwise it would not
work in any semblance to reality.

> --
> Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
> US2003011110
> swiftone@********.org

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 49
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:52:23 +0200
On Apr 24, 2007, at 17:43 , Graht wrote:

> On 4/24/07, Brett Ritter <swiftone@********.org> wrote:
>> On 4/24/07, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>> > transmit tons of data really quickly. What presents itself as a
>> > problem is when you are far from the server and its ICE is
>> beating on
>> > you.
>>
>> If the ICE is beating on you, it's beating on your commlink or your
>> brain, so it has the same lag you do.
>>
>> Lag would only affect you if:
>>
>> 1) Your connection/account on their system is under attack
>> or
>> 2) Their own files/system status are being affected.
>>
>> Both of which I can fudge without any real worry aobut being able to
>> sleep that night :)
>
> Or if a tracer program is looking for you and your tracking it.
>
> "Heh, it's 5 seconds away from finding me, plenty of time." (snicker)
>
> One second later: (Ding!) I found youuuuuuu.
>
> "Wtf! F'ing lag!"
>
> Here's another problem I have: it's radio waves. They aren't
> directional and go everywhere. All you need is a reciever to listen
> in on a file transmission. Run the data through your own dedicated
> server farm to decrypt and analyze it and you know just about
> everything you want to know.

Yes, anyone interested in security is going to run their data over
hardware that cannot be accessed by the enemy.

Especially with the way decryption in SR works.

>
> And then there's the cable network crash which just doesn't make
> sense. No one is going to just throw away that kind of
> infrastructure. I don't mind a mix of wireless and cables, but 100%
> wireless just doesn't fly. A little solar activity would shut down
> the entire matrix.
>
Just imagine the scene....pan through the wall of a run down
apartment building into a dark, squalid apartment where three people
are huddled around a deck. The central figure is deftly moving
towards the corporate target as is evident from the flashing images
seen by the other two on the deck's external monitor. The guy on the
right gets up and moves towards what was once a kitchen saying he has
the munchies. Thirty seconds later the decker screams out "Frack!
Shut the g*d*amn microwave off, you're trashing my connection!" :-)

> --
> -Graht

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison
Message no. 50
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:56:48 -0300
On 4/24/07, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> I find it amusing that when someone raises a realistic objection to
> Shadowrun's wireless matrix on the grounds of physical laws, that the
> most vocal defense is "faster-than-light" data transmission.

My take on it is simply "this stuff is abstracted away because you're
not supposed to lose sleep over it". Any fixes to make it more
realistic, for those who really think they're necessary, should be
similarly abstract.

Want to take lag into account? Just say "lag is real bad today, take a
penalty to your tests", rather than worrying about ping response times
and the cluttering of radio frequencies.

Want more realistic, slower bandwidth? Assign generic adjectives to
each file (from "Tiny" to "Fraggin' Huge"), each with a corresponding
random download time (from "Effectively Instant" to "4d6 Turns" or
whatever).

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 51
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:01:48 -0600
On 4/24/07, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> > I find it amusing that when someone raises a realistic objection to
> > Shadowrun's wireless matrix on the grounds of physical laws, that the
> > most vocal defense is "faster-than-light" data transmission.
>
> My take on it is simply "this stuff is abstracted away because you're
> not supposed to lose sleep over it". Any fixes to make it more
> realistic, for those who really think they're necessary, should be
> similarly abstract.
>
> Want to take lag into account? Just say "lag is real bad today, take a
> penalty to your tests", rather than worrying about ping response times
> and the cluttering of radio frequencies.
>
> Want more realistic, slower bandwidth? Assign generic adjectives to
> each file (from "Tiny" to "Fraggin' Huge"), each with a
corresponding
> random download time (from "Effectively Instant" to "4d6 Turns"
or
> whatever).

During gametime yes, come up with a rule and move on. Buta that
doesn't mean we can't try to fix it/make it better when we're not
gaming ;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 52
From: mattness@**.pl (MATT)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:08:56 +0200
Da Twink Daddy <DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com> wrote:

>Because entangled particles still don't allow you to violate causality >by
transmitting information faster than the speed of light.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050821225731.htm

In My honest opinion Mightyflapjack put it very right :)

Cheers

MATT mattness@**.pl http://shadowrun.rpg.pl
Message no. 53
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
> Da Twink Daddy <DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Because entangled particles still don't allow you
> to violate causality >by transmitting information
> faster than the speed of light.

Why would causality have anything to do with reality?
While I have to admire your clearly-put commonsensical
exposé, it should be noted that in QM there is
considerable debate regarding what the hell goes on
between entangled particles. The jury is still out on
this one, at least in my (admittedly limited)
understanding of the matter.

--- MATT <mattness@**.pl> wrote:

> [snip link]

This article (and other ones like it) are a godsend
for grounding the mainstay of the SR3 wired matrix,
but as the whole shebang hath gone wireless and is
therefore not so optical in nature, it will require a
bit more inventivity to deal with this pickle.

> In My honest opinion Mightyflapjack put it very
> right :)

I can accept his position, but as Shadowrun is
supposed to be set in a world originating from the
everyday reality we all know and love/hate/are
indifferent to, I would argue that there is a certain
necessity for in-game matters of a physical nature to
be explicable in terms we know we can currently
understand. Barring that, some bogus science (as per
Star Trek) would be a welcome addition to clarify the
greater context of the Shadowrun cosmos.

cheers,

jj

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 54
From: the.moles.revenge@**********.com (Geoff Brown)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:42:09 +0100
Ice Heart wrote:
> Then the only pseudo-tech you need is the technology to put insanely
> large amounts of data through the available bandwidth.
>
System Failure, p118

"The edge of wireless simsense over older networks is that your actions
are no longer restricted to bandwidth."
Message no. 55
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
> Ice Heart wrote:
> > Then the only pseudo-tech you need is the technology to put
> insanely
> > large amounts of data through the available bandwidth.

> System Failure, p118
> "The edge of wireless simsense over older networks is that your
> actions
> are no longer restricted to bandwidth."

Oh... wow...

I guess I missed that quote when I was searching for something to
like about SR4...

I take it all back: Wireless Matrix is pure drek, and 4th Ed. sucks
major troglodyte hoop.

======Korishinzo
--Oh wait, I already felt this way... ;)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 56
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:11:44 -0700
According to Ice Heart on 4/25/07 10:00 AM, word on the street was:

> Wireless Matrix is pure drek, and 4th Ed. sucks
> major troglodyte hoop.

...amen
Message no. 57
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:23:11 +0200
From: "Ice Heart" <korishinzo@*****.com>
>> Ice Heart wrote:
>> > Then the only pseudo-tech you need is the technology to put
>> insanely
>> > large amounts of data through the available bandwidth.
>
>> System Failure, p118
>> "The edge of wireless simsense over older networks is that your
>> actions
>> are no longer restricted to bandwidth."
>
> Oh... wow...
>
> I guess I missed that quote when I was searching for something to
> like about SR4...
>
> I take it all back: Wireless Matrix is pure drek, and 4th Ed. sucks
> major troglodyte hoop.

System Failure was a SR3 sourcebook!

Lars
Message no. 58
From: the.moles.revenge@**********.com (Geoff Brown)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:15:43 +0100
Ice Heart wrote:
>> Ice Heart wrote:
>>
>>> Then the only pseudo-tech you need is the technology to put
>>>
>> insanely
>>
>>> large amounts of data through the available bandwidth.
>>>
>
>
>> System Failure, p118
>> "The edge of wireless simsense over older networks is that your
>> actions
>> are no longer restricted to bandwidth."
>>
>
> Oh... wow...
>
> I guess I missed that quote when I was searching for something to
> like about SR4...
>
> I take it all back: Wireless Matrix is pure drek, and 4th Ed. sucks
> major troglodyte hoop.
>
> ======> Korishinzo
> --Oh wait, I already felt this way... ;)

Now if someone can help me find the page ref in the SR2/SR3 book that
said wireless matrix access was impossible because you couldn't get
enough bandwidth on a wireless link I would be most appreciative...

And Kori, I think you were a little hard on the Troglodytes there!

P.S. If anyone is unsure of where I stand on SR4, I consider it the
biggest waste of money of the year....
Message no. 59
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Now if someone can help me find the page ref in the SR2/SR3 book
> that said wireless matrix access was impossible because you
couldn't > get enough bandwidth on a wireless link I would be most
> appreciative...

Wireless Matrix /was/ possible in SR3... and SR2 (VR 2.0)... but it
suffered pretty significant delays (large drops in I/O speed and an
Initiative penalty).

> And Kori, I think you were a little hard on the Troglodytes there!

Some of my best friends are troglodytes!!!

(however, I would not ever -not for a googleplex of nuyen- suck on
troglodyte hoop... something SR4 does as a matter of course...

...

hey, troglodytes have to get a little R & R from somewhere... might
as well be from the red-headed step-child of quality RPGs...)

> P.S. If anyone is unsure of where I stand on SR4, I consider it the
> biggest waste of money of the year....

I own a copy... one of my gamers bought it for me as a prank...

He and his characters are all still alive...

I think I am mellowing in my old age (about to leave the nice even
powers of 2 behind for a while *sniff*).

======Korishinzo
--2^5, go away... *grin*

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 60
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
> System Failure was a SR3 sourcebook!
>
> Lars

That is like saying that Brutus was pro-Caesar. ;)

======Korishinzo
--And Episode I was a Star Wars movie... your point?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 61
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:17:58 +0200
According to Geoff Brown, on 26-4-07 00:15 the word on the street was...

> Now if someone can help me find the page ref in the SR2/SR3 book that
> said wireless matrix access was impossible because you couldn't get
> enough bandwidth on a wireless link I would be most appreciative...

SR1 page 106: "If anyone has developed wireless deck connections yet,
they aren't telling."

VR1.0 page 33 talks about satellite uplinks, but makes no mention of
other wireless Matrix technology.

SRII page 173: "If anyone has developed wireless deck connections yet,
they aren't telling."

VR2.0 mentions satellite links on pages 30 and 88, but also doesn't
mention other wireless connections there.

No real statement that it's impossible as far as I can tell on a quick
browse-through, though. I haven't looked in SR3 or later books, given
that wireless access is definitely possible using the rules in Matrix.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 62
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:19:01 +0200
According to Ice Heart, on 26-4-07 04:28 the word on the street was...

> Wireless Matrix /was/ possible in SR3... and SR2 (VR 2.0)... but it
> suffered pretty significant delays (large drops in I/O speed and an
> Initiative penalty).

You could only do satellite linkups in SRII/VR2.0, not regular wireless.
I haven't got a clue why FASA felt that one was possible but the other
wasn't, though ...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 63
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:18:38 -0400
The whole "mp" debate has never sat right with me. Sure you can say that
"mp" is an arbitrary unit (made that way intentionally), but then you must
still make its ratio to other formats believable. Otherwise it just falls
dead.

In Shadowbeat:

ESS (Extended Spectrum Sound) is 3mp per minute. (0.05 mp / second)
Full Dir-X Simsense is 3mp per second.
Baseline (non-emotive) simsense is 1mp per second.

Seemed odd to me that the 'highest quality' RAW uncompressed simsense would
only be 60 times more data then a fraggin sound file.

Even a pure acoustic (uncompressed PCM) WAV file for audio is only 10
megabytes per minute (3 mp = 10 MB?). So they are saying that all of the
sensory and emotive data in the human body is only 60 times that (30
megabytes / second). That is also saying that just the sensory data is only
10 megabytes / second in its RAW form (prior to any data compression.)

IN addition, it would make NO sense why OMC would be that expensive if 3mp 10 Megabytes.
(it would make OMC = to Thumbdrives of today as far as
storage is concerned).

Additionally in Shadowbeat "Standard Matrix Access" was 1 mp / second (High
Speed Matrix was 10 mp / second (or higher).) Which seems like pretty low
bandwidth to me.
Message no. 64
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:17:13 -0600
On 4/26/07, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Ice Heart, on 26-4-07 04:28 the word on the street was...
>
> > Wireless Matrix /was/ possible in SR3... and SR2 (VR 2.0)... but it
> > suffered pretty significant delays (large drops in I/O speed and an
> > Initiative penalty).
>
> You could only do satellite linkups in SRII/VR2.0, not regular wireless.
> I haven't got a clue why FASA felt that one was possible but the other
> wasn't, though ...

Perhaps they considered satelite transmission to be microwave or laser
transmission instead of radio waves. I honestly have no idea how
satelites actually transmit/receive/bounce information in real life.

--
-Graht
Message no. 65
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:00:09 +0200
According to Graht, on 26-4-07 16:17 the word on the street was...

> Perhaps they considered satelite transmission to be microwave or laser
> transmission instead of radio waves. I honestly have no idea how
> satelites actually transmit/receive/bounce information in real life.

I'm not expert either, but AFAIK they work with radio waves (microwaves
are just another kind of electromagnetic wave, as is light). The dish of
a typical satellite antenna is simply a mirror for radio waves, that
serves to focus the incoming waves onto the actual antenna that's
(usually) at the tip of the arm on the dish -- the reason being that the
signal is pretty weak due to the distance and spread involved, so the
dish lets you pick up more of that signal so that it becomes clearer.
(As an analogy, try using binoculars at night: what you see will appear
less dark than with the naked eye, because the larger surface area of
the binoculars catches more light.)

Anyway, the point remains that if decking via wireless communications
with a satellite is possible, albeit at a penalty to various stats, why
couldn't deckers connect to other (much closer) wireless systems before
FASA released Matrix ... ?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 66
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:53:39 -0300
On 4/26/07, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> Anyway, the point remains that if decking via wireless communications
> with a satellite is possible, albeit at a penalty to various stats, why
> couldn't deckers connect to other (much closer) wireless systems before
> FASA released Matrix ... ?

Probably because this sort of stuff hadn't been developed/wasn't
commonly used in the real world at the time of writing. Wireless is
"all the rage" in SR4 because people in the real world have taken
notice of it.

It's the same reason computers in older science fiction movies and
games take up whole rooms and have pitifully little processing power -
that's the way it was done in the real world, and the authors couldn't
visualize the improvements that could be made on that model.

I agree that the transition could have been handled much better than
it was, but I don't view the new model as "preposterous". If anything,
it sounds a little more plausible than the Eighties Neuromancer-esque
stuff (and will likely seem just as dated in one or two decades...).

I saw an article on wireless teeth the other day, but I keep
forgetting to post the link here :).

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 67
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
--- Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:

> Wireless is
> "all the rage" in SR4 because people in the real
> world have taken
> notice of it.

In a similar fashion I would say that the current
omnipresence of mobile phones has translated to
commlinks being de rigeur for most characters in SR4.

cheers,

Jan Jaap

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 68
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:14:23 +0200
According to Bira, on 26-4-07 18:53 the word on the street was...

> Probably because this sort of stuff hadn't been developed/wasn't
> commonly used in the real world at the time of writing. Wireless is
> "all the rage" in SR4 because people in the real world have taken
> notice of it.

I think most of us had already reached that conclusion :) What bugs me
(although that's a bit of a strong term for it), is that FASA didn't
seem to realize the potential of the systems they put into place
themselves -- after all, if you can imagine deckers using satellite
links, why is the leap to regular wireless access so hard to make?
Especially because the game already included radio transceivers and
wireless phones anyway.

> I agree that the transition could have been handled much better than
> it was, but I don't view the new model as "preposterous".

Note that I didn't say that :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 69
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:43:29 -0300
On 4/26/07, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Bira, on 26-4-07 18:53 the word on the street was...
>
>
> I think most of us had already reached that conclusion :) What bugs me
> (although that's a bit of a strong term for it), is that FASA didn't
> seem to realize the potential of the systems they put into place
> themselves -- after all, if you can imagine deckers using satellite
> links, why is the leap to regular wireless access so hard to make?
> Especially because the game already included radio transceivers and
> wireless phones anyway.

Hindsight is 20/20, as they say :). There are lots of times when all
the elements are there staring at you ("generic you", not "you you")
and you just don't see how they might be put together.


> > I agree that the transition could have been handled much better than
> > it was, but I don't view the new model as "preposterous".
>
> Note that I didn't say that :)

That was another "generic" response, rather than to you specifically.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 70
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:58:45 +0200
According to Bira, on 26-4-07 20:43 the word on the street was...

> Hindsight is 20/20, as they say :).

IMHO this is more an example of FASA once again demonstrating that
although they were good at writing backgrounds with depth and balanced
game rules, they were not so good at the other aspects of game worlds :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 71
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:36:00 +0200
Mightyflapjack wrote:
> The whole "mp" debate has never sat right with me. Sure you can say that
> "mp" is an arbitrary unit (made that way intentionally), but then you must
> still make its ratio to other formats believable. Otherwise it just falls
> dead.
>
> In Shadowbeat:
>
> ESS (Extended Spectrum Sound) is 3mp per minute. (0.05 mp / second)
> Full Dir-X Simsense is 3mp per second.
> Baseline (non-emotive) simsense is 1mp per second.


Most of this falls flat with the assumptions that baseline is
uncompressed sensory data, and that you need a lot of sensory data for
simsense in the first place.
You could easily claim that video and audio data on today's DVDs needs
only 1200KB/s, when uncompressed. Except, that the DVD movie standard
contains MPEG-II compression in the first place. It is safe to say, that
the simsense "standard" in SR contains compression, too.

> Seemed odd to me that the 'highest quality' RAW uncompressed simsense would
> only be 60 times more data then a fraggin sound file.

A soundfile, which is called Extended Spectrum, so that it could easily
contain more data than the standard PCM wave format we have now (whose
size, I might add, changes with the sampling rate).

> Even a pure acoustic (uncompressed PCM) WAV file for audio is only 10
> megabytes per minute (3 mp = 10 MB?). So they are saying that all of the
> sensory and emotive data in the human body is only 60 times that (30
> megabytes / second). That is also saying that just the sensory data is
> only
> 10 megabytes / second in its RAW form (prior to any data compression.)

No, that it is only 10MB according to your assumptions.

> IN addition, it would make NO sense why OMC would be that expensive if
> 3mp > 10 Megabytes. (it would make OMC = to Thumbdrives of today as far as
> storage is concerned).

3mp have to be 10MB in the first place.

> Additionally in Shadowbeat "Standard Matrix Access" was 1 mp / second (High
> Speed Matrix was 10 mp / second (or higher).) Which seems like pretty low
> bandwidth to me.

While you still assume that an mp is equivalent to 3.33MB. Which is on
shaky grounds (as any assumption).

As you said, megapulses are an arbitrary unit, and no real relation
(with real meaning hard numbers) to current units of storage.

Once you start comparing science-fiction to the realworld, science
-fiction will always look bad or "unreal". Take Star Trek, Babylon 5,
Firefly, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Asimov's Foundation cycle or Gibson's
Neuromancer novels or whatever else you want.

What it comes down to, is the suspension of disbelief.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #7:

Release early, release often. Clean compilation is optional.
Message no. 72
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400
4/26/07, Phillip wrote:

> As you said, megapulses are an arbitrary unit, and no real relation
> (with real meaning hard numbers) to current units of storage.


True, but it does not excuse them from the ratio comparison of different
formats. Ratios are a lot harder to excuse away or ignore.

Another example, Street Samurai Catalog (2nd Edition - Same as Shadowbeat I
believe)
... p. 84 under video link "... 6mp = 1 minute of low quality video (not
Trideo!)."

So are you Phillip going to say that low quality video takes twice the space
of ESS?

4/26/07, Phillip wrote:
>
> What it comes down to, is the suspension of disbelief.


Yep.. Which is why I have removed the "arbitrary" MP concept in my house
rules and based it on actual technical facts and corrected the ratios.

(Not that I will post the actual rules here, I don't want to face that much
criticism. I really don't care if anyone else likes my 'house rules", that
is between me and my players)
Message no. 73
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:27:51 -0300
On 4/26/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> True, but it does not excuse them from the ratio comparison of different
> formats. Ratios are a lot harder to excuse away or ignore.

Which I guess is why they've done away with all units of measure for
the SR4 rules.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 74
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:54:49 -0700
>> As you said, megapulses are an arbitrary unit, and no real relation
>> (with real meaning hard numbers) to current units of storage.
>
> True, but it does not excuse them from the ratio comparison of different
> formats. Ratios are a lot harder to excuse away or ignore.

Maybe it's a logarithmic scale, like stellar brightness or the related
photoelectric sensitivity of human eyes, or the stench vs size ratios of
2000 year old carp...

who knows...

...not me...

...that's for sure...

...not me.

-k
Message no. 75
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:29:05 +0200
Mightyflapjack wrote:
> 4/26/07, Phillip wrote:

> True, but it does not excuse them from the ratio comparison of different
> formats. Ratios are a lot harder to excuse away or ignore.

Which becomes meaningless, if you have no facts to base the
ratio-comparison on. If you don't know, for a fact, that a minute of
raw, uncompressed, unedited simsense requires 100 megabytes of todays
space, you just can't make a meaningful comparison.

> Another example, Street Samurai Catalog (2nd Edition - Same as
> Shadowbeat I
> believe)
> ... p. 84 under video link "... 6mp = 1 minute of low quality video (not
> Trideo!)."
>
> So are you Phillip going to say that low quality video takes twice the
> space
> of ESS?

Since SRs low quality video can easily be today's high-definition TV:
Yes, I am going to say that. There are simply not enough known facts to
warrant *any meaningful* comparison at all. We don't know which codecs
are used for audio or video, how good their compression rate is, what
kind of processing power is available, how much meta-data is in the
data, what quality is widely accepted as "good", "average", or
"low".

We lacking essential facts, which make a comparison idle thought. On the
same level as the question "What would be, if the US had lost WWII?".
Speculative, and to some even entertaining, but still idle thought.

This doesn't make history broken, though, as the mention of no
conversion MP to MB doesn't make SR inherently broken.

We can fiddle with our assumptions to your and mine hearts content, but
it will always be an assumption, unless a canon work explicitly claims
"1MP == x MB".

> Yep.. Which is why I have removed the "arbitrary" MP concept in my house
> rules and based it on actual technical facts and corrected the ratios.

Which will make it unlikely that we ever play together. But to each
their own.

> (Not that I will post the actual rules here, I don't want to face that much
> criticism. I really don't care if anyone else likes my 'house rules", that
> is between me and my players)

It is. But an evil mind (like me ;) could claim, that your rules are
"broken", too. :P

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #7:

Release early, release often. Clean compilation is optional.
Message no. 76
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:22:00 -0400
Mightyflapjack said:
> (Not that I will post my house rules here, I don't want to face that much
> criticism. I really don't care if anyone else likes my 'house rules", that
> is between me and my players)

On 4/27/07, Phillip:

> It is. But an evil mind (like me ;) could claim, that your rules are
> "broken", too. :P


Hey Phillip I am content if you don't agree with me.

I could try again to convince you, and even pull out examples in most every
sourcebook where they have snip its of TEXT omitted saying "x.x mp removed"
Then I guess you would argue that we don't know how much text was removed or
if it actually was 'text' but audio/video that was removed...

I think that there is a bunch of people on this list that would agree with
my assessment of MP and its for them that I am posting this at all.

So anyone else have issues with "Mp"?
Message no. 77
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:56:42 -0600
On 4/27/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> So anyone else have issues with "Mp"?

I hate it, and I have no ideas for fixing it. The fact that I have no
ideas for fixing it after almost 20 years of SR experience says
something ;)

When I run Shadowrun it's either, "You can download the file onto your
deck/computer/whatever," or "The file is to big, you're going to have
to come up with another plan." 99% of the time it's the first answer.
When I'm in truely evil GM mode it's the second one. It is so much
fun watching players come up with a plan to get the mainframe out of
the building before they realize they just need to figure out which
memory cube the file is on and take the cube ;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 78
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:58:10 -0600
On 4/27/07, Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> >
> > So anyone else have issues with "Mp"?
>
> I hate it, and I have no ideas for fixing it. The fact that I have no
> ideas for fixing it after almost 20 years of SR experience says
> something ;)
>
> When I run Shadowrun it's either, "You can download the file onto your
> deck/computer/whatever," or "The file is to big, you're going to have
> to come up with another plan." 99% of the time it's the first answer.
> When I'm in truely evil GM mode it's the second one. It is so much
> fun watching players come up with a plan to get the mainframe out of
> the building before they realize they just need to figure out which
> memory cube the file is on and take the cube ;)

And of course the "it's to big" is a great trick to use when it's the
PC's job to transport a memory cube from point A to point B and the
file on it is so large they can't even read it on a portable or
desktop computer.

--
-Graht
Message no. 79
From: cmdjackryan@**********.com (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:18:25 +0200
Mightyflapjack wrote:

> I could try again to convince you, and even pull out examples in most every
> sourcebook where they have snip its of TEXT omitted saying "x.x mp removed"
> Then I guess you would argue that we don't know how much text was
> removed or
> if it actually was 'text' but audio/video that was removed...

Correct. Encoding, file format and compression play into that again.

> I think that there is a bunch of people on this list that would agree with
> my assessment of MP and its for them that I am posting this at all.
>
> So anyone else have issues with "Mp"?

In all my gaming/GMing time the question "how big is an MP" has come up
once. Maybe twice, and never in game. There it's the question "Will it
fit on my deck's memory?"

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
http://clothred.rubyforge.org

Rule of Open-Source Programming #6:

The user is always right unless proven otherwise by the developer.
Message no. 80
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:18:55 -0400
Graht wrote:
It is so much fun watching players come up with a plan to get the mainframe
out of
the building before they realize they just need to figure out which memory
cube the file is on and take the cube ;)

hehe... Well in my world of 2060-2070, a mainframe PC is about the size of a
year 2000 desktop. Which i would figure would be easy enough to put in a
Janitor's trash can or stuffed inside a cleaning drone. Its getting to the
mainframe (or even finding it) that is the real trick.
Message no. 81
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:21:26 -0400
Forgot to add:
That is of course assuming that the data is on OMC near the Mainframe. If
it is in "offline storage" (DCLF)? It would be much more difficult.

On 4/27/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Graht wrote:
> It is so much fun watching players come up with a plan to get the
> mainframe out of
> the building before they realize they just need to figure out which memory
> cube the file is on and take the cube ;)
>
> hehe... Well in my world of 2060-2070, a mainframe PC is about the size of
> a year 2000 desktop. Which i would figure would be easy enough to put in a
> Janitor's trash can or stuffed inside a cleaning drone. Its getting to the
> mainframe (or even finding it) that is the real trick.
>
>
Message no. 82
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:26:33 +0200
According to Graht, on 27-4-07 16:56 the word on the street was...

> When I run Shadowrun it's either, "You can download the file onto your
> deck/computer/whatever," or "The file is to big, you're going to have
> to come up with another plan."

That makes me wonder why, though -- Mp may be a totally imaginary
measurement, but that doesn't mean you can't come up with believable
file sizes on the spur of the moment, IMHO. The prime requirement is to
stay fairly consistent; other than that, anything goes, I'd think.

Staying consistent doesn't need to mean that you have to know how many
characters/frames of film/seconds of music go into one Mp. It means you
need to pull more or less consistent figures out of your hat when
players ask -- and, of course, use the old GM's trick of making up
explanations on the spot if players complain ;) "Why is this two-page
letter 56 Mp large, when last week we downloaded a hundred-page manual
that was only 80 Mp?" "Well uhhh ... if you look at the file
information, you notice that the letter contains a very high-resolution
watermark image behind the text, it has complete fonts embedded in it, a
digital signature, and uh ... it was exported to Portable Matrix Format
Markup Language by MS Word 2070-SP153, and you know how neat the code
produced by Microdeck's export routines is, don't you?"

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 83
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:27:37 -0300
On 4/27/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> Forgot to add:
> That is of course assuming that the data is on OMC near the Mainframe. If
> it is in "offline storage" (DCLF)? It would be much more difficult.

By they way, I never managed to figure out what the heck "offline
storage" means. I'd understand if it was the equivalent of some huge
bank of hard drives used for data warehousing and the like, but it
seems to be something you can buy for your deck. What exactly does it
do? Is it "memory you can't use while on a Matrix run", or something
else entirely?

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 84
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:34:36 +0200
On 27 Apr 2007, at 21:27, Bira wrote:

> By they way, I never managed to figure out what the heck "offline
> storage" means. I'd understand if it was the equivalent of some huge
> bank of hard drives used for data warehousing and the like, but it
> seems to be something you can buy for your deck. What exactly does it
> do? Is it "memory you can't use while on a Matrix run", or something
> else entirely?

I figure it's like an USB removable hard drive. Loads of cheap
storage space, but access times and throughput that just don't cut it
if you want to use it for anything but storing paydata.

-- Wild_Cat
Message no. 85
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:51:47 -0600
On 4/27/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
> Graht wrote:
> It is so much fun watching players come up with a plan to get the mainframe
> out of
> the building before they realize they just need to figure out which memory
> cube the file is on and take the cube ;)
>
> hehe... Well in my world of 2060-2070, a mainframe PC is about the size of a
> year 2000 desktop. Which i would figure would be easy enough to put in a
> Janitor's trash can or stuffed inside a cleaning drone. Its getting to the
> mainframe (or even finding it) that is the real trick.

Why? Even today PCs are incredibly powerful by last decades standards
but mainframes still exist. In 2060 a desktop comp will have even
more power than today's mainframes, but I dont' doubt that they will
still have mainframes o do the same jobs that mainframes today do,
analyze vast amounts of data or run incredibly complex simulations.
In the future sensors/satelites/whatever will collect far more data,
or more detailed data, than today. They will need apropriate computer
power to analyze it, which I think will probably be mainframe sized.
And if a personal deck can run virtual reality software for one user,
think of what kind of simulations or virtual environments a
"mainframe" will be able to handle. That, and people will still want
to play MMO games which will require mainframes or servers ;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 86
From: mightyflapjack@*****.com (Mightyflapjack)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:12:59 -0400
On 4/27/07, Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:

> Why? Even today PCs are incredibly powerful by last decades standards
> but mainframes still exist. In 2060 a desktop comp will have even
> more power than today's mainframes, but I dont' doubt that they will
> still have mainframes o do the same jobs that mainframes today do,
> analyze vast amounts of data or run incredibly complex simulations.
> In the future sensors/satelites/whatever will collect far more data,
> or more detailed data, than today. They will need apropriate computer
> power to analyze it, which I think will probably be mainframe sized.
> And if a personal deck can run virtual reality software for one user,
> think of what kind of simulations or virtual environments a
> "mainframe" will be able to handle. That, and people will still want
> to play MMO games which will require mainframes or servers ;)
>
> --
> -Graht
>


I am not saying the mainframe would not exist, but due to the
'miniaturization' of components even a large mainframe in 2070 would be
small by today's comparison. (Compare the computers of the 1960's to
today.) the part that would be large would likely be the storage media
(especially with the ridiculous cost of OMC in the main rules (30 nuyen /
mp?). The majority of the storage would be larger, bulkier media (cheaper).

It also makes a certain type of security sense to have your companies data
stored in 100 large 'offline storage' units that weight 20 kilos each rather
then in 100 OMC chips the size of trident chewing gum.
Message no. 87
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:09:53 +0200
On 4/28/07, Mightyflapjack <mightyflapjack@*****.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/27/07, Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
>
> > Why? Even today PCs are incredibly powerful by last decades standards
> > but mainframes still exist. In 2060 a desktop comp will have even
> > more power than today's mainframes, but I dont' doubt that they will
> > still have mainframes o do the same jobs that mainframes today do,
> > analyze vast amounts of data or run incredibly complex simulations.
> > In the future sensors/satelites/whatever will collect far more data,
> > or more detailed data, than today. They will need apropriate computer
> > power to analyze it, which I think will probably be mainframe sized.
> > And if a personal deck can run virtual reality software for one user,
> > think of what kind of simulations or virtual environments a
> > "mainframe" will be able to handle. That, and people will still want
> > to play MMO games which will require mainframes or servers ;)
> >
> > --
> > -Graht
> >
>
>
> I am not saying the mainframe would not exist, but due to the
> 'miniaturization' of components even a large mainframe in 2070 would be
> small by today's comparison. (Compare the computers of the 1960's to
> today.) the part that would be large would likely be the storage media
> (especially with the ridiculous cost of OMC in the main rules (30 nuyen /
> mp?). The majority of the storage would be larger, bulkier media
> (cheaper).
>
> It also makes a certain type of security sense to have your companies data
> stored in 100 large 'offline storage' units that weight 20 kilos each
> rather
> then in 100 OMC chips the size of trident chewing gum.
>


Actually, mainframes are still about the same size they've been for the last
30 years. Miniaturisation just means that you can pack more and more
hardware into the same space.

A modern mid-range server system is huge - This machine (
http://www.sun.com/servers/midrange/v890/index.xml), for example, is about
as big as a washing machine and it covers our needs as a development and
testing server. About a quarter of that space is shared between cooling
fans and channels, and empty slots to add more storeage. Some of our
clients use machines the size of a server rack.

And this is even before you think about all those banks who still run their
critical systems on the same mainframe that they bought in 1960...
Message no. 88
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:06:24 +0200
According to Mightyflapjack, on 28-4-07 00:12 the word on the street was...

> I am not saying the mainframe would not exist, but due to the
> 'miniaturization' of components even a large mainframe in 2070 would be
> small by today's comparison. (Compare the computers of the 1960's to
> today.)

I don't really think they'll shrink much -- like Allen said, smaller
components means you'll get more computer power in the same package, not
usually that you'll get the same computer power in a smaller package.
Because even if an SR computer is a thousand times more powerful than
the ones we're using today, I have a feeling the applications will also
demand a thousand times more power ... Think about everyday apps like
word processors: does the current version of MS Word feel faster, more
responsive, etc. than the Word you used 15 years ago? I somehow doubt it
... Whereas if you ran that old version on your computer today, it
probably would feel faster than it did back then. (Problem is that it's
hard to compare, though, because it's been so long since you used the
old version.)

> the part that would be large would likely be the storage media
> (especially with the ridiculous cost of OMC in the main rules (30 nuyen /
> mp?). The majority of the storage would be larger, bulkier media
> (cheaper).

Maybe, but given that the same applies here as to general computer
power, I think all you'll find is that more memory gets packed into the
same space. When I bought my first own PC in mid-1995, it had a 560 MB
hard drive; that was considered pretty big at the time, as was the 8 MB
RAM I put into the machine (4 MB was more the norm, I recall). Now I own
a 300 GB drive that's the same physical size as the one I had back then,
and have a desktop machine with 768 MB RAM and a laptop with 1 GB ...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 89
From: n.kobschaetzki@**********.com (Niels_KobschÀtzki)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:36:25 +0200
On Apr 28, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Gurth wrote:

> According to Mightyflapjack, on 28-4-07 00:12 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> I am not saying the mainframe would not exist, but due to the
>> 'miniaturization' of components even a large mainframe in 2070
>> would be
>> small by today's comparison. (Compare the computers of the 1960's to
>> today.)
>
> I don't really think they'll shrink much -- like Allen said,
> smaller components means you'll get more computer power in the same
> package, not usually that you'll get the same computer power in a
> smaller package. Because even if an SR computer is a thousand times
> more powerful than the ones we're using today, I have a feeling the
> applications will also demand a thousand times more power ...

And the space you needed for computers from 1960's - actually
nowadays server farms are more or less the same size afaik. Think
about computers like the Earth simulator which needs a big hall (just
do a search for "earth simulator" on images.google.com). There will/
are be applications which need something like indefinite calculation
power (like weather simulation).

> Think about everyday apps like word processors: does the current
> version of MS Word feel faster, more responsive, etc. than the Word
> you used 15 years ago? I somehow doubt it ... Whereas if you ran
> that old version on your computer today, it probably would feel
> faster than it did back then. (Problem is that it's hard to
> compare, though, because it's been so long since you used the old
> version.)

More feature packed and more new stuff. Just think about Windows
Vista which needs a DX9-graphic card just for the GUI plus the RAM
and so on. As long as computers get faster, someone will think about
something which will need the RAM, harddisk space whatever - some
years ago building up big media libraries wouldn't have been possible
and the quality of the stuff got better too (just think about when
the first HDTV-movie came out…some documentary stuff…you needed the
fastest computer available (PIV 3.06 GHz) which was damn expensive
that it ran smooth).
When I think about the computing experience from 10-20 years before -
the GUIs were ugly compared to the stuff you get nowadays, you didn't
run as much applications at the same time, there are more background
services running and the count will go up with the time. The power of
your comp and the will be better, therefore you won't notice it but
applications from 2070 wouldn't run at all at those tortoises we run
nowadays.

>> the part that would be large would likely be the storage media
>> (especially with the ridiculous cost of OMC in the main rules (30
>> nuyen /
>> mp?). The majority of the storage would be larger, bulkier media
>> (cheaper).
>
> Maybe, but given that the same applies here as to general computer
> power, I think all you'll find is that more memory gets packed into
> the same space. When I bought my first own PC in mid-1995, it had a
> 560 MB hard drive; that was considered pretty big at the time, as
> was the 8 MB RAM I put into the machine (4 MB was more the norm, I
> recall). Now I own a 300 GB drive that's the same physical size as
> the one I had back then, and have a desktop machine with 768 MB RAM
> and a laptop with 1 GB ...

Actually there is no information how much space a MP takes and how
much a MP is (is there anywhere a description?). If it's holographic
memory you would not need a lot of space for a lot of memory and
because of the dangers of mechanical drives (higher failure rate
because of abrasion) those won't be available anymore when everyone
uses mobile computers (apart from the problem that the developers get
problems packing more memory into the same space).
For our imagination the computers of SR should have nearly indefinite
processor power, indefinite memory and so on. For the ppl in SR the
feeling will be the same as nowadays - I want more memory, I want
more holographic memory, I want more processor power…
the race won't stop - in 60 years it's just at a level we can't
imagine nowadays (quantum-computers with which you will be able to do
some unbelievable stuff for computers nowadays will be available in
20 - 30 years…now figure it out what they will have in 60 years…)

Niels *who is writing this on a D2C with 2GHz, 250GB SATA and 2 GB
RAM and always has a full harddisk, still not enough RAM to run two
operating systems at whopping speed at the same time and who curses
always in the morning just before leaving for university when he
thinks about the fact that converting an episode of Simpsons will
need ca. 10 minutes even though the processor is on 200% for encoding…*

--

Whitespace is a particularly useful language for spies. Imagine you
have a top secret program that you don't want anyone to see. What do
you do? Simply print it out and delete the file, ready to type in at
a later date. Nobody will know that your blank piece of paper is
actually vital computer code!

-- Advantages of Whitespace (http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/)
Message no. 90
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:57:57 +0200
According to Niels Kobschätzki, on 28-4-07 11:36 the word on the street
was...

> More feature packed and more new stuff. Just think about Windows Vista
> which needs a DX9-graphic card just for the GUI plus the RAM and so on.

As an aside, the only thing about that is that it has a lot of Mac users
wondering why Vista's demands are so high when OS X can do much the same
on hardware with much lower specs ... My 1.6 GHz iMac G5 with "only" 64
MB video RAM, for example, will do all kinds of window transparencies,
animations and so on, despite the hardware being about 2 years older
than the minimum you can reasonably run Vista's GUI on :)

> As long as computers get faster, someone will think about something
> which will need the RAM, harddisk space whatever

And vice-versa: certain types of software developer (especially games
designers) will always be pushing the envelope, forcing hardware
manufacturers to keep improving their systems so the latest software
will run smoothly on them.

> When I think about the computing experience from 10-20 years before -
> the GUIs were ugly compared to the stuff you get nowadays, you didn't
> run as much applications at the same time, there are more background
> services running and the count will go up with the time. The power of
> your comp and the will be better, therefore you won't notice it but
> applications from 2070 wouldn't run at all at those tortoises we run
> nowadays.

Exactly. But from the user's point of view, nothing really changes.
Sure, they might say that their new computer has twice the clock speed
and ten times the memory of their old one, but if you ask them if that
means they can do more work in the same time, I doubt they'll agree.

> Actually there is no information how much space a MP takes and how much
> a MP is (is there anywhere a description?).

All we have is certain descriptions of how many Mp certain types of data
require, and how much Mp some types of disk can store. And like Philip
and others mentioned, since we don't know anything about the sample
rates, encoding schemes, etc., that obviously isn't saying much.

> If it's holographic memory

That, though, we do know: according to Shadowtech, SR's computer memory
uses a kind of optical transistors. Nothing holographic or anything,
simply optical switches that can be either red or green, IIRC.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 91
From: n.kobschaetzki@**********.com (Niels_KobschÀtzki)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:26:12 +0200
On Apr 28, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Gurth wrote:

> According to Niels Kobschätzki, on 28-4-07 11:36 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> More feature packed and more new stuff. Just think about Windows
>> Vista which needs a DX9-graphic card just for the GUI plus the RAM
>> and so on.
>
> As an aside, the only thing about that is that it has a lot of Mac
> users wondering why Vista's demands are so high when OS X can do
> much the same on hardware with much lower specs ... My 1.6 GHz iMac
> G5 with "only" 64 MB video RAM, for example, will do all kinds of
> window transparencies, animations and so on, despite the hardware
> being about 2 years older than the minimum you can reasonably run
> Vista's GUI on :)

I know I have here a Mac-only-household ;)

>> As long as computers get faster, someone will think about
>> something which will need the RAM, harddisk space whatever
>
> And vice-versa: certain types of software developer (especially
> games designers) will always be pushing the envelope, forcing
> hardware manufacturers to keep improving their systems so the
> latest software will run smoothly on them.
>
>> When I think about the computing experience from 10-20 years
>> before - the GUIs were ugly compared to the stuff you get
>> nowadays, you didn't run as much applications at the same time,
>> there are more background services running and the count will go
>> up with the time. The power of your comp and the will be better,
>> therefore you won't notice it but applications from 2070 wouldn't
>> run at all at those tortoises we run nowadays.
>
> Exactly. But from the user's point of view, nothing really changes.
> Sure, they might say that their new computer has twice the clock
> speed and ten times the memory of their old one, but if you ask
> them if that means they can do more work in the same time, I doubt
> they'll agree.

Actually I think that I would get more work done if the noise
wouldn't be so high nowadays (e-mail-input is far higher than before,
more and more RSS-feeds you check (but I can check now more sites
about news updates in the same time as I could do earlier), IM,
social network sites, Twitter or whatever you call the newest hype) -
sure you you could put that all off but who does it?
In the end I think I get even more work done and I get far more
information input thanks to new technologies/sites like RSS,
del.icio.us than I did before.

>> Actually there is no information how much space a MP takes and how
>> much a MP is (is there anywhere a description?).
>
> All we have is certain descriptions of how many Mp certain types of
> data require, and how much Mp some types of disk can store. And
> like Philip and others mentioned, since we don't know anything
> about the sample rates, encoding schemes, etc., that obviously
> isn't saying much.
>
>> If it's holographic memory
>
> That, though, we do know: according to Shadowtech, SR's computer
> memory uses a kind of optical transistors. Nothing holographic or
> anything, simply optical switches that can be either red or green,
> IIRC.

optical switches? they have nearly unlimited wireless bandwidth but
are still stuck on optical memory technology? Poor guys…

Niels

--
Jammern für Anfänger: Niels K. (25) Jammerbacke -- auch für
professionelles Jammern zu haben
http://jammern.wordpress.com
Message no. 92
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:47:14 +0200
On 28 Apr 2007, at 12:26, Niels Kobschätzki wrote:

> optical switches? they have nearly unlimited wireless bandwidth but
> are still stuck on optical memory technology? Poor guys…
>
> Niels

Optical memory (i.e. CDs, DVDs...) sucks indeed. I used to have a Zip
drive back in the days of ultra-expensive, 2x CD burners and I can't
believe optical storage is almost as bad now as it was then.

Optical *transistors*, however, are (at least in theory) an awesome
thing to make processors out of. Optical circuits are insensitive to
EM interference, to phreaking and produce very little heat. Even
better: beams of light can cross each other without any adverse
effects on either, which allows processors to be much more compact
and therefore to run much faster (fun fact: as the frequency of
processors increases, the actual speed at which electric current
travels can't be considered infinite anymore).

SR's computer technology isn't that bad. I mean, at least they've
gotten rid of that piece of crap x86 architecture...

-- Wild_Cat
Message no. 93
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:21:23 +0200
According to Niels Kobschätzki, on 28-4-07 12:26 the word on the street
was...

>> That, though, we do know: according to Shadowtech, SR's computer
>> memory uses a kind of optical transistors. Nothing holographic or
>> anything, simply optical switches that can be either red or green, IIRC.
>
> optical switches? they have nearly unlimited wireless bandwidth but are
> still stuck on optical memory technology? Poor guys…

Optical transistors are the the same as optical storage media we have
today, though. A CD-ROM is a pretty poor data storage system because of
the time it takes to read and especially write them, but given optical
transistors of SR's sophistication (whatever that is, it's apparently
higher than we have today), you could read and write much faster, with
added advantages as Max pointed out.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 94
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:33:28 +0200
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> Think about everyday apps like
> word processors: does the current version of MS Word feel faster, more
> responsive, etc. than the Word you used 15 years ago?

15 years ago everybody user WordPerfect :-)

Lars
Message no. 95
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:04:03 +0200
According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on 28-4-07 16:33 the word on the street
was...

> 15 years ago everybody user WordPerfect :-)

Not _everybody_, just almost every DOS and Windows user ;) It wasn't
until Word 6.0 from (IIRC) 1994 that MS made an effort to get people to
switch to that, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 96
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:10:14 +0200
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on 28-4-07 16:33 the word on the street
> was...
>
>> 15 years ago everybody user WordPerfect :-)
>
> Not _everybody_, just almost every DOS and Windows user ;) It wasn't until
> Word 6.0 from (IIRC) 1994 that MS made an effort to get people to switch
> to that, though.

Actually I used DecText from Digital Equipment Corporation on the VAX, and
on my PC I used DSI-Text (a Danish text-editor) or edlin.

Lars
Message no. 97
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Wireless matrix (was SR introduction)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:09:11 +0200
On 28 Apr 2007, at 22:10, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:

>
> Actually I used DecText from Digital Equipment Corporation on the
> VAX, and on my PC I used DSI-Text (a Danish text-editor) or edlin.

edlin? Wow. That's either courage, or masochism.

-- Max

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Wireless matrix (was SR introduction), 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!