IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Should This Have A Wireless Bonus?, A Comprehensive Look At Every Extant Piece of 'Ware
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 27 2013, 10:15 PM
Post #201


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (Cochise @ Jun 27 2013, 10:37 PM) *
Sorry, but last time I checked "the locical construct that changes signal into information" a.k.a. was still "above" the signal. You are not using correct vocabulary. That's part of what makes your attempts so "painful".


It's underlying to the INFORMATION. Big, bold, and beautiful.

Right? Isn't that what this is all about? You want to be able to tell your device to do something, and it behaves intelligently based on that instruction? So when your tune your radio into the AM band, it understands how to extract the music from the carrier wave? Or when you tell your smart linked pistol to eject a clip(*cough*magazine*cough), it understands that you didn't mean: Fire in full auto?

All this stuff in between your command, and its interpretation, aren't magic. They're defined by standards, protocols, and implementation.

QUOTE (Cochise @ Jun 27 2013, 10:37 PM) *
Not coincidentally the term "Information System" is not related to "underlying" or "transmission layers".


The entire means by which an Information System is capable of operating on information is the cumulative result of layers and layers and layers of logical constructs of information which, ultimately, are implemented using something eventually tied to the physical behavior of our universe.

QUOTE (Cochise @ Jun 27 2013, 10:37 PM) *
And now let's come back to the point where the sole difference between the compared systems was A) and you "violently" agreed that wired would be better than wi-fi wheras I even accepted that - under idealized conditions - they could be equal there as well. So now, where will the two systems in question have any difference in "responsiveness"?


Okay. Now wired and wireless operate at the same speed. Really that's so secondary to the point I'm not really even sure why you're bringing it up. Did you want to agree that they did operate at the same speed? Okay, fine. Did you want to say that they don't? Okay, whatever, I'll agree with that to.

Can we not revisit this point? Because it's, like, not related to any point I've made whatsoever. Let's just operate forward going: However you want the relationship between wireless and directly-wired to work, we'll go with that, and I'll make a T-Shirt that says as much for us and we can wear them around together.

The varying degrees of responsiveness depend entirely on what you need your system to do, and how you're able to do it based on the limitations of various implementations. For instance, if you would like to conduct prime factorization with every computer you're directly connected to, while I conduct it with every computer within a square kilometer of myself, we're going to have dramatically different response times.

QUOTE (Cochise @ Jun 27 2013, 10:37 PM) *
Wow ... now I wonder why I even mentioned a deliberate structuring of the protocol and then asked the question how and why nobody is capable of bypassing that decision?


Wait, wait, wait...

...You mean like an implementation? So, like, what you're saying is that the implementation and not solely the physical characteristics of a transmission medium will drive the response of a System.

Cochise, this is a big step for us. I think we're going to be friends, after all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Now, let's just take this a step further and agree that with varying implementations, certain characteristics of a system will influence it's ultimate responsiveness more than in other implementations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

QUOTE (Cochise @ Jun 27 2013, 10:37 PM) *
Which is a "stupid" assumption to begin with. It's not plausible even from within the SR universe because you have people there that are bent on bypassing protocol limitations on a much larger scale. For a last time I will ask you this: How can deckers/hackers, that are capable of hacking Matrix protocols, ad hoc cracking of encryption and building specialized hardware for that very purpose at the same be incapable of bypassing that particular design decision? The answer to that: Developer's fiat in order to maintain "combat hacking". Full stop.


You're discussing implementation with me. This is progress. I'm feeling really good about where we are right now.

QUOTE (Cochise @ Jun 27 2013, 10:37 PM) *
Yes ... and criminals and even benovelent hackers both in our real world as well as within the SR universe are constantly trying to make that "big word" work ... and they succeed.

...

~grr~ Again: My assumption was and is, that all parts of the protocol - thus including authetication - would be part of the communication regardless of communication medium.

...

So now you're trying to tell me that the end points are not capable of successfull authentication of incomming transmissions and thus have to rely on distributed computational power to get there?

...

But since this whole communication isn't leading anywhere, I'll simply say we'll have to agree to disagree and then ignore any further comment by you on this issue, because you're not worth the hassle of increasing the headache I already got from this.


I think you may have misread something that I responded to Jaid about, as something that I was directing at you. It's understandable. There's a lot of text flying across the screen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(Though... I suppose, now that you mention it, since we were just talking shop on implementation, how you authentication, error check, perform function X,Y, or Z in any given implementation probably matters. Right? So, if you're doing it in a way that's conducted inefficiently locally, whether or not it matters when it "would be part of the communication regardless" starts to make a difference, right?)

(Because performing it inefficiently locally != performing it efficiently non-locally.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DireRadiant
post Jun 28 2013, 12:19 AM
Post #202


The Dragon Never Sleeps
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,924
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,667



Stuff needs "Wireless" because we made it that way?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post Jun 28 2013, 01:31 AM
Post #203


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



@ wired:

ok, so let's suppose you have to offload everything to other devices because you don't have the processing power locally to handle the authentication, error-checking, etc...

so do tell, how does your device locally manage to authenticate the information from the other devices if it cannot handle it locally? in order for it to even be *able* to coordinate with all those other devices, it MUST be able to handle both the outgoing and incoming portion of the process. absolutely must. otherwise you've got a device that just randomly spews meaningless gibberish into the void, which is then magically interpreted and hurled bodily at the target device causing it to latch without needing to authenticate, error-check, or otherwise handle all the stuff that you're assuming neither the sending nor receiving device can handle locally.

if you've got a device that can offload it's job to another device, then you have a device that is capable of handling every aspect of sending information to another device. because otherwise you can't offload anything.

so if there's some super-duper complex authentication process required that needs a bajillion computers... then our device cannot handle offloading the authentication process to those bajillion computers, because it would need to authenticate a bajillion times going outward (and then those bajillion devices would each need to communicate to each other a bajillion times), and then it would need to authenticate the response.

the only way to offload the work of communicating elsewhere requires that our device be able to perform the work of communicating. the only way for our target device to be able to receive the results of that offloaded work requires that the target device be able to receive that information without needing additional processing power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shinobi Killfist
post Jun 28 2013, 01:36 AM
Post #204


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,431
Joined: 3-December 03
Member No.: 5,872



QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Jun 27 2013, 07:19 PM) *
Stuff needs "Wireless" because we made it that way?

Someone made an internal fingertip compartment open quicker when routed through the matrix instead of a direct mental command? Right.

The problem with this rule is kind of similar to the one attack action rule. Its one of those rules that slaps you in the face so hard you come out of roleplaying and see the game mechanic for what it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 28 2013, 02:13 AM
Post #205


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 28 2013, 02:31 AM) *
@ wired:

ok, so let's suppose you have to offload everything to other devices because you don't have the processing power locally to handle the authentication, error-checking, etc...

so do tell, how does your device locally manage to authenticate the information from the other devices if it cannot handle it locally? in order for it to even be *able* to coordinate with all those other devices, it MUST be able to handle both the outgoing and incoming portion of the process.

...

the only way to offload the work of communicating elsewhere requires that our device be able to perform the work of communicating. the only way for our target device to be able to receive the results of that offloaded work requires that the target device be able to receive that information without needing additional processing power.


Mmmm... Good question.

And the kind of question where various answers will naturally fall short, in one use case or another, from full scrutiny. Why? Because such technology, or implementation, does not exist. And we're going from the 'It is possible that such a construct of Systems Architecture exists', into the realm of 'Build a functional Systems Architecture which conforms to the following standards'.

Is it possible that it exists? It's possible that any logical construct, practical or not, exists. Because it's simply an idea, nothing more.

So, we have an assumption here: That authentication performed locally has parity with distributed authentication. Why is that so? Why does my request for distributed processing power follow the same implementation as my internal retro FM Radio. It may. It may not. There's certainly no rule that says that it must.

That said, it seems to me that there must be some implicit trust that exists, fairly unintuitively, for communication on the Matrix 3.0 that involves distributed processing requests and that such requests cannot be made in a manner to throttle the local resources of the devices offering their services.

It would almost be like, if the Matrix were a stream, the current of that stream "pulled" along devices that were strung together into it so they moved better without any extra effort of their own, relative to devices standing on the shore. Which points back to the qualities of the Matrix itself, more so than trying to nail down some technical specification on authentication, error correction, blah, blah, insert_technical_jargon_here.

Maybe devices that play nicely with others are rewarded for their good behavior, and they get to spend time on the playground instead of having nap time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But yeah... I think it just points back to the Matrix itself oozing with secret sauce.

And for objections to a Matrix oozing with secret sauce, once again I submit that the Matrix is close to 60 years in the future, and close to 60 years in the past people were still fumbling around with vacuum tubes. A lot can change in 60 years.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KarmaInferno
post Jun 28 2013, 02:20 AM
Post #206


Old Man Jones
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,415
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New York
Member No.: 1,699



QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 27 2013, 08:36 PM) *
The problem with this rule is kind of similar to the one attack action rule. Its one of those rules that slaps you in the face so hard you come out of roleplaying and see the game mechanic for what it is.

That's what bothers me the most, I think.

Gamist design vs Simulationist design.

Gamist design is where the rules mechanics are more or less designed first, and everything else is then made to fit them.

Simulationist games set down the world first, and then create rules to explain the world.

Both are valid design philosophies. Many early RPGs started out very much simulationist, which is why so many first generation RPGs seemed so scatterbrained with a billion different mechanics for every little thing. Later designers started trying to streamline and unify game mechanics, putting more emphasis on having a central set of mechanics that everything else builds off of. Most current games are a mix of the two, to varying degrees.

Shadowrun has always been a simulationist-leaning system. It's of a later generation than the early RPGs, so it started with a somewhat unified mechanic, the dice pool system. However, pretty much every rule in the game is at least somewhat justified in the game's "fluff". Up until now.

I understand that much of the normal "fluff" in 5th Edition was left out largely because there's simply no room in the Core Book. Okay, that is reasonable. However, some of the new mechanics are so completely disconnected from the setting that they just slap you in the face and scream "I'M A GAME!". It breaks immersion.

Wireless bonuses as a concept are great. The execution, however, has been clumsy and hamfisted.



-k
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 28 2013, 02:50 AM
Post #207


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 28 2013, 01:07 AM) *
Right, so there are a number of things that come into play above and beyond simply data transmission rates that may introduce overhead. So getting hung up on how fast electrons shoot down the wire is missing out on the whole story.
<snip>

But it's not missing out on the whole story. Any authentication scheme or transmission protocol or whatever that is dreamed up can be applied equally believably to a wired and a wireless system. And there needs to be a REALLY good explanation for why a wireless, distributed system would have a faster authentication scheme than a wired, closed system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Jun 28 2013, 03:09 AM
Post #208


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



QUOTE (Umidori @ Jun 26 2013, 10:50 AM) *
I think the reason I keep getting frustrated is that I keep feeling like my intelligence is being insulted. Every reason I've heard for these changes so far has not only failed to convince me, it's actually seemed outright stupid or dumb, to the point that they actually begin to seem like weak excuses for adding a new mechanism, rather than compelling arguments for making the game system and world more immersive and fun.

~Umi


That's because that's exactly what they are, Umi.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daedelus
post Jun 28 2013, 03:34 AM
Post #209


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 13-July 09
Member No.: 17,386



QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jun 27 2013, 07:20 PM) *
That's what bothers me the most, I think.

Gamist design vs Simulationist design.

Gamist design is where the rules mechanics are more or less designed first, and everything else is then made to fit them.

Simulationist games set down the world first, and then create rules to explain the world.

Both are valid design philosophies. Many early RPGs started out very much simulationist, which is why so many first generation RPGs seemed so scatterbrained with a billion different mechanics for every little thing. Later designers started trying to streamline and unify game mechanics, putting more emphasis on having a central set of mechanics that everything else builds off of. Most current games are a mix of the two, to varying degrees.

I am glad to see this analysis here. It is refreshing to see that someone sees the validity of both sides. That makes discussion of dissenting viewpoints amicable at least.

QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jun 27 2013, 07:20 PM) *
Shadowrun has always been a simulationist-leaning system. It's of a later generation than the early RPGs, so it started with a somewhat unified mechanic, the dice pool system. However, pretty much every rule in the game is at least somewhat justified in the game's "fluff". Up until now.

I think SR has slowly been edging toward a Gamist centric design with each new iteration. As a Gamist at heart I have welcomed this direction and I will agree that it has continued with this version. Well so far the the information at hand indicates that anyway.

QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jun 27 2013, 07:20 PM) *
I understand that much of the normal "fluff" in 5th Edition was left out largely because there's simply no room in the Core Book. Okay, that is reasonable. However, some of the new mechanics are so completely disconnected from the setting that they just slap you in the face and scream "I'M A GAME!". It breaks immersion.
Wireless bonuses as a concept are great. The execution, however, has been clumsy and ham-fisted.

I can understand the frustration that the break in immersion can be frustrating for a sumulationist. I am curious about your perception of the wireless bonus execution. Is your complaint from a simulationist or gamist perspective?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Jun 28 2013, 04:33 AM
Post #210


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



If Shadowrun was fluff-centric the rules would look more like Cosmic Patrol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 28 2013, 04:47 AM
Post #211


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jun 28 2013, 03:50 AM) *
But it's not missing out on the whole story. Any authentication scheme or transmission protocol or whatever that is dreamed up can be applied equally believably to a wired and a wireless system. And there needs to be a REALLY good explanation for why a wireless, distributed system would have a faster authentication scheme than a wired, closed system.


Weeeeeeeeell, let's see.

While I shake the dust out of my brain a little, would you minding taking a trip over to O_Baby(!!) and dream up an underlying mechanisms that leverages something between (c^n) or (n!) for us? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I see that both the ol' TSP or Laplace Expansion are in an appropriate threshold.

If you do, let's take the next step together and implement it into our system. Then we can start discussing what sort of circumstances my distributed system beats your stand-alone, and what sort of circumstances it doesn't, then you can tell me why we only need a tiny 'n', and I'll negotiate with you why we need one just a little bit bigger.

Or can we just skip all that, and leave it as the following: Everything. Depends. On Implementation.

...Plus the Matrix 3.0 has special sauce. (Though in the interest of maintaining technical accuracy: it's more of a spicy guacamole dip, than a sauce, persay.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shinobi Killfist
post Jun 28 2013, 04:50 AM
Post #212


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,431
Joined: 3-December 03
Member No.: 5,872



QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 28 2013, 12:33 AM) *
If Shadowrun was fluff-centric the rules would look more like Cosmic Patrol.


If Shadowrun was ganist the rules would look more like 4E D&D. I don't ant to play a board game with roleplaying elements tacked on. From the get go Shadowrun put a lot of effort into making its rules fit into the reality of its world. The entire free action/simple action/complex action thing it had gamest elements that also helped represent the idea of what a person could done in X amount of time. The one attack action add in 5e craps on that as it is less about what you could logically act on in X amount of time but a gamist rule about speeding up play etc. The everything wireless rule is a decent in world concept but the way it was implemented went too far too keep the gamist parts feel a part of the world. While focusing on the rules is important, rules are at their best when they are also invisible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 28 2013, 05:45 AM
Post #213


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 28 2013, 12:47 PM) *
Weeeeeeeeell, let's see.

While I shake the dust out of my brain a little, would you minding taking a trip over to O_Baby(!!) and dream up an underlying mechanisms that leverages something between (c^n) or (n!) for us? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I see that both the ol' TSP or Laplace Expansion are in an appropriate threshold.

If you do, let's take the next step together and implement it into our system. Then we can start discussing what sort of circumstances my distributed system beats your stand-alone, and what sort of circumstances it doesn't, then you can tell me why we only need a tiny 'n', and I'll negotiate with you why we need one just a little bit bigger.

Or can we just skip all that, and leave it as the following: Everything. Depends. On Implementation.

...Plus the Matrix 3.0 has special sauce. (Though in the interest of maintaining technical accuracy: it's more of a spicy guacamole dip, than a sauce, persay.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Oh that's ok, I have no intention of taking a trip over there, thanks anyway. Because it's an exercise in futility. I'm saying it's not even close to believable that a wired, closed system has slower speeds for simple data transmission of messages like "1" or "0" than it does for a wireless, distributed system.

You're the one making the claim it's believable. So the onus is on you to create such a system. Annnnnnnnd go!

In the same spirit as your post, I suggest you read these: Bon, Voyage! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RHat
post Jun 28 2013, 07:32 AM
Post #214


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,962
Joined: 27-February 13
Member No.: 76,875



QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 27 2013, 10:50 PM) *
If Shadowrun was ganist the rules would look more like 4E D&D. I don't ant to play a board game with roleplaying elements tacked on. From the get go Shadowrun put a lot of effort into making its rules fit into the reality of its world. The entire free action/simple action/complex action thing it had gamest elements that also helped represent the idea of what a person could done in X amount of time. The one attack action add in 5e craps on that as it is less about what you could logically act on in X amount of time but a gamist rule about speeding up play etc. The everything wireless rule is a decent in world concept but the way it was implemented went too far too keep the gamist parts feel a part of the world. While focusing on the rules is important, rules are at their best when they are also invisible.


... Where the hell does this notion that all "designed from a game perspective" games inherently have the flaws of DnD4e come from? It's fucking ludicrous, if you'll pardon the language.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KCKitsune
post Jun 28 2013, 03:13 PM
Post #215


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,188
Joined: 9-February 08
From: Boiling Springs
Member No.: 15,665



QUOTE (Epicedion @ Jun 26 2013, 03:49 PM) *
You mean that time the matrix exploded and killed a bunch of people and left other people with magical wireless brains and now everything is wireless and the matrix is everywhere and everyone uses it for everything?

I think that Catalysis did what they did with the wireless matrix to make the technology more believable... I mean hello, look at modern day cell phones. You damn well do anything with the frakers today!

I'm using a 2 year old cell phone (Atrix 4G) and in a few short months (if Ubuntu keeps their time table) I will be able to take my cell phone plug it into a hdmi monitor and turn my cell phone into a pretty decent laptop. Nothing SOTA, but you know for $100 it wasn't so bad of a purchase.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 28 2013, 03:25 PM
Post #216


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Jun 28 2013, 06:45 AM) *
Oh that's ok, I have no intention of taking a trip over there, thanks anyway. Because it's an exercise in futility. I'm saying it's not even close to believable that a wired, closed system has slower speeds for simple data transmission of messages like "1" or "0" than it does for a wireless, distributed system.

You're the one making the claim it's believable. So the onus is on you to create such a system. Annnnnnnnd go!

In the same spirit as your post, I suggest you read these: Bon, Voyage! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Giving me a link to the OSI layer of network communication as proof of some fundamental flaw in the advantages of distributed systems in some abstract question answered through an analysis of arbitrarily complex algorithms indicates to me that you're probably familiar with operating inside of the box that someone else has built for you...

...and ill equipped to discuss designing the boxes themselves.

Also, highlighting transmissions rates of '1' and '0' further underscores that you're missing the point entirely: A '1' and a '0' is meaningless without a construct to interpret '1' and '0'. So Transmission rate, without examining other components of our system, is meaningless.

Example: We have a race. One man is in a wheel chair. The other man is not. Who wins?

Answer: It depends on how they're racing.

Answer Expanded: If they're racing down a hill, the man in a wheel chair could very well win. If they're racing to play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata without errors, the man with the most piano training will likely win. You simply can't answer the question intelligently without considering other factors above and beyond the fact that one has free use of his legs, and one does not.

Which hasn't stopped a number of you from making assumptions about how a race should look based on your understanding of races you've seen. But Matrix 3.0 is not a race you've seen.

That said, if you'd like to use that framework as a reference: Your wired solution will likely incur advantages at the bottom most layer. But with sufficiently complex underpinnings, your non-distributed system may begin to run into problems at the top most layers. Also, just a thought, submitting a model for network communication is probably inadequate when discussing the operation of a system. As, once again, that's only a single component to consider.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mach_Ten
post Jun 28 2013, 03:33 PM
Post #217


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,113
Joined: 24-January 13
From: Here to Eternity
Member No.: 70,521



I had a bit of an epiphany just now,

There was a risk in the press a while ago where certain Pacemakers were hackable, that led me down the route of this isn't so far away believable, in naivette at first.

the consideration is this new matrix .. I believe that it is NOT based on antennae, it is a mesh of every device that is live.

The "new" protocol or secret sauce is that makes it loss-less and latency free.

Thus any new cyberlimb or other ware that would be installed with DNI or wires or fiber optics or other, suddenly needs much less invasive surgery (Receiver & Transmitter at limb and brain) and suddenly it's online faster than you can blink.

now,

take the activation of finger compartment or snap blades as examples

the difference between the actions Free > Simple > Complex ..

isn't a matter of segments of time, it's a matter of complexity of the meta human brain. (speaking is free and simultaneous with simple or complex actions)

it has nothing to do with the computational power of whatever network ... it is simply the fact that it used to take a "Concentrated action" now it only takes a thought

You can still do it the old fashioned way if the matrix is jammed or disabled, BUT then the signal (You concentrate for a complex action) needs to pass via the nervous system to the device, it's nothing to do with latency, it's to do with concentrating on an action that you are used to doing via wireless

Anecdotal: Daily you work on a tablet device with touch screen ... then one day the capacitative screen stops, you plug in an old mouse ... how much more difficult is it to perform that action.

that's my 2cp on rationalisation .... how it goes for hackers and etc. I've never been much of a hacker so I leave that to you

I STILL dislike the whole affair of bonii, but I can imagine the world in which this is now current.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 28 2013, 03:38 PM
Post #218


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (Mach_Ten @ Jun 28 2013, 03:33 PM) *
I had a bit of an epiphany just now,

There was a risk in the press a while ago where certain Pacemakers were hackable, that led me down the route of this isn't so far away believable, in naivette at first.

the consideration is this new matrix .. I believe that it is NOT based on antennae, it is a mesh of every device that is live.

The "new" protocol or secret sauce is that makes it loss-less and latency free.

Thus any new cyberlimb or other ware that would be installed with DNI or wires or fiber optics or other, suddenly needs much less invasive surgery (Receiver & Transmitter at limb and brain) and suddenly it's online faster than you can blink.

now,

take the activation of finger compartment or snap blades as examples

the difference between the actions Free > Simple > Complex ..

isn't a matter of segments of time, it's a matter of complexity of the meta human brain. (speaking is free and simultaneous with simple or complex actions)

it has nothing to do with the computational power of whatever network ... it is simply the fact that it used to take a "Concentrated action" now it only takes a thought

You can still do it the old fashioned way if the matrix is jammed or disabled, BUT then the signal (You concentrate for a complex action) needs to pass via the nervous system to the device, it's nothing to do with latency, it's to do with concentrating on an action that you are used to doing via wireless

Anecdotal: Daily you work on a tablet device with touch screen ... then one day the capacitative screen stops, you plug in an old mouse ... how much more difficult is it to perform that action.

that's my 2cp on rationalisation .... how it goes for hackers and etc. I've never been much of a hacker so I leave that to you

I STILL dislike the whole affair of bonii, but I can imagine the world in which this is now current.


Interesting! Though it's certainly worth noting that eventually the human brain itself will be upstaged by a sufficiently complex network of devices. Eventually. It seems like that should play into this, somehow.

Still, I think this plays nicely with my theory that the Matrix 3.0 pulls devices along with it through it's current, to once again use the stream analogy, relative to devices standing on the shore.

I'll chew on that, great thought Mach_Ten! (Don't let the people who disparage your lossless/latency-free element get to you.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mach_Ten
post Jun 28 2013, 03:44 PM
Post #219


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,113
Joined: 24-January 13
From: Here to Eternity
Member No.: 70,521



QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 28 2013, 04:38 PM) *
Interesting!

It's certainly worth noting that eventually the human brain itself will be upstaged by a sufficiently complex network of devices. Eventually.

I think this plays nicely with my theory that the Matrix 3.0 pulls devices along with it through it's current, to once again use the stream analogy, relative to devices standing on the shore.

I'll chew on that, great thought Mach_Ten! (Don't let the people who disparage your lossless/latency-free element get to you.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Thanks... I think ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

it is a bit of a step, to think that we would move from skinlink and wires and finally go wireless, but we have as humanity, done it before without imagining the consequences
and then when the corporations have gone "Wait a minute.. we can do something utterly evil with this !"

I mean .. we have mobile networks, it wasn't long before suddenly the NSA was aware of EVERY communication we made .... who'd have thought ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 28 2013, 03:58 PM
Post #220


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (Mach_Ten @ Jun 28 2013, 03:44 PM) *
Thanks... I think ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

it is a bit of a step, to think that we would move from skinlink and wires and finally go wireless, but we have as humanity, done it before without imagining the consequences
and then when the corporations have gone "Wait a minute.. we can do something utterly evil with this !"

I mean .. we have mobile networks, it wasn't long before suddenly the NSA was aware of EVERY communication we made .... who'd have thought ?


Sure. You can probably sidestep some of the loss/latency criticism by throwing the word 'relative' in there. Because the Physics nuts will harp on you a little bit for trying to break the application of, among other things, entropy to your signal. That said, when comparing two systems relative to one another, you can get a little more slack for saying that one feature is an order of magnitude larger/less-efficient/whatever, than another.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JamesX5
post Jun 28 2013, 04:04 PM
Post #221


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-June 13
Member No.: 116,010



Just a short one:

Is gear that gives you a wireless bonus affected by noise?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mach_Ten
post Jun 28 2013, 04:09 PM
Post #222


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,113
Joined: 24-January 13
From: Here to Eternity
Member No.: 70,521



QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 28 2013, 04:58 PM) *
Sure. You can probably sidestep some of the loss/latency criticism by throwing the word 'relative' in there. Because the Physics nuts will harp on you a little bit for trying to break the application of, among other things, entropy to your signal. That said, when comparing two systems relative to one another, you can get a little more slack for saying that one feature is an order of magnitude larger/less-efficient/whatever, than another.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS


or I can say .. "Because .. TECHNOLOGY!" ?

I get the whole arguments around the OSI model, it bored the crap outta me learning that bastard ... but, what happens when we completely surpass what it offers ?

I mean .. TCP/IP can't last forever, new and better protocols come with new and better technology.

Who is to say that in 70 years, we haven't made wireless comms faster and more efficient than wired (and doesn't cause Cancer or turn you into a Ghoul)

I can only imagine that the Matrix 3.0? is a hive-mind of every device,


all of my PAN are talking to each other 23323232323332333
there's my Comm that does translation maybe to anything without my personal encryption key 10100100111010100
and the guy I'm stood talking to with his PAN 878787887887887

thre's thus no cross channel interference BUT any free cycles can be accessed by anything, the personal AES key stuff gets priority though for QoS.

again, my interpretation. if we can get past wires are always better ... cause "it's the future!"

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wired_SR_AEGIS
post Jun 28 2013, 04:09 PM
Post #223


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 11-June 13
Member No.: 109,479



QUOTE (JamesX5 @ Jun 28 2013, 05:04 PM) *
Just a short one:

Is gear that gives you a wireless bonus affected by noise?


Good question. I haven't seen the rules. I'd guess that the question of signal loss from noise has probably been streamlined out of gear bonuses, and if it applies, it's likely limited to undertaking actions in the matrix.

You might have found something like that in the rules of earlier editions, but upon hitting 4th (from my limited overview of 4th edition), it seems like there were numerous streamlines aimed at lowering realism to improve playability.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JamesX5
post Jun 28 2013, 04:13 PM
Post #224


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-June 13
Member No.: 116,010



Well. That seems rather strange to me, given the fact that hackers, who run really advanced technology like cyberdecks, are affected by noise ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Jun 28 2013, 04:14 PM
Post #225


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 28 2013, 11:25 PM) *
Giving me a link to the OSI layer of network communication as proof of some fundamental flaw in the advantages of distributed systems in some abstract question answered through an analysis of arbitrarily complex algorithms indicates to me that you're probably familiar with operating inside of the box that someone else has built for you...

...and ill equipped to discuss designing the boxes themselves.

Also, highlighting transmissions rates of '1' and '0' further underscores that you're missing the point entirely: A '1' and a '0' is meaningless without a construct to interpret '1' and '0'. So Transmission rate, without examining other components of our system, is meaningless.

Example: We have a race. One man is in a wheel chair. The other man is not. Who wins?

Answer: It depends on how they're racing.

Answer Expanded: If they're racing down a hill, the man in a wheel chair could very well win. If they're racing to play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata without errors, the man with the most piano training will likely win. You simply can't answer the question intelligently without considering other factors above and beyond the fact that one has free use of his legs, and one does not.

Which hasn't stopped a number of you from making assumptions about how a race should look based on your understanding of races you've seen. But Matrix 3.0 is not a race you've seen.

That said, if you'd like to use that framework as a reference: Your wired solution will likely incur advantages at the bottom most layer. But with sufficiently complex underpinnings, your non-distributed system may begin to run into problems at the top most layers. Also, just a thought, submitting a model for network communication is probably inadequate when discussing the operation of a system. As, once again, that's only a single component to consider.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Your post...just wow. Take it easy man.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th May 2025 - 10:41 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.