IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why is Bio SOTA
Cynic project
post Aug 11 2007, 02:02 AM
Post #1


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,032
Joined: 6-August 04
Member No.: 6,543



Why is Bioware at least look at the rules SOTA over cyberware? Even if you buy the bullet about it should be..When will Nanoware replace bioware as the SOTA?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ancient History
post Aug 11 2007, 02:06 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,748
Joined: 5-July 02
Member No.: 2,935



When you hit Diamond Age.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Aug 11 2007, 02:40 AM
Post #3


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Speaking as someone who types with wretched grammar, your post just bitchslapped me into illiteracy. I have no idea what you just said, Cynic. Could you rephrase it maybe?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
l33tpenguin
post Aug 11 2007, 02:45 AM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 15-July 07
Member No.: 12,262



Its bad grammar? I thought it was a reference that I had no clue about what so ever, and like some many complicated dissertations on abstract theory, I figured it was just beyond my understanding
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wakshaani
post Aug 11 2007, 02:46 AM
Post #5


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,598
Joined: 24-May 03
Member No.: 4,629



He's asking why Bioware is seen as State of teh Art instead of Nanoware.

Sort of like how Bio pased Cyber.

Cyber --> Bio --> Nano
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aristotle
post Aug 11 2007, 02:50 AM
Post #6


Slacker Extraordinaire
**

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 337
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ashburn, VA
Member No.: 997



I believe the question is: Why is Bioware the current state of the art? When will nanoware be the current state of the art?

I'll counter that with: Nanoware, and now Genetech, are state of the art as far as I can tell. Once upon a time you had to wait for bioware until after you generated you character, or at least until the bioware book was released. Now bioware is in the core rules, while these "newer" technologies are in the advanced book and (in at least one case) are specifically called out as being so new that characters should not be allowed to acquire them during character generation.

Did I get it right, or did I misunderstand?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Casper
post Aug 11 2007, 07:32 AM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,002



Speaking of SOTA, are rules similiar to those in 3rd ed being thought about or being intended for 4th ed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Aug 11 2007, 08:30 AM
Post #8


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (Casper)
Speaking of SOTA, are rules similiar to those in 3rd ed being thought about or being intended for 4th ed.

Christ, I hope not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Synner
post Aug 11 2007, 09:43 AM
Post #9


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185



QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (Casper @ Aug 11 2007, 02:32 AM)
Speaking of SOTA,  are rules similiar to those in 3rd ed being thought about or being intended for 4th ed.

Christ, I hope not.

No. We do not intend to reintroduce SOTA at this point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Aug 11 2007, 09:47 AM
Post #10


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



..the 'at this point' part scares me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NightmareX
post Aug 11 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 831
Joined: 5-September 05
From: LAX, UCAS
Member No.: 7,687



SOTA rules make baby Jesus cry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cynic project
post Aug 11 2007, 05:47 PM
Post #12


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,032
Joined: 6-August 04
Member No.: 6,543



Mainly I am sick of well wet-ware being better. I honestly think that even if for whatever reason you can make bio-logical implants that are more cutting edge than machinal devices...I fail to see how it would keep up.

We understand machines, and machines are easy to adapt,and change.. Look at the speed of change and develuments in say call phones in the real world..Or just the way things change in shadowrun's computing power... But Cyberware...Nah that largely has to stay the same?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Antongarou
post Aug 11 2007, 06:03 PM
Post #13


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 6-August 07
Member No.: 12,530



Biology shows us that the clumps of molecular machines we call cells are much more efficient then any metal machine built to date- take the efficiency of human glucose to ATP conversion process if you want an example:IIRC it's around the 40% mark, when cars are somewhere in the teens at best and the maximum theoretically possible is 54%.Yes, machines are able to do things meat currently can't do like communicate over radio frequencies or get direct input from radar, but when you check it meat is actually more efficient in about anything both do.I think it's due at least in part to the fact meat had several hundred million years more of time to sophisticate itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cynic project
post Aug 11 2007, 07:00 PM
Post #14


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,032
Joined: 6-August 04
Member No.: 6,543



Yes but things like transmitting data is better with machines...The human brain is really slow compared to modern computers. Unless you can honestly say that you can send signil along your normal nervus system close to the speed of light..You can along machines.

Things both machines and meat does...machines do better or at least faster.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ophis
post Aug 11 2007, 08:39 PM
Post #15


Mystery Archaeologist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,906
Joined: 19-September 05
From: The apple tree
Member No.: 7,760



Machines are quicker at specific things, biological computers (yes brains) are vastly more complex than any computer that exists, I seem to remember a quotation that the number of connections the brain can produce rivals the number of atoms in the universe.

Also nerves do work by electricity, fairly quick close to light speed. Synapses slow it down a bit. Bioware is subtle and hard to detect (guess what, it looks like the rest of you) cyber is easy to spot. Which one is better for a professional criminal?

Cyber can do things like exceed to bodies capabilities (see cyberlimbs in Aug) but for enhancing things bodies do already a biological solution will be better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Aug 11 2007, 08:44 PM
Post #16


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



QUOTE (Ophis)
I seem to remember a quotation that the number of connections the brain can produce rivals the number of atoms in the universe.

That's a paradoxon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ophis
post Aug 11 2007, 08:56 PM
Post #17


Mystery Archaeologist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,906
Joined: 19-September 05
From: The apple tree
Member No.: 7,760



Fair enough, can't remember the source for that. My point was that the neural networks of our brains are vastly more complex than any computer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cx2
post Aug 11 2007, 11:19 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 3-October 05
Member No.: 7,802



Well given that they are I believe working on biological computers, since they can show unusual efficiency in some regards...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Buster
post Aug 11 2007, 11:21 PM
Post #19


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,246
Joined: 8-June 07
Member No.: 11,869



QUOTE (Ophis)
Fair enough, can't remember the source for that. My point was that the neural networks of our brains are vastly more complex than any computer.

For now... But I'm working on that. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Black Jack Rackh...
post Aug 12 2007, 02:25 AM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 27-January 06
From: Norfolk, Ma
Member No.: 8,202



QUOTE (Ophis @ Aug 11 2007, 03:39 PM)
Machines are quicker at specific things, biological computers (yes brains) are vastly more complex than any computer that exists...

SNIP

Cyber can do things like exceed to bodies capabilities (see cyberlimbs in Aug) but for enhancing things bodies do already a biological solution will be better.

Machines can do specific behaviors faster (calculate numbers, sort discreet bits of data, etc.). However, there is one thing that the human mind has over machines in spades. That is the ability to make coorelations between different things. For example, if I mention a glass of juice and a cell phone, all of us could think of a vast number of things they have in common. Computers are limited by the foresight of their programming.

Mark

(See there IS a use for a Doctorate in Psychology after all...)

EDIT: I'm sure someone will want to point out that, at some point, the programming will be perfected. The problem is, our minds constantly evolve with new bits of information and new relationships built every second. Until we make a learning computer that doesn't rely on additional programming, it will never be as good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draconis
post Aug 12 2007, 06:11 AM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 19-May 03
From: In your base eating your food.
Member No.: 4,607



QUOTE (cx2)
Well given that they are I believe working on biological computers, since they can show unusual efficiency in some regards...

Ghost in the Shell the manga has networked pigs as a bio computer.

In our SR game we've encountered cat nodes. They're good for storage and processing but they're uber creepy. I don't want my commlink staring at me.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PlatonicPimp
post Aug 12 2007, 02:47 PM
Post #22


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lofwyr's stomach.
Member No.: 1,320



Heh. I had a datasteal once where the data was stored in headware memory inside a cat. The entire mission turned into trying to find a stray.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Aug 12 2007, 02:51 PM
Post #23


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



Headware memory in a cat ..... does that make it a Blackberry Cat?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cthulhudreams
post Aug 12 2007, 03:38 PM
Post #24


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,650
Joined: 21-July 07
Member No.: 12,328



QUOTE (Black Jack Rackham @ Aug 11 2007, 09:25 PM)
However, there is one thing that the human mind has over machines in spades.  That is the ability to make coorelations between different things.

Actually computers can be really good at this as well. For example if you have titanic datasets, and you want to find all the relationships between two people, this is quite possible and quite effective (Like, they lived at the same house 2 years ago, went to the same school during these periods etc.)

Edit: I actually imagine that these technologies would be the bane of shadowrunners - say you have these two descriptions, the security types will find that they match these SINs (even if they are fake) and those two people went to this restaurant and ordered food at that table. The other 3 people at that table where etc, etc, etc.


However, that basically comes back to what computers are good at: Performing operations on large functional datasets. What they are bad at is dealing with ambiguity or large search spaces. (Note: The search space of all commercial transactions in LA at which perp 1 was present in the last week is probably very small compared to the number of movies in a chess game)

This is why computers are great at checkers, good at chess and really terrible at Go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post Aug 12 2007, 05:27 PM
Post #25


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,069
Joined: 19-July 07
From: Oakland CA
Member No.: 12,309



GO++ now barely playing at a pro level. FYI
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th February 2024 - 04:58 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.