Fact 2A: Activators do not say that they require an active wireless connectivity.
Fact 3A: Activators don't say how they go about subscribing you to extra nodes, and could very plausibly turn your connection on to do it.


-Frank

It's on p32, under Cyberware triggers. Despite what Tarantula says, it hits specific cyber devices, and not the entire cyberarm. You can specifically shut off things like flex hands, cyber weapons, gyromounts, and anything else that you might find inconvenient. The wireless card isn't much of a stretch.

Frank: For a nanite that's supposed to be nothing more than an annoyance, you're sure giving them a lot of power. They suddenly can bridge physical gaps, fix broken cyberware, and all other sorts of absurdities. If they're "just an annoyance", as per RAW, then they should be able to be defeated/destroyed just as easily, if in an equally annoying fashion. Physically shutting down your wireless would be an effective, but annoying, defense against an annoyance.

FYI, my computer has an on/off switch. I can power it down via software, and the hardware switch can turn it back on.. and so can 'wake to LAN' if the option is enabled.

A modern cell phone without a carrier (one is sitting on my desk at the moment) is wireless capable, but not wireless active. However, I can dial 911 with it and it will go through. And, most modern televisions and radios can turn themselves on if they are told to by the Emergency Broadcast System. Sure, if the television isn't hooked up to cable then it won't turn on, but the radio wasn't referred to as a 'wireless' for nothing, right?

This quote above, the one that states "Any device’s wireless capability can be turned off with a simple command. Of course, that means it needs to be turned back on manually, unless you set it to reactivate at a specified time"? That ruins the argument it cannot be turned on by software. The Nanites go 'hey, it's the time to turn on that you specified!' and voila, you're back online.

Having pointed that out, even though I do not agree with the good Doctor's methods, I do in fact agree with his position. I do so for a simple reason; the logistic NIGHTMARE these Activator nanites cause a security spider.

We'll use two examples of rooms filled with these nanites. The first is the foyer example, where (technically) both sides have merit. Upon entering, any wireless device that is active subscribes to the office network, and the Spiders can ensure no hidden wireless camera is being used by a cybersnoop for an undercover expose, etc. There is also decent cause for ANY wireless capable device to jump on the network as well, to let the Spider know the man who walked in the door is sporting two cyberlimbs, a smartlink, a concealed SMG, and move-by-wire 3. That's a good thing to know!

The second example is a secured hallway leading to a R&D lab. Here you just want to ensure no commlinks enter this hallway in hidden mode. The last thing you want is every piece of cyberware that enters causing your security board to light up like a Christmas tree. And there's some cyberware you don't want online (Wageslave Bob's cyberpenis reports... it is suffering from an unidentified source of irritation! It could be caused by chafing, or it could be awakened adept ghoul crabs! Ewww, TMFI either way!).

The solution is to create a second version of the activator nanites, make them ten times more expensive, and allow them to activate the wirelessly enabled devices that aren't currently active. The normal listed version just targets active wireless devices and subscribes them/locks them open.

In addition to being a great way to force a hidden PAN to subscribe or go active, the concept of nanites that cause wireless devices to either subscribe or go active is the simple idea that the devices go active, the local network acknowledges them, downloads a worm/trace/whatever program, and then tells them to unsubscribe the node/go back to sleep. So if Security drops the ball and fails to stop the intruders, you'll have a much easier chance hunting them down. Obviously the concept of causing all of a runner's cyberware to go active, get infected, and then go back to sleep is just overwhelmingly difficult to counter.

Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. If you want to believe that shooting a gun causes a pink elephant to manifest in Morocco, you're more than welcome to believe that. Doesn't actually mean a pink elephant manifests in Morocco, but you sure as fuck are entitled to believe it all you like.

Feel free to point out a spell that works similarly to what you described. The closest one I know of is Control Actions. And with it, you certainly can make "someone with a gun" "shoot their allies." But guess what! Means diddly squat if the gun isn't loaded, huh? Such a simple defense, wouldn't you say? I certainly would.

No. Once again, Activators infect a wireless capable device. That has fuck all to do with anything. Much like your example, where your spell only works on someone with a gun. And, much like in your example, those little Activators can't complete their task if wireless connectivity is disabled, just like your spell can't shoot someone's allies cause the gun didn't have any ammo.

A-yup. Which is precisely why it doesn't happen. Just like your make-believe spell doesn't shoot the target's enemies. Though not for a lack of trying.

And they are... if the user was stupid enough to keep his wireless connectivity on. Which, also again, is the default setting in the game. For all gear. Players have to specifically mention that they're taking this precaution, and Activators are a damn good reason to take that precaution.

Never claimed it did. Gonna skip a head a bit as I hate multiple quoting. Sorry.

Actually that was never once in any of my arguments. As far as I can remember, you're the only one who initially brought price up and for much the same reason -- to try and create a red herring from a real argument.

Important steps are most certainly noted in the rules. Take Deactivators -- the very thing you pointed out -- as a shining example. They specifically, unequivocally, and without any doubt whatsoever say that those nanites are capable of affecting the state of wireless connectivity. But.. alas... I guess they instantly fall dead the moment they do because it no longer becomes a wireless capable device? That's a conundrum, huh.

I'm sorry that your opinion is backed up by neither Jack nor Shit, but them's the breaks.

A cyberarm is an individual piece of cyberware that you can turn on and off via a physical switch. Flex hands are individual cyber too (but aren't a good example, because they don't work with cyberarms).

Cyberweapons are individual pieces of cyber you can turn on and off via a physical switch.

Thusly, you could have a cyberarm with a cyberweapon, turn the arm (and all cyber installed in the arm) on and off via one switch, or just the weapon via a different switch.

The wireless access isn't a seperate piece of cyber. Theres one in each of your cyber, one in your arm, your cybergun, etc. The switches are for an item of cyberware, not for a specific piece of it. Another example, the switch can turn your arm on and off, but wouldn't be able to turn off just your pinky finger.

Actually, if you want to go that route, deactivators can't infect anything at all. It just says they "Similar to activators, deactivators either unsubscribe the use's node access or close all of the device's wireless connections." It doesn't say they ever infect anything, or anything else at all! So what do they do?!

1) Good so far.
2) Agreed.
3) Correct.

Now, 4) activators make no mention of needing the wireless to be active on a device. Therefore, they can subscribe wireless capable devices while their wireless is turned off. Wow, thats pretty cool.

How about Control Thoughts? If you told someone to shoot their friend they would slide a clip in the unloaded gun, point and shoot.

16 posts. Its not new and original, I figured that the wireless turning on in order to subscribe was included in the subscription of said device. Since you insist it isn't, then we'll take it out. You are taking it extremely literally, which means, wireless stays off, but its subscribed/open to access and thusly accessable with the wireless off. I think I'm gonna use activators on my own equipment, with their wireless off, and have them subscribe to my commlink (which is also wireless off but has activators in it subscribing it to my gear). I can't ever be detected wirelessly (since its all off) but it all works just fine.

Yeah, because that's what the argument is. That you don't need to be wirelessly active to subscribe to a list, and you can shoot someone with a gun without any ammo. Excellent analysis.

Why not? Especially if you have a modular cyberhand, why can't you have switches that shut off just part of a device? You know, toggles that "manually switch on" your wireless... something *EVERY* piece of wireless-enabled equipment has?

Since "manually" means to do things by hand, you *should* have a switch for it. So, you power it up by pressing a button: there, you did it manually. Physical toggles, as opposed to electronic switches, may be rare... but by RAW, they're equally cheap and availiable.

Manual is manual. Manual just in case you're having trouble.

Which has been pointed out multiple times. Guess what. I can turn my computer off with a software switch in Windows. It's really easy. I'm sure you've done it once or twice, too. Really neat trick, huh.

But I'll be damned if I've ever had a virus turn my computer on after I turned it off. Nope. Requires me to manually turn it back on! Unless, of course, I choose to turn it off in a different fashion (such as merely going on Standby), which the rules also encounter. Unfortunately for you, there's no distinguishing between the two. Hardware and software. Manual and electronic. It's all "turning it off" and turning it right back on.

A DNI "wireless on" is exactly the opposite of manually turning it on. By definition.

I wouldn't mind it at all if Activators said they did that. But they don't. No matter how hard you try to claim they do by ignoring RAW when it suits you or quoting it when it does.

I usually do, and keep wireless turned off. As a precaution against precisely this sort of thing. But these guys are saying none of those precautions matter. That Activators are super hackers that can do whatever they wish to make something work, no matter what. We even have someone now saying they can build hardware bridges.

Mocking opinions? Once again I refer you to your own words:

You've told people they're hypocrites, spouting nonsense, sworn at us... I'm not particularly offended, I just think that if I plotted a graph of all the more personal attacks, resorts to heavy sarcasm and pointed, patronising comments, your name would be way up at the top of the list. It doesn't say anything about your argument, but it says a lot about yourself.

You can disagree with the position that several of us are taking, without getting unpleasant (look to Cain for an example), but only an idiot would say that the case Tarantula, Frank and myself are making is without merit or a stupid argument.

You should look at some of the arguments you're now using to justify your case - 'a Control Minds victim will fail to shoot someone as instructed if the safety is on, because the controller didn't specify that they take the safety off, or that they should actually draw the gun first... or by the same principle, bother to aim.'

Whether you are right or wrong in your argument (and it may be that there is no right or wrong, here), you are doing nothing to persuade anyone to your case when you are clearly arguing to win, rather than to arrive at a conclusion.

Regards,

Khadim.

By that definition, all they'll infect is your underpants. Remember, *everything* is wireless-capable unless otherwise specified. Your clothes could be (and, by RAW, are) wireless-ready and active. Since the first thing the nanties will hit is your clothing, all they'll do is spam your underoos.

Hey thats a really good idea that had not occurred to me!