Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nanoware
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Grinder
Well, as we all know, nanoware/nanotech was introduced in m&m, but was/is expensive and hardly available. And the stuff is mostly crap, lacking useful functions for joe average runner. So should it become more common 2070?

Cool, my first poll biggrin.gif
Demosthenes
Yes.
Small things doing cool stuff are cool.
Like my cellphone.
I don't know what it does, but it's small.
And it's cool.
Yes.
dead.gif
Grinder
Recently watched "beavis and butthead"?

Small things are cool, yeah! hehe! biggrin.gif
Sunshine
Jes there should be more Nanoware!

I 'd opt for more nanoware, integrated in just about anything: Cell Phones wink.gif , Weapons (look at my cool new Ares NanoBlade...), Armor, Cyberware, Vehicles, Food (NanErgy - drink it and have a Tatoo apear on your forehead or change Eye Colour...), Sex Toys eek.gif , NanoDrugs (NanoWeed?) etc...
Nikoli
I think a Grey Goo threat would make for an interesting metaplot.
As well as an AI being born of a rogue nanocolony in some person. (Akin to Prey by Michal Crichton).

More nano for the everyday, similair to original Cyberpunk. Nano is much better suited to toxin filtering than the current over-sized and under powered filtration systems in the cyberware.

Also, more fluff nano for dealing with toxic environments, like oil spills and other man-made disasters.
Lantzer
I didn't care for CP CyberGeneration (I think that was its name...)
mmu1
Nanoware is the tool of the devil.

Seriously, though, nanoware is often used by sci-fi writers in stupid an illogical ways, because they can't be bothered to define the technology clearly and think all the implications through - which makes it magic by another name. (and this is sort of the approach SR uses right now)

On the other end of the spectrum, you have a world where nanoware is actually being used logically, which is boring as hell and no fun to be a shadowrunner in, because you have these things running around that can get in anywhere, stay anywhere and be essentially invisible (here's to having a few million micrscopic surveillance cameras to deal with), dissassemble anything on a molecular level, (how about a security system that simply fires off a canister of nanobots designed to disassemble anything organic that doesn't have the right molecular IFF tag) and can't be hurt with conventional weapons... It's pointless, unless you actually want to play NanoRun.
BitBasher
I voted no because 99% of the time nanotech is a crutch for bad writing and deus ex machine style "we want to do this... so NANO!" It's pretty lame. Also for the reasons stated above.
Critias
I don't mind nanoware that makes sense when it's used in a fairly reasonable and logical manner. I do mind nanoware for nanoware's sake that does all sorts of crazy and unbeleivable things.
Garland
No. Widespread nano starts getting beyond the level of tech I'm comfortable with and into post-human stuff where too much is possible.
nezumi
I'd be okay with it, but it'd have to be very strictly controlled. How they're doing it now is good, in that:

1) It's not 'magical'. Everything it does make sense.
2) It's not popular or easily available
3) It isn't advanced enough to become the all pervasive tool of the man, nor does it allow for post-human stuff
4) It IS a tool for the devil, with things like cutters, and the little bumblebees from RA:S

So as long as they advance it ever so gradually, maybe offer more options, but keeping it in its current place for the most part would be alright by me.
Nikoli
Never even laid hands on the cybergeneration stuff for CP. Talking about the personal grooming type stuff.
Arethusa
QUOTE (mmu1)
Nanoware is the tool of the devil.

Seriously, though, nanoware is often used by sci-fi writers in stupid an illogical ways, because they can't be bothered to define the technology clearly and think all the implications through - which makes it magic by another name. (and this is sort of the approach SR uses right now)

On the other end of the spectrum, you have a world where nanoware is actually being used logically, which is boring as hell and no fun to be a shadowrunner in, because you have these things running around that can get in anywhere, stay anywhere and be essentially invisible (here's to having a few million micrscopic surveillance cameras to deal with), dissassemble anything on a molecular level, (how about a security system that simply fires off a canister of nanobots designed to disassemble anything organic that doesn't have the right molecular IFF tag) and can't be hurt with conventional weapons... It's pointless, unless you actually want to play NanoRun.

Listen to this.

Nanotechnology on a consumer level, pervasive scale changes almost every fundamental paradigm that exists in society. It destroys conventional conceptions of How Things Work. You can't just shove it into your world and inly drag it out when convenient. If you start using it, its implications are incredibly far reaching. It makes for an interesting read from a good writer (The Diamond Age), but not likely a very good roleplaying game and certainly not one that would even begin to resemble cyberpunk, let alone Shadowrun. It's basically every poorly thought out decision and overlooked ramification of magic's current introduction in society in Shadowrun— only ten to a hundred times worse.
Moon-Hawk
I'll second Arethusa. Nanotech is cool, but it is a Vingean Singularity level event; one that totally redefines the way technology works and advances in ways that can not be predicted in terms of anything we have previously. Then again, so it artificial intelligence. Hmm, magic would be, too.
Aw, crap, I guess SR is all about being on the fringe of that sort of thing. I guess maybe I don't have a problem with it afterall. That just may be the point where I suspend my disbelief and enjoy the game.
Edward
Remember that a nanite cant do anything significant and dose not have the processing power to make a coherent decision. Without a powerful computer (host level) they cant even be directed to work in an orderly fashion

What they are good at is small things that need to be done a lot of times. Eg breaking down a toxic molecule. You have them in your blood, the toxin enters your blot the nanits randomly bump into toxin molecules and neutralise them.

Ora mannite can bond with O2 releasing it after a short time, this will allow the blood to carry more O2 but the nanites are not making intelligent decisions on when to capture or release it, they just always capture O2 if they can find it and release it a short time latter.

Building something of a predetermined shape would b beyond the ability of nanites (without guidance) but repairing hairline crakes in a material would not, just hope there is nothing that should move freely that they think ids a hairline crack, because they will seal it.

I believe that nanites ether need to be removed from the field of human augmentation or improved as would logically happon.

One peas of equipment that should become available for example is the external nanite hive, produce your own injection of nanites for replenishment weekly and after taking serious injury.

Another thing nanits can’t do is act as a spy camera. They are to small to have individual long range sensing equipment and communication and correlation of short range data including exact positions would require more processing power than anything short of the best hosts could provide.

Edward
mmu1
QUOTE (Edward @ Apr 22 2005, 11:31 AM)
Remember that a nanite cant do anything significant and dose not have the processing power to make a coherent decision. Without a powerful computer (host level) they cant even be directed to work in an orderly fashion

(...)

Another thing nanits can’t do is act as a spy camera. They are to small to have individual long range sensing equipment and communication and correlation of short range data including exact positions would require more processing power than anything short of the best hosts could provide.

So they're big enough to include equipment for two-way communication with an external host, but too small to have a rudimentary camera?

I think you're basing your statements on too many assumptions based on how you personally imagine nanotech to be like, whereas I (and others) were talking about some of the implications of perfected, consumer-level nanotechnology.

Regardless, SR nanotech is clearly beyond the level of carrying out simple, repetitive tasks - the way it's used in various medical and cyber-implantation procedures makes that pretty clear.
Moon-Hawk
Remember, the nanite does not have to carry a long range video camera. All it has to do is measure one specific frequency. (maybe visible light, maybe radio, maybe anything. Each one can measure something slightly different) Each nanite has to communicate only one value to the host. It's the host's job to turn the array into a detailed image.
Nanites can't act as spy cameras like a human eye, but they could do it like a fly's eye.
........I think.
Nikoli
Seriously, read Prey. One of the best Sci-fi handlings of Nanotech I've seen in a long time.
Moon-Hawk
I know, I know, it's on my list. wink.gif
GrinderTheTroll
It's one of those neat ideas that didn't really take off like I'd hoped it would. Nanotech is pretty cool, and would probably be viewed as more "magical" than actual magic in SR considering it's rather sight-unseen that works without having you to do anything.

Kind of reminds me of something from Terminator 2, where the T-1000 was basically a colleciton of nano-computers (among other things). I would imagine the military applications would be mind-numbingly cool.

I hope they give Nanotech it's time in SR4.
hahnsoo
Another note: Long before the publication of Man and Machine, nanotechnology was already part of the Shadowrun world. True, the vision laid down by Karl Wu in Shadowtech focused on biological nanobots (which are quite feasible, not to mention lower on the tech scale, since you don't have to construct a de novo replication framework... just use DNA), but the datajack and many other pieces of cyberware cannot (and did not) exist without nanotechnology. There should be a distinction between nanoware (inserting nanites as a human body enhancement) and nanotechnology (any application of microscopically miniaturized tech), and I'd certainly like to see more of the latter.
Nikoli
I had forgotten about tat cyberware was built through application of specialized microbes that would eat a material, be drawn to a location through chemical process then die and deposit the material. that is how they claim a good bit of the implantation is done, which doesn't explain the woulnds received in the operation for implantation of certain cyberware.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Nikoli)
I had forgotten about tat cyberware was built through application of specialized microbes that would eat a material, be drawn to a location through chemical process then die and deposit the material. that is how they claim a good bit of the implantation is done, which doesn't explain the woulnds received in the operation for implantation of certain cyberware.

Only the neural interface part is "built" this way. The rest of it is the implantation of hardware, which will definitely at least be a scalpel wound. I'd also imagine that you'd have to be put under anesthesia for at least part of the neural interface implantation, which would certainly put the body under stress.
Fortune
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Only the neural interface part is "built" this way. The rest of it is the implantation of hardware, which will definitely at least be a scalpel wound.

IIRC, Bone Lacing is listed as being implanted using Nanites.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Apr 23 2005, 09:05 AM)
Only the neural interface part is "built" this way.  The rest of it is the implantation of hardware, which will definitely at least be a scalpel wound.

IIRC, Bone Lacing is listed as being implanted using Nanites.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting that only neural interfaces in general are constructed this way, but on most cyberware, the physical "chrome" part is implanted through surgery (like a datajack plug or a metal container or a chip) while the neural interface is constructed through nanites.

It would be very difficult to implant bone lacing without nanites, or massive expensive surgery. I think nanites would be the better option, personally. smile.gif
Kagetenshi
I voted yes, but I'd like to qualify that.

I'd like to see more nanoware, possibly even up to half again as much as we have now. No more. mmu1 and Arethusa pretty much summed up my objections to making it at all central.

~J
lacemaker
I don't think consumer level nanotechnology necessarily implies a mature nanotechnology of the type people are (justly) opposed to. Nanotech is very much a continuum rather than a dichotomy, and any discussion has to start by making a distinction between "nanotech" which is really just nano-scale materials engineering (ie any and all existing real world nanotech) and the engines of creation stuff.

Even assuming we're taking nanotech as being equivalent to nano-bots, there's no reason at all why nanobots couldn't be consumer ready for certain, limited tasks but unrealiable at, or incapable of the kind of game changers that worry people. Even if I'm wrong as to that, it's a perfect opportunity for game designer fiat - nanotech can work in your cyberware but doesn't permit go anywhere invisible sensors because that's not how it works. Precise realism isn't a key objective in SR technology, but invoking a cool futuristic vibe is - nanotech does that today (hell, it's the "japanese megacorps" of the new millennium) so put it in there, just nerf it at some well sub-diamond age level.
Rev
Eh, I read a paper by a physicist once on nanotech. He did some thermodynamic calculations demonstrating that making a table with universal assembler nano-robots took as much energy as making an aircraft carrier or something the normal way. Has to do with the ridiculously low entropy of an item manufactured that way vs a normal item, basically every molecule is in a specified position and that takes lots of energy.

There are solid theroretical reasons to think that nanotech utopia is physically impossible. That if you had nanorobots making a material equivalent to wood they would not be able to do it with much less energy than or much faster than a tree (eg not the many orders of magnitude that nanotech fantasies require). Same goes for making computers, or the nanorobots themselves.
Edward
I am curious what the low entropy would do to the materials strength and resilience.

Even expensive and sow to produce if the strength to weight ration is good enough there will be a market.

Edward
mfb
that's only true if you're trying to produce one piece of wood at a time, Rev. the speed factor comes into play when you've got gigantic tanks full of raw components, which can then be quickly nanoassembled into finished products. yes, it takes the same amount of time overall, but you've got much finer control over what happens during that time period, as well as when the period starts, pauses, and ends.
The Other DSE
Actually, even if you had all of those vats going at once, can you really see a megacorp waiting to for a year to create a whole batch of tables? Additionally, I think the important part is the energy investment. That energy costs, so if you can build it using normal means, then you would.

As I once heard about Star Trek: If they had the technology to replicate entire starships, they wouldn't need starships.

Edward: Nano-created wood would have the exact same strength as wood. That's the point, you're replicating the actual material. The benefit of nano-materials is that you could use nano to create materials in quantities/shapes that you normally couldn't, as well as materials that just don't exist.

Examples: Perfect, low entropy, construction spars (think uber-girders)
Diamond windows
Superconductors
Dikoting (or otherwise laminating) without blast furnaces
Finally (and maybe most importantly) plastics *without fossil fuels*


I suspect that you'd see different approaches to different things. Sometimes you'd just produce job lots of the materials, and then refine/adapt the materials you'd need (don't produce a table, but produce sheets of wood to make the table). Other times you would actually see a part being entirely nano-constructed.

Hey Raygun (and you other gun lovers) how's a low entropy metallurgically perfect barrel sound for your firearm?
Kagetenshi
Nano-created wood might have the strength of wood, but it would have the strength of optimal wood. Most materials have flaws that don't need to be present if you're constructing at such a low level.

~J
Edward
Nano wood is just stilly, nano build machine parts is what I was thinking of, bearings without the tiniest bump or crack is just the beginning. How would the strength compare for a 1’ steal rod compare if built using nano mashienes or if build using the best method available today.

Edward
mfb
DSE, my point was that the corps wouldn't need to wait a year to make a table. all they'd have to do would be pull out enough proto-wood goop from their stores to create a table, assemble over the course of a few days, and plop it in the store. yes, they'd have to spend a year before that creating the proto-goop, but that's there's no reason not to have eleventy hojillion tons of proto-wood goop lying around all the time, since that same goop can probably also be assembled into materials (hamburgers, dirt, vat-grown muscles...)
Edward
For a moment mentally compare the cost of making wood using nano mashies to the cost of chopping down trees in amazonia and running them threw a lumber mill, recall also that those trees are growing out of control and nobody is particularly worried about them disappearing.

Edward
Rev
QUOTE (mfb)
...all they'd have to do would be pull out enough proto-wood goop from their stores to create a table, assemble over the course of a few days, and plop it in the store...

...and sell it for a million newyen to break even.

That's why nanotech utopia doesn't work, the energy cost outweighs the benefits in nearly all cases.

For specific money-is-almost-no-object applications, perhaps. For production of normal products, no.
The Other DSE
Actually my point was that it would take a while *still* even from the point of time that you pull out your "proto-wood". Unless the stuff was specifically designed to be wood or something, it would still take quite a while, especially compared to the time it would take to make something the "normal" way. And if it was specifically designed to be wood, then you couldn't differentiate it into some other material.

That's what we're trying to say: This idea of "nano-goop" that becomes what ever you want in a reasonable period of time is totally and completely ludicrous with respect to the level of tech that Shadowrun is at.

And Edward: I agree with you. Low entropy materials would be the major dividend of nano. The wood was just part of the earlier discussion.

Like I said, imagine a perfect gun barrel. I'm still curious if Raygun (or you Arethusa) thinks that would be incredibly useful or just overkill.

On a side note, I'm still kind of suspicious of any true nano-machines having any kind of programmability on the fly. Micro-machines I can buy (and let's just ignore that pun there, I mean robots that are micrometers in measure) but anything in the nano range would probably have to be purpose built and it wouldn't be able to change tasks.
Ellery
Trees already nanoassemble wood, given some solid and gaseous starting materials and energy in the form of visible photons.
mfb
what ellery said. why should nanoassembly be any more expensive, energy-wise, than growing a tree? the only difference would be that you can start and stop the nanoassembly process at pretty much any point you wish to, which means you've got finer control over your supply.

DSE, wood and food aren't exactly mars and venus. what you'd actually have, instead of one big tank of nanogoop, is lots of smaller tanks of nanogoop which are combined in whatever proportion and configuration you desire. most of the goop that goes into wood can also go into delicious corn, and some of it can be used to make juicy sausage. or pizza. possibly hu-man ice creams as well. damn, i'm hungry.
Cray74
QUOTE (Grinder)
Well, as we all know, nanoware/nanotech was introduced in m&m, but was/is expensive and hardly available. And the stuff is mostly crap, lacking useful functions for joe average runner. So should it become more common 2070?

Cool, my first poll biggrin.gif

I'm lukewarm to it.

I'm not really impressed with the progress on real life nanotech, so including nanotech in BT seemed like pandering to 1990s trends in sci-fi more than anything.

This was balanced with the so-so performance of most nanoware. About the only thing I liked were the medkits and nano biomonitors.

If the SR4 nanoware is much the same as the SR3 nanoware (so-so to inadequate performance), I'm lukewarm to it.

If it becomes the super-wonder-techno-magic crap of 1990s science fiction, then I'll be rabidly hostile to it.
Ellery
Why use generic goop when you can reprogram trees to be responsive to chemical signaling (and even transport and take up DNA if you'd like)?
Rev
QUOTE (Ellery @ May 11 2005, 08:59 PM)
Trees already nanoassemble wood, given some solid and gaseous starting materials and energy in the form of visible photons.

It should be theroretically possible to make nanoassemblers capable of building a specific reasonably high entropy material like wood and collecting energy from the sun and materials from thier surroundings for roughly the same amount of energy as a tree. Presumably one could do somewhat better than a tree by rationally designing the process instead of evolving it (though presently we can't best a lot of evolved systems).

However the machines that can do that are far removed from the ones that can build anything almost instantly for almost no cost and rewrite economics.

Anyway we are going around in circles now, here is what I said in my original post: "...if you had nanorobots making a material equivalent to wood they would not be able to do it with much less energy than or much faster than a tree (eg not the many orders of magnitude that nanotech fantasies require)."
The only thing I really need to add to that is that energy and speed are a nonlinear tradeoff, so you might make wood faster but with a lot more energy or maybe even slower with less energy (though trees are probaly at the slow end already).
blakkie
The energy vs. speed tradeoff assumes not changing the proccess from more linear to more parallel. Like the assembly line did in the early 20th century.

As well trees expend resources in other areas that are not nessarily needed if you can better control the environment. For example bark, and seeds could be taken right out. Likewise you could configure the system so that it wouldn't have to expend the energy to fight the pull of gravity on water. There are efficencies to be gained by shedding stuff that fills the requirements that trees have for growing.

In many ways the line between nanotech and genetic engineering is blurry.
Geko
I voted no.

Instead of more Nanotech/Nanoware, I would simply like to see it used to push the boundaries of Biotech and Cyberware. In other words, nothing wrong with introducing the technology, I just don't think it needs to be its own category of enhancement.

That kind of integration would go hand-in-hand with streamlining things, I'd think.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012