> Bart Masey writes [email removed]
>Speaking as a computer scientist of sorts
Gee, I was speaking as a real computer scientist. Sorry to be so
sarcastic, but your article has a attitude problem. I'll grant that
the idea of a virus that could do what was described falls totally in the
realm of science fiction, but being allowed to make any pre-assumptions
you choose how would you make the Traveller universe stop? Frank thought
that computers were the way to go and I made some suggestions. If you
don't think it will work then present something better in this forum with
the same effects. Personally my choice of attack would be the jump
drives, but I don't know the physics to figure out how to do it.
>for kicks, let's summarize some of the more persuasive of
>these...
>(1) If the DV "isn't a virus", how the heck does it affect
>the *existing CPUs* (assuming the Evil Emperor can seed 90% or
>more of the existing production facilities, which seems
>completely ludicrous to me anyway)??? Are we supposed to
>believe that the typical failure rate for CPUs is 80-90%/year?
>Face it, it was more plausible when it was a virus.
The program is transimitted machine to machine similarly to computer virus.
It is the part of the computer it attacks that is different. Rather than
atacking memory it destroies the CPU. There is a big assumption that the
existing viral safeguards could be circumvented which would be no easy
task. My assuption was that this would be feasable because those programs
were guarding against memory assaults. Hey this is a big gimme, but then
so is most science fiction. At any rate, the lag time before the program
takes effect is similar to a virus and is how it gets so widely dispersed.
CPU failure should look very small when the virus is first introduced but
increase exponetially as the virus takes effect. "Seeding" production
facilities insures their shut down leading to the lack of replacement
CPUs. All of this spirals with the social collapse causing lack of
transport to provide manufacturing materials and food for the people.
>(2) If all the computers are destroyed, how the heck are the
>Star Viking ships driving around? You want to jump a starship
>under manual control? Good luck -- you'll sure need it!
(3) is the partial answer to (2) i.e. not all technology dies and once the
problem is known protection can be taken and some recovery done.
>(3) Given that the DV only destroys CPUs, how long do you
>really think it would take to regenerate the technology? I'll
>bet me and 5 other carefully selected folks could go from TL6
>TTL to TL8 SPARC in less than 5 years, by careful reuse of
>non-computerized parts of existing equipment. With no TL7 or
>TL8 technology whatsoever, it would take about 500 people 10
>years. Neither is particularly prohibitive. With any
>reasonable extrapolation, the "Long Night" isn't, very.
As for regenerating technology in 5 years maybe, but you would starve to
death in under one. Also who will pay you for those five years the
government is to busy surviving to care and most business went bankrupt in
the massive economic collapse. Oh wait this is post recovery: where did
you go to school there's no such thing anymore as a university and how can
you read all those computer stored books without the computer? Let me
make a wild but current analogy with our society. Let's assume that I run
the CIA (or something) and have found a virus that would turn oil into
useless but corrosive sludge that would over a period of months destroy
the engines that use it. I'm crazy, my parents lived next to a tollway
and died of Carbon Monoxide poisioning (at least so I think) so stopping
all engines seems like a pretty good idea. The virus lives in the tankers
(I seed), it lives in the factories (I seed), it lives in the gas tanks
and the build up will destroy the engine that burns it (not right away but
in a month or so). How am I doing this I'm sending operatives out with
kits to check for someone doing this to us and doing the test seeds the
oil/gas. I told my reasearch team to go figure out a way to do this to
Iraq now that we have the virus and they came up with the kit. Suddenly
tractors don't go farmers can't plant crops and the world starts to
starve. Yeah they can switch to horses, but a farmer with a horse can
support far fewer people than one with a tractor. They know the problem,
they know the solution, but most of the internal cumbustion engines no
longer work. Worse most of the planting didn't get done. How do they get
the raw materials to the factory to make the new engines without them?
How do they get decide who gets fed (oh they could get by this year by
depleting seed stocks and breeding stock, but they would certainly starve
next year without seeds to plant or animals to breed)? How do they get
the food they have to where the people are?
Frank's assumption is that Traveller societies are pretty close to that
dependent on computers. The fall is not from TL15 to TL6, but from TL15
to TL0 and then the problem is how far can the survivors come back. Also I
have always interpreted Traveller TLs as being the TL that a planet could
support on its own. I could go one step further and even say it is what
the planet can support given the support it gets from other worlds. How
many worlds do you think it takes to support a TL15 world? I wouldn't
think most TL15 worlds are self-sufficient and if space travel is
interupted they will suffer economically. For lower TLs it is almost
certain these planets import higher TL stuff to make their life easier and
are vulnerable through these imports. Want an analogy I remember seeing a
program recently on the Amazon Basin Indians where they live extremely
primitive lives, but the chief still has a motorcycle to get around on and
most villagers now use bicycles.
>(4) Do you really believe the "common architectural flaw"
>argument above? If so, then answer these: Do you believe that
>all TL7 bridges contain a common easily exploitable
>architectural flaw?
They do. Use of Aluminium superstructures as shown in the Falklands.
We are currently in the process of changing them all back to steel.]
>Is this more or less likely than that all TL4 bridges did (HINT: think
>resonance)?
They did. That's why we made TL7 bridges with so much electronic garbage,
TL4 radios are so easy to jam once you know how.
>Is this a fair analogy?
>What other analogies of this sort might one draw
>(IDEAS: automobiles, electrical devices, plumbing)?
Haven't you noticed recalls of new ideas across auto corperations to fix
such flaws e.g. the change to timing belt rather than the timing chain
several years ago caused numerous engine failures which the manufacturers
paid for when they broke. What about the Hinsdale fire several years ago
Mother's Day and its effect on telephones service for the entire Chicago
area. Plumbing how about Legionare's disease and its relation to the
new vent system in the convention hotel. We are vulnerable to disasters
the examples abover were just pulled off the top of my head.
>Do they lead to similar conclusions (SUGGESTED ANSWER: yes)?
Yes, you bet i.e. system normal all f***** up. Flaws like this exist in
all human societies and most of what we produce. The ability to exploit
them may well be in the realm of science fiction, but that's part of
Traveller isn't it. We tend to be dependent on some bit of technology and
if it fails or we streach it too far, our society will fold up and go
away. For the Mayans this was slash and burn agriculture vs population
pressures. For the Sumarians it was irregation vs salt buildup in fields.
For our current society it may be the internal cumbustion engine/pollution
/progress vs the atmosphere.
>Finally, riddle me this: GDW is making noises about "listening
>to customer input". I've seen at least 5 distinct messages
>approving a suggestion that the Star Viking setting be
>explained by simply putting it in another part of the galaxy
>from Traveller -- an area with low max TL. This seems to me to
>be reasonable and practical while still allowing the SV
>universe adequate latitude for development. So WHY KEEP PUSHING
>THIS VIRUS THING???
You get the same amount of support either way. They get much more reuse
by just leaving things where they are. So the decision is probably based
on keeping R&D costs to a minimum. What I'm trying to say is the impact
of the reuse of the Traveller universe is the same on you in either case.
For example, even if they put it in another part of the universe then you
won't see anymore updates for MT anyway so you will have to exist with
what you have and if they put in the existing universe then you will have
the same effect by ignoring it. Where you choose to go with Traveller is
up to you, not up to GDW. None of my Traveller running was ever done in
the Imperium or even the same universe by my choice and to avoid these
problems with not liking someone elses dicision about the game.
Personally I agree with some of your statements above, I thought 2300 +
1000 or more years or putting it so far in Travellers future that MT is
unaffected might be an even better way to go. But if for business
reasons GDW has decided to drop support of MT then you have to make a
choice about whether or not you will continue your support or MT. Its not
that bad of a decision either way you pick its just a matter of preference.
Non Cuniculus Est,
Tom Harris