Thoughts on staterooms through the tech levels

Anstett said:
Need to allow people to write/save things for most systems/programs to work. I expect even more so on what is effectively an extremely dispersed network between the various systems and ships in and out of jump space.
Click to expand...

Write only OS wafer. User provided Data wafer. Providing the OS wafer is standardized you can bring your own configuration files, custom programs and data wherever you go.
 
MarcusIII said:
And how does that equal loading your own s/w? It doesn't unless the system designer has an IQ of <50 and almost no IT Sec experience.
Click to expand...

My point was that making sure passengers cannot load their own software and performing other IT security tasks would be a burden for the crew, and that's one of the reasons I said that having ship provided entertainment systems would be a hassle.
 
actionman said:
My point was that making sure passengers cannot load their own software and performing other IT security tasks would be a burden for the crew, and that's one of the reasons I said that having ship provided entertainment systems would be a hassle.
Click to expand...
Having an entertainment system doesn't mean you build it so people can load programs that the OS runs. They can load only a/v data. Since everyone will have their own hand sized computer with their own entertainment programs they just hook into A/V ports. Or wireless A/V more likely
 
MarcusIII said:
Having an entertainment system doesn't mean you build it so people can load programs that the OS runs. They can load only a/v data. Since everyone will have their own hand sized computer with their own entertainment programs they just hook into A/V ports. Or wireless A/V more likely
Click to expand...
Unless it has its own computer system, advanced systems would still likely run some form of Intelligent Interface from the Ship's Computer. Library Data is also on the Ship's Computer. So, it is obviously not a standalone system. Also, quite obviously, entertainment systems do exist in Traveller, although perhaps not in the individual staterooms, since the stuff in High Guard is for the Common Area.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Unless it has its own computer system, advanced systems would still likely run some form of Intelligent Interface from the Ship's Computer. Library Data is also on the Ship's Computer. So, it is obviously not a standalone system. Also, quite obviously, entertainment systems do exist in Traveller, although perhaps not in the individual staterooms, since the stuff in High Guard is for the Common Area.
Click to expand...
Actually, with the reducing size and cost of computers and communications devices from CSC having small, integrated specialist computers with built in Intelligent Interface that have a read only link to the central database and the ship's scheduling and announcement system would be assumed to be part of purchase cost of the staterooms. They could easily have connectors and data link capabilities for connecting to and interfacing with passengers personal computers. And with hard wired operating systems it's simple to wipe and restore the systems for each new guest. We do this sort of thing today in the real world. I managed a student computer lab in 2007 where we did exactly this sort of thing.
 
mavikfelna said:
Actually, with the reducing size and cost of computers and communications devices from CSC having small, integrated specialist computers with built in Intelligent Interface that have a read only link to the central database and the ship's scheduling and announcement system would be assumed to be part of purchase cost of the staterooms. They could easily have connectors and data link capabilities for connecting to and interfacing with passengers personal computers. And with hard wired operating systems it's simple to wipe and restore the systems for each new guest. We do this sort of thing today in the real world. I managed a student computer lab in 2007 where we did exactly this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you can't have read-only with an Intelligent Interface. It needs some type of storage capability in order to function as, and be considered, an artificial intelligence.

Edit - Also, falling down the rabbit hole of 2000s computer technology will guarantee that you end up in the same place early Traveller writers did, "super high tech computers" that for some reason are built exactly like computers from the 1970s.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Pretty sure you can't have read-only with an Intelligent Interface. It needs some type of storage capability in order to function as, and be considered, an artificial intelligence.

Edit - Also, falling down the rabbit hole of 2000s computer technology will guarantee that you end up in the same place early Traveller writers did, "super high tech computers" that for some reason are built exactly like computers from the 1970s.
Click to expand...
It's not read only on the local computer. There is memory on the computer and programs function normally, but any changes/additions/alterations are wiped when the machine is reset. Access to sensitive data and system areas is blocked, and probably air gapped in most cases, and access to the library and other data is not write back capable, it is read only.

And how would bringing up the fact that you could do something on computer 20 years ago lead to a rabbit hole? It says nothing about modern or future computing ability, only that the capability existed in the real world and there is no reason to assume it wouldn't continue to be possible in the future. An Intelligent Interface interacts with large databases and sorts, organizes and presents it in a way that is easy for the target user to understand. It doesn't need anything other than read access to that data to perform that function. If the user wants to watch the last episode of Angry Aslan Housewives, the interface connects to the stream and presents the holo on the built in holo player. If they want recipes for field mouse flambé that the local autochef can produce, it pulls the recipe and transfers the data to the autochef. The autochef, by the way, also has a read only interface with limited memory that can accept a recipe but not other programs. If you need to update the programming on the chef or local computer, you come in with a dedicated programming tool and physically connect to a hidden port and do the upgrade.

A truly dedicated hacker with the right tools and knowledge can get around these limitations. It is the job of the ship's steward and the ship's computer's security routines to detect and hopefully stop. But that's normal hijacking territory and well beyond the nature of this discussion.
 
mavikfelna said:
And how would bringing up the fact that you could do something on computer 20 years ago lead to a rabbit hole? It says nothing about modern or future computing ability, only that the capability existed in the real world and there is no reason to assume it wouldn't continue to be possible in the future.
Click to expand...
Have you seen this? This "dumb terminal"? Go back and look at the original write-ups for this. This is entirely a holdover from 1970s technology.
1761488030494.png
In CT terminals were "dumb" they had no ability to do anything on their own. They had to be connected to an actual computer in order to function. All they were was a mechanical/electronic interface to access an actual computer. The screenshot I posted above is how the writers have updated it while trying not to lose a nostalgic thing from CT. That is what mean, by getting stuffed in a rabbit hole by locking your thinking into 2000s computer technology the same way the writers of CT did with their thinking about 1970s computer technology.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Have you seen this? This "dumb terminal"? Go back and look at the original write-ups for this. This is entirely a holdover from 1970s technology.
View attachment 6397
In CT terminals were "dumb" they had no ability to do anything on their own. They had to be connected to an actual computer in order to function. All they were was a mechanical/electronic interface to access an actual computer. The screenshot I posted above is how the writers have updated it while trying not to lose a nostalgic thing from CT. That is what mean, by getting stuffed in a rabbit hole by locking your thinking into 2000s computer technology the same way the writers of CT did with their thinking about 1970s computer technology.
Click to expand...
We still use "dumb" terminals today. I really don't see the issue. If all you need is a connection to a more powerful central computer, terminals work great. They are usually relegated to specialty machine controls because the computer power is so cheap and compact that even dumb terminals are actually capable computers in their own rights because it's cheaper and easier to leave the powerful components in there and limit them through software and locked OSes.
This is literally my job for the last 37 years dealing with these things. The 70's underestimated computing power and component size but the ideas from that era are still sound.
I guess I just don't understand what you're odjecting to. Why is having a computer in a stateroom that can be customized per user and with easy access to data and entertainment a problem? Your cell phone does it right now, even being able to cast streams to another device for playback. Your phone can even be factory reset in a matter of minutes and passed on to someone else who may use it in a wholely different manner than you did.
 
mavikfelna said:
We still use "dumb" terminals today. I really don't see the issue. If all you need is a connection to a more powerful central computer, terminals work great. They are usually relegated to specialty machine controls because the computer power is so cheap and compact that even dumb terminals are actually capable computers in their own rights because it's cheaper and easier to leave the powerful components in there and limit them through software and locked OSes.
This is literally my job for the last 37 years dealing with these things. The 70's underestimated computing power and component size but the ideas from that era are still sound.
I guess I just don't understand what you're odjecting to. Why is having a computer in a stateroom that can be customized per user and with easy access to data and entertainment a problem? Your cell phone does it right now, even being able to cast streams to another device for playback. Your phone can even be factory reset in a matter of minutes and passed on to someone else who may use it in a wholely different manner than you did.
Click to expand...
A cellphone isn't read-only. Even systems that require updates aren't just read-only, although a layman accessing that part of the system may be more difficult.

I don't consider it a problem. I have a problem with saying they are read-only.
 
I think it depends on what the owner decided to install, rather than one size fits all.

If it's security, than you lock down anything accessible to the passengers, closed network at best.

My suggestion would be the minimum for high passage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Alternate Staterooms and Residential Zones
Replies
4
Views
333
J. L. Brown
J
T
Charted Space Capital Warships are under gunned.
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
4K
swordtart
S
Terry Mixon
Passenger Staterooms: Single Travellers vs Couples
11 12 13
Replies
245
Views
12K
Condottiere
C
J
Bright Wander Frontier Liner
Replies
0
Views
386
Jame Rowe
J
Terry Mixon
A Newish Mode of Jump Housing - Sort of
Replies
14
Views
315
rinku
R
Back
Top