[RHat]

o, they can somehow have ammo tracking, typing, the functions of a mag release, and fire selection all purely external with no connection at all to the mechanical elements of a gun?  That seems like a stretch to me.  The moment the electronics interface with the mechanical element, there is some possibility for a catastrophic failure to interfere with the mechanics.

Possibility, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that frying the connections will immediately jam the gun. So I'm still not sure about external smartguns myself.

Right, but the intent isn't to fry the electronics, but t render the gun non-functional - and ergo the methods employed would work towards that intent.

My point is that such separation is not the perfect preventative measure you're argument calls for it to be.

Separation and manual override. Where is the flaw in it then? You say this, yet you aren't offering any logical reasoning behind it.

And you and I clearly have different ideas of what bricking is actually doing, and what tne worst case is.

Bricking is given this description:"Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."

So, what is the different idea that you have? It seems clear that the electronics are frying on the device.

1) Simply put, the moment there's any interface between the electronic and the mechanical, the possibility for damage to the mechanics due to problems with the electronics exists.

2) The technological elements of the device are being radically misused in order to damage the device itself to the point of non-operability.  Given that the rule states that the device ceases functioning, period, that seems more in line with the intent.

[WellsIDidIt]

1 is false, as I have already pointed out with examples multiple times. It is easily combated with intelligent design. If 1 is false, and the tech is separated from the mechanical, then 2 doesn't hold water.

The rules intent is fuzzy at best. Supposedly guns completely quit functioning because an electrical snafu causes melting and destruction of all the innards no matter how dumb that design would be. Vibroblades keep their sharpness (so you can still attack with them, which is their function). What happens to a throwing knife when you brick it? The intent seems to be, go with what is logical.

Remember, "not all devices are completely useless when bricked," "The firing pin on an assault rifle might not work."

The rules in this section contradict each other quite significantly. I mean at one point we have, "A bricked device is damaged and useless until it is repaired," and then not even a whole paragraph later we have the quote above that says not all device are completely useless. I know, a matrix section that is poorly worded, that's a shocker.

[RHat]

You can protect from potential damage, but making it impossible?  You haven't remotely demonstrated that.  Diminished probabilities are not the same thing as impossibilities.

[RHat]

How in the bloody freaking hell data from a damn cyberdeck can magically break the firing pin is beyond the comprehension of anyone with a logical mind, IMO.

You realize that you're saying everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a logical mind, yes?

[RHat]

How in the bloody freaking hell data from a damn cyberdeck can magically break the firing pin is beyond the comprehension of anyone with a logical mind, IMO.

You realize that you're saying everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a logical mind, yes?

No I'm not. I used "IMO" which precludes your claim that I'm saying something as fact. Well, it does for anyone else anyway.

I'm pointing out that your stated opinion carries with it an unstated opinion as its direct consequence.

[WellsIDidIt]

So, point out how an electronic device that is both separated from the mechanics and has a manual override is going to be exploited electronically in such a way that it's failure prevents the manual override.

That's why it's a two part system. Separation prevents frying electronics from gumming up the works so to speak, and manual override prevents an electronic hack from making the manual operation inaccessible. Where is the third option for exploit here? That is exactly how you make something unable to be taken completely offline by electronic hacking. Sure, it may go out for a second, until someone flips the manual override.

The most they could do is fry the electronics and force the gun not to use electronics or the matrix if it is designed logically. You say I haven't shown anything, point out where the flaw lies.

[RHat]

So, point out how an electronic device that is both separated from the mechanics and has a manual override is going to be exploited electronically in such a way that it's failure prevents the manual override.

When the mechanics are damage by the manner in which it fails - seperation does not render that impossible unless you have some sort of complete isolation and insulation, which is not a viable design; at that point, you're basically building the gun twice.

[WellsIDidIt]

It doesn't have to be a complete isolation. That is willful ignorance. It just has to be a connection that cannot interfere with the mechanics in the worst case scenario. If we can do it today with wires, which we can, then there is no reason for them not to be able to do it in 60 years with the tech that has been showcased over the past 20 years of the game world. You don't have to build the gun twice. You just have to design it well.

Basically you're saying separation cannot occur, which just tells me you haven't researched the subject in today's world. At that point, you don't want to research the subject in todays world, so debating the point is futile.

[Namikaze]

Debating the point has always been futile.  On both sides of the argument.  But here's what I'll tell you about the point we've gotten to in this discussion: it's not just semantic, it's impossible to prove either side right or wrong.

The fiction of the universe allows for the mechanical components to be compromised (but not necessarily destroyed) by disrupting the electronic components.  That may not jibe with real-world physics, but it jibes with the fiction of the universe.  Unless we had an Ares Predator here to take apart and show you that the fiction is suddenly now fact, there's no way to make you believe in the fiction.  You either believe in it or you don't.  It's that simple.

[RHat]

It doesn't have to be a complete isolation. That is willful ignorance. It just has to be a connection that cannot interfere with the mechanics in the worst case scenario

Except that the issue at hand isn't connection so much as proximity.  It's not that the mechanics are non-functional without the electronics, rather, it's that the manner in which the electronics are destroyed also causes damage to the mechanics; this is not incidental damage, but intentional and goal-driven.  My point is that the prevention you're talking about requires far more than simple separation; you need something that actually prevents whatever might happen to the electronics for carrying over in any way.  In particular, it's important to remember that we don't even know the limits of what could happen to the "electronics", because they use components that simply don't exist today.

[redwolf]

RHat you do understand that we talking on fire arms, that they go boom do to fire inside of them and have to stand the shock and hit of said fire . i dont get how bricking will dameg the mechanic if how high the temp' need to be for that, it's not only the barel that get hot when you fire it is all of the gun.

[RHat]

The explosion is inside the barrel, which is very, very, very specifically designed, built, and tested to handle the pressures it needs to.  The rest of the firearm isn't subject to the same standards.

And who says I'm talking about heat?  If that were the issue, the result would be your ammo cooking off - you still wouldn't, in practical terms, be able to make much use of the weapon, but it's a very different thing regardless.

[redwolf]

well from my limited  xp with firing guns the body will get hotter and all of the gun will be subject to the blast (recoill?)and the barrel and triger  are one neer the other ,then the bareel got to open to reloade so ther is heat going ther, the way brickig is posted it say fire and sparcks. naw i'm glad we don't have to fight abaut ammo geting cooked but you didnt tell me how a bricked eletcronics jam the mechanics without distroing them?

[Agonar]

In all of this, all I can think of is a recent automotive issue I had.  Well, it was a mechanical/electrical part malfunction.

In my car, the trunk latch is a mix of a mechanical latch that is controlled with electrical signals.  The mechanical arm failed, and it could have been because of a short from the electrical signal melted/weakened some of the plastic inside of the device, and the latch wouldn't swing into the unlock position despite unlocking it with the key, or with the electrical  signals.

Yes, even now, parts are often made with a mix of metal, plastic, and ceramics.  So it shouldn't be beyond imagination that a stray electrical signal sent into a device could cause a spike in the heat, which causes it to structurally weaken some of the plastic/metal components.  Or maybe a rogue electrical signal causes a vibration which causes micro-fractures in the ceramics, which then it to catastrophically fail at a key time.


In a weapon, the electronic area of the weapon is probably as far away as physically possible from the mechanical components, but it's still contained in a device, there are still linkages where things can go wrong.  We have weapons now where the trigger does not activate a hammer, that then swings forward and strikes the ignition plate on a cartridge of ammunition.  Instead, the trigger sends an electrical signal which travels and ignites a block of ignition material which then propels the bullet away from the caseless ammunition propellant.  So, a Hacker sending signals to fry the innards of those weapons can totally keep the weapon from working.

As for a cased weapon that is still wireless, it could be an overloaded signal that generates such heat in a small area, that it just causes structural harm to the mechanical parts.  Warps and weakenes the metal, or melts plastic, etc.  Yes, the weapon is designed to withstand the shock and temps of firing in certain locations of the weapon (mainly the firing chamber/barrel), but structural weakening in other areas can do their share of damage to the weapon

[WellsIDidIt]

Except that the issue at hand isn't connection so much as proximity.  It's not that the mechanics are non-functional without the electronics, rather, it's that the manner in which the electronics are destroyed also causes damage to the mechanics; this is not incidental damage, but intentional and goal-driven.  My point is that the prevention you're talking about requires far more than simple separation; you need something that actually prevents whatever might happen to the electronics for carrying over in any way.  In particular, it's important to remember that we don't even know the limits of what could happen to the "electronics", because they use components that simply don't exist today.

Proximity is part of separation. You see, when you design something in an intelligent way, you think to yourself, "What happens if this horribly fails." You find the worst case scenarios (burning, melting, exploding, etc.) and you design with each on in mind. Then, if you're smart, you give it to someone to test it for complete failure. R&D has done this physically for years on physical items. The software industry does this on every major program. Even frivolous software like video game have it done, though not to the extent that life or death software is tested.

The point is, if you are going to put an piece of electronics on the outside of the gun's slide. You make sure that the electronics can not in any possible way damage the slide of the gun. That's part of separation. It's not just, let's put this outside. It's let's find the minimal safe distance and make sure this is outside that range.

.Agonar, cars are actually designed for the electrical parts to break down and cause mechanical issues. They have been since the late eighties. It's how the automotive industry stays in business. This isn't conjecture, as there have been retired automotive execs that blatantly admitted it. It's like light bulbs being designed to burn out. There is a reason the old lighting industry is ticked at companies producing the new 10 year LED lights.

Which comes back to the point I originally stated. For the world to work like this, guns would have to be designed specifically to be brickable. Again, I stated it may make sense for civilian models (safer and they'll probably buy another one). It doesn't make sense for security and military models (they wouldn't take the risk).

As for your other points, if you read the thread, I've already brought them up and pointed out that they've been fixed with today's technology.