|
Post by zholud on Sept 13, 2004 10:15:35 GMT -5
Nice thinking zholud, this is a brilliant idea! <grin> One of my better heresies… So in essence the AI was ripped out of the STC when humans were killing off the Iron Men. It may still exist, but with the fear of AI it can be destroyed during the Imperium period as well. I guess Mechanicus found some AI, and even experiment with it, but they never actually have linked AI and STC. =Iron Men are the AI of the STC?=AI: Could it be that the Iron Men were the STC personified, meaning the Iron Men were the AI of the STC? It depends to what fluff you adhere – old fluff pointed that degradated human (stone age men or stone men) warred against robots and AI (iron men). The story by Andy Chambers in Inferno and later in Into the maelstrom pointed that stone men were silicone computer AIs, and people struggled against them with the help of not-true-AI robots – iron men… Well before you came up with that lightning bolt, I figured that as humans could only live on world which their bodies could tolerate, the number of designs would be large but not impossible. Moreover, even expert system has number of simple designs, e.g. wheel, lever, etc, and ‘invested’ by combining these blocs.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Sept 13, 2004 10:24:44 GMT -5
Except I seem to recall a certain book making mention of a fully functioning STC that produced Iron men with blue eyes, kinda like the beginning of terminator 2, but which had also been tainted by chaos, so the robot men it produced were corrupted. Thats what I read anyway.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Sept 13, 2004 10:56:24 GMT -5
(neatly explains why new designs in 40K aren't forthcoming). New designs are, of course, forthcoming. If they weren't, why do you think the Adeptus Mechanicus have so much resources (not to mention whole worlds) devoted to research? Multi-melta technology, for example, is still being improved. Other than that, I do find the idea of the original STC being made by an STC AI. But I think it's time that we make some working terms here... First, there's the whole machine, which has both the STC database and A.I. Second, there's the designs themselves, the blueprints. These are categorized as STC. The Leman Russ, for example, is STC. There are also combat knives which are STC. So, what do we call the entire shabang, with AI?
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Sept 13, 2004 14:17:49 GMT -5
New designs are, of course, forthcoming. Yes, there are a lot of designs which are not STC, despite most likely use stuff made by STC. Among the other may be named Adeptas Sororitas armour, all mastercrafted stuff and artificial armour, many ship designs in Imperium fleet, weapons such as Nova cannons. Psy-engine and witch hunter antipsyker stuff is definitely post DAoT, because psykers emerged massively only during Age of Strife and later.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 14, 2004 8:22:47 GMT -5
All Psyker related designs (apart from navigators) come after the G/DAoT.
Most of the STC is in regard to setting up colonies, it may be that the STC was only used to ‘set-up’ a world, and once it started growing a world’s reliance on STC was reduced.
This may be the main reason that the STC degraded over time, as no one at the time saw the importance of the STC. The STC may have been regarded as a ‘common item’, perhaps professionals could obtain it easily.
If worlds where set up as a joint effort between corporations and governments, anyone official could easily obtain a copy.
This is getting off topic as I was originally looking for systems in our current world which would serve as the roots of the STC. I think the basis of out manufacturing trends support the idea of a future ‘STC’. Maybe it’s time to look at the other parts of this concept I had planned; ‘Mission to Mars’ The first attempt to colonise a world. ‘Conquering the Stars’ Taking onboard the lessons learned from the Mars mission to streamline the colonisation process, and how colonising worlds eventually becomes ‘common’.
?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Sept 15, 2004 7:49:32 GMT -5
All Psyker related designs (apart from navigators) come after the G/DAoT. Note that there is some potential that rudimentary psyker-related designs might be pre-G/DAoT, though whether they would have been incorporated in the STC is another question. (Amusingly, it becomes obvious that the STC didn't include all designs... one finds it difficult to imagine that it included, for example, the designs on how to build a Navigator! STC was a tool to colonisation, not the answer to everything! Most people tend to forget this in the 'propaganda' and, also, in reasonable consideration of the purpose that it was purportedly designed for.) Most of the STC is in regard to setting up colonies, it may be that the STC was only used to ‘set-up’ a world, and once it started growing a world’s reliance on STC was reduced. Erm... exactly. The idea that the STC was the 'sum total' of human knowledge has always been flawed since, for the most part, it is unnecessary, redundant and superfluous. This may be the main reason that the STC degraded over time, as no one at the time saw the importance of the STC. It's not drastically that important anyway! If worlds where set up as a joint effort between corporations and governments, anyone official could easily obtain a copy. Colonies work in networks with a 'captive'/originating world. Information and/or equipment could be readily transported... Degradation of techology resulting from the Age of Strife merely requires the removal of a reliant manufacturing infrastructure and therefore a decline of the captive infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2004 8:16:57 GMT -5
Note that there is some potential that rudimentary psyker-related designs might be pre-G/DAoT, though whether they would have been incorporated in the STC is another question. (Amusingly, it becomes obvious that the STC didn't include all designs... one finds it difficult to imagine that it included, for example, the designs on how to build a Navigator! STC was a tool to colonisation, not the answer to everything! Most people tend to forget this in the 'propaganda' and, also, in reasonable consideration of the purpose that it was purportedly designed for.) I agree, I do not think that any Psyker designs are part of the STC. Erm... exactly. The idea that the STC was the 'sum total' of human knowledge has always been flawed since, for the most part, it is unnecessary, redundant and superfluous. The STC may be redundent now, but it would have had a profound effect on building design and the setting of standards (your rail gauge quote). It's not drastically that important anyway! ;D, but in 40K it is. Colonies work in networks with a 'captive'/originating world. Information and/or equipment could be readily transported... Degradation of techology resulting from the Age of Strife merely requires the removal of a reliant manufacturing infrastructure and therefore a decline of the captive infrastructure. Yes, I agree, I see the GAoT 'empire' working pretty much as the world is run today, except the countries are 'worlds'. This would mean that corporations have a lot of power, worlds are sovereign but at the same dependant on other worlds to maintain their lifestyle. Worlds would claim other worlds (to plunder resources, then form colonies (then rebel) then work together again). All this makes the politics of the GAoT very complex, the only glue holding them together are the corporations (the middle men) and collective organisations (like the UN etc. but in space) and family interests (those who own the corporations). In this scenario, the main players are the universe spanning corporations (a real driving force for standardisation if design and the STC)
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Sept 15, 2004 9:09:56 GMT -5
Note that there is some potential that rudimentary psyker-related designs might be pre-G/DAoT, I may assume some xeno-tech, e.g. Eldar one, but why would DAoT mankind worry about psykers, except maybe navigators? though whether they would have been incorporated in the STC is another question. (Amusingly, it becomes obvious that the STC didn't include all designs... one finds it difficult to imagine that it included, for example, the designs on how to build a Navigator! Navigators were copyrighted, while STC was clearly freeware. Moreover I doubt that it even used deep bio-chemistry development tools. Or that it allowed nanite creation… STC was a tool to colonisation, not the answer to everything! Most people tend to forget this in the 'propaganda' and, also, in reasonable consideration of the purpose that it was purportedly designed for. I’d say created for colonisation, but with much larger usage… you can break nuts with your computer as well As to who created – I don’t set for country, but rather for individuals, descendants of Linux developers and other people who favour open source.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2004 9:47:30 GMT -5
As to who created – I don’t set for country, but rather for individuals, descendants of Linux developers and other people who favour open source. Thats kinda my take on it, see part two.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Sept 15, 2004 11:52:16 GMT -5
Open source really doesn't cut it as an explanatory mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2004 13:01:48 GMT -5
Open source with money! Perhaps there was a STC company that collected up designs, packaged them in the STC and sold them on? Perhaps designers received ‘royalties’, and as so many worlds where being conquered by powerful corporations, maybe the royalties were quite large. Perhaps ‘open source’ was used in developing ideas and then all those concerned then put the final design to the STC Company, if accepted all those who played a part get some money (in the same way that some companies have product based on open source software, like IBM). Maybe The STC company was like the UN, with many major worlds having a say, and paying for it out of their own collective pockets. added If the STC is a company (Like the ‘coke-a-cola company’ makes coke-a-cola ), there could be competing companies. Various companies make various STC, dealing in specific fields. Maybe the STC is a general term for all these types of product, made by many companies, some more successful than others.
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Sept 15, 2004 13:42:46 GMT -5
If the STC is a company (Like the ‘coke-a-cola company’ makes coke-a-cola ), there could be competing companies.Various companies make various STC, dealing in specific fields. It to some extett kills S for Standard in STC
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2004 13:53:16 GMT -5
Many companies use ‘standard’ in their name...
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Sept 23, 2004 4:44:37 GMT -5
My two cents on this, that I've mentioned on Portent before...
The term STC refers to the Standard Template Construct, the device designed to store the first unified technological database produced by Mars. Over time this was copied into retrieval systems which were brought by colonists in their journeys to new worlds and linked to automated manufacturing equipment to mass-produce essential items. The adjoining control programs were capable of generating a list of resource requirements and briefing the user on the procedure that they were ordering.
The Adeptus Mechanicus use the term STC out of tradition, but what they actually desire is the database, not the system to store it. They are perfectly capable of utilising any intact STC information found and while the original master storage system would be the ultimate prize, the value is in the data, and not the machinery.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 23, 2004 5:46:48 GMT -5
The STC refer to the 'Standard Template Construction System'. The original RT rulebook had more info on this. The 'Database' which you refer to is the STC.
|
|