rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (03/19/84)
>> What is the purpose of the Prefix code used to drop the >> Reliant's shields during the first encounter with the >> Enterprise? The only explanation (that in the event of a >> mutiny/rebellion/etc., the good guys could use the prefix code to >> capture a rogue ship easily), has a few problems . . . I don't think that's the ONLY explanation. There could be many times when you would want two (or more) starships under the control of one. In a concerted attack formation, for instance, you would not necessarily want the commanders of each ship to have to communicate by words what they are doing. Better to allow the ship's computers to all talk together and coordinate the attck that way. Even better is not just communication of a ship's actions from ship to ship, but CONTROL of the other ships by one computer (this would have been great for M-5). This would also be ideal in the case of a disabled crew or vessel. >> . . . you would expect knowledge of the code (or even its existence) >> to be kept secret (so the bad guys wouldn't change the code, as Spock >> implied they could). If so, then why did the Enterprise have access to >> another ship's prefix code. It the time, the Enterprise was a training >> vessel, not a fleet command vessel. Indeed existence of the code is secret, but is contained somewhere within the ship's library computer. Spock got it quickly because he knew where to look, what to look for, and how to get it. Spock was saying that because of Khan's high intelligence, he might be able to discover the existence of the prefix code and how to change Reliant's. I assume finding another ship's prefix code would be harder than finding one's own. Sure, Enterprise was on a training mission, but it would be silly to expect it to not be ready for any action a starship should be ready for. If you assume that, why don't you also assume they wouldn't have phasers or photon torpedoes on this cruise? >> Second, since no starfleet vessel have ever mutinied (I seem to recall >> Spock saying this during one episode), and during a rebellion you >> would expect some of the bad guys to have knowledge of the code, it >> seems to be of little use (save for saving overage admirals). And it >> does represent a large danger...if a klingon learned it during a battle >> scratch one Federation starship. >> Any ideas ? --David Pugh (uofm-cv!cosivax!dep) Spock did say in "The Tholian Web" that no Federation STARSHIP crew has ever mutinied, but Captain Garth's crew mutinied when he went insane ("Whom Gods Destroy"). When Janice Lester took over Kirk's body and ship, the Enterprise crew (technically) mutinied (in "Turnabout Intruder"). If you discount these events, what about "This Side of Paradise" when Kirk is left alone on the Enterprise and all of his crew are on the planet (Omicron Ceti 3)? It does not endanger a well-trained starship crew because it can be overridden. What made Kirk able to hurt Khan and Reliant was the fact that they were not an experienced crew and were not able to quickly find the override and regain control of their shields. That's a hell of a lot of secret information for Klingons to obtain, anyway. It sounds to me like a feature, not a bug. Roger Noe ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
m1b@rayssd.UUCP (M. Joseph Barone) (06/05/85)
In <16200039@haddock.UUCP>, Jim Campbell writes: > ... Khan just didn't seem to > know enough about the Reliant in order to be aware of this > "remote control" property of the starship.... If Khan weren't so busy memerizing Klingon literature to impress his crew, he would have known about the remote-control feature! He deserved to die for that! The first time I read about prefix codes was in Poul Anderson's "The Rebel Worlds". In that case, prefix codes were necessary to coordinate a fleet's movement from a flagship. That would imply that only high ranking officers (i.e. admirals) would need to know what the codes were. Single ships would have no use for prefix codes. M5's creator, Linstrom (sic?), would not have known of the codes, therefore, M5 didn't either. The fact that Spock knows of them is similar to common users knowing about root: they know what it can do but cannot do it themselves. Joe Barone, {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5}!rayssd!m1b Raytheon Co, Submarine Signal Div., Box 330, Portsmouth, RI 02871
zaphod@deepthot.UUCP (Lance Bailey) (06/05/85)
about the question of Spock knowing the codes,
since he IS an instructor for the federation, I think that
it is entirely possible for him to know of ALL the aspects
of the starships, especially since he is of very 'standing'
for a captain.
about the simplicity of guessing the codes
yes, kirk did only put in a small number of digits, but I
do imagine that this would undergo an encryption/enhancement
that would append to this code one of 'beeeellions' of possibilities
(the stardate, a hardwired serial # of the ship [scattered among the
circuitry], a code which is updated by starfleet by a pseudo-innocent
message [hi guys, how's your tribble?])
the last possibility relies on 'instantaneous' tranmission so
that we all know the same codes,, but since voice to voice
transmision is done to starfleet, this problem disapears.
comments?
===================
4 222
4 4 2 2
4 4 2 would you say that this is a result of
44444 22 the "do-it if it feels good" generation?
4 2 -- i've got five bucks riding on it
4 2
4 22222
decvax!{utzoo|watmath}!deepthot!zaphod
(Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada)
--
===================
4 222
4 4 2 2
4 4 2 would you say that this is a result of
44444 22 the "do-it if it feels good" generation?
4 2 -- i've got five bucks riding on it
4 2
4 22222
decvax!{utzoo|watmath}!deepthot!zaphod
(Lance Bailey @ UWO Comp Sci, London, Canada)don@umd5.UUCP (07/11/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** In article <342@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: >>From: kyrimis@tilt.FUN (Kriton Kyrimis) >>I was thinking about admiral Kirk's trick of lowering the Reliant's shields in >>STTWOK the other day, and suddenly realised that the federation will soon be >>in for a nasty surprise: it won't be long before some Klingon/Romulan hacker >>comes up with the following piece of code for their battle computer: > >As the quoted article points out, they are a horrible security flaw. *IF* a >Romulan or Klingon attack fleet could get the master list of prefix codes, >all they would need to do would be mount a massive invasion, wait for the >massive Federation defending fleet, and blow the Feds to dust. > >[...] >The prefix code was an interesting plot device which got Kirk out of a sure >no-win scenario. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with the existence of >prefix codes and all that entails. > So who's to say that the prefix codes are not a new invention? Although it is not part of the 'official' ST material, the Sourcebook Update for ST: the RPG gives a good explanation for the codes. The prefix codes were a new invention installed in the newer ships (or added in refit) intended to allow for the rescue of a ship disabled in some fashion (but not during battle). If a ship would be used in battle, the commander would change the prefix codes. (That's probably what Kirk did. But then, Styles was a showoff!) Any additional comments? -- --==---==---==-- ___________ _____ ---- _____ \ //---- IDIC ----- _\______//_ ---- ---------- ARPA: don@umd5.ARPA BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain UUCP: {seismo,rlgvax,allegra,brl-bmd,nrl-css}!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don
don@umd5.UUCP (07/12/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Would the person who mailed a reply to my article please do so
again? The letter got munged by the system before I could reply...
-don
--
--==---==---==--
___________ _____ ---- _____
\ //---- IDIC -----
_\______//_ ----
----------
ARPA: don@umd5.ARPA BITNET: don%umd5@umd2
SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain
UUCP: {seismo,rlgvax,allegra,brl-bmd,nrl-css}!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!dondturner@saber.UUCP (David Turner) (07/15/85)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > In article <342@moncol.UUCP> john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) writes: > >>From: kyrimis@tilt.FUN (Kriton Kyrimis) > >>I was thinking about admiral Kirk's trick of lowering the Reliant's shields in > >>STTWOK the other day, and suddenly realised that the federation will soon be > >>in for a nasty surprise: it won't be long before some Klingon/Romulan hacker > >>comes up with the following piece of code for their battle computer: > > > >As the quoted article points out, they are a horrible security flaw. *IF* a > >Romulan or Klingon attack fleet could get the master list of prefix codes, > >all they would need to do would be mount a massive invasion, wait for the > >massive Federation defending fleet, and blow the Feds to dust. > > > >[...] > >The prefix code was an interesting plot device which got Kirk out of a sure > >no-win scenario. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with the existence of > >prefix codes and all that entails. > > > > So who's to say that the prefix codes are not a new invention? Although it > is not part of the 'official' ST material, the Sourcebook Update for ST: the > RPG gives a good explanation for the codes. The prefix codes were a new > invention installed in the newer ships (or added in refit) intended to > allow for the rescue of a ship disabled in some fashion (but not during > battle). If a ship would be used in battle, the commander would change > the prefix codes. (That's probably what Kirk did. But then, Styles was a > showoff!) > > Any additional comments? > > -- > --==---==---==-- > > ___________ _____ ---- _____ > \ //---- IDIC ----- > _\______//_ ---- > ---------- > > ARPA: don@umd5.ARPA BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 > SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain > UUCP: {seismo,rlgvax,allegra,brl-bmd,nrl-css}!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don or more likely there might be a over ride to keep someone from taking over your brige . (rember kahn was saying "where is the over rde ") -- ***************************************************** * oh dreddle gruntbuggly thy mictuations are to me * * as plurdled garblebotchits on a lurgid be * ***************************************************** Name: David Turner Mail: 6259 Rainbow dr , San Jose, California 95129 AT&T: (408) 725-1974 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!saber!dturner ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!saber!dturner none of the views posted reflect the views of SABER TECH. or it's employees