Richard Aiken wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:28 PM, John Groth <xxxxxx@cox.net
> <mailto:xxxxxx@cox.net>> wrote:
>
>     It might have been less ambiguous to write that "at birth, people
>     would be wired for drone control," although that word "wired" still
>     can be interpreted to imply implants of some sort.  If you don't
>     mean "wired" with implants, then you'll need either to explain in
>     what sense you mean by "wired," or to use a more precise word in
>     place of "wired."
>
> In the discussion in question, I was claiming that people needed
> extensive (e.g. time-consuming and costly) training to use the multiple
> perspectives provided by drones effectively in a combat environment.

I didn't address this point, as it wasn't relevant to the point I was
making about the ways in which Mr. Chalik's statement was ambiguous.

Of course, I could point out that, just as many Early 21st Century
children learn through observation and experimentation to use tablets
and/or smartphones well before they reach kindergarten age, a Late 22nd
Century setting might easily design a *planned* course of such
observation and experimentation.  Such a planned course, implemented
even from birth by designing interactive playthings (I can imagine
mobiles hanging over cribs that are susceptible to some sort of
infant-based manipulation) that reward and reinforce the ability to deal
with multiple perspectives, would certainly reduce the training time
needed to turn adult soldiers into competent "drone-wranglers" (or, for
that matter, competent Battle Dress users).

To use a fairly-recent MilSF example, in John Ringo's "Posleen War"
series, playing certain VR computer games serves as credit for Fleet
military training, while at least some Junior Militia participation does
not.  The former eases the transition from civilian life to serving as
an Armored Combat Suit trooper; the latter doesn't.

Having read Mr. Chalik's response to my earlier post in this thread, it
appears that he was using the term "wired" in a colloquial sense
(perhaps to refer to "laying down neural pathways," in much the same way
that having learned a bit of Russian as a young child helped me to learn
Russian as a high school student).  Again, ambiguity seems to have
played a role in what Strother Martin called "a failure to commun'cate."

As an aside, I've seen Mr. Chalik refer several times to "ToM."  Without
knowing anything about what "ToM" means (other than that Mr. Chalik
seems to base some of his assumptions on "ToM's" Late 22nd Century
setting), it's rather difficult to speak intelligibly about what
cultural/setting assumptions Mr. Chalik is using.  It doesn't seem to
relate very closely to the 3I baseline assumptions of most TML participants.

As such, from where I sit, it seems incumbent upon Mr. Chalik to provide
more detail about the setting and culture in which his Traveller setting
is rooted.  Otherwise, those of us who assume that posts to the
Traveller Mailing List will more-or-less share the 3I setting and
culture (or some subset thereof) will not be able to respond
meaningfully to posts that assume a quite different setting and culture.

>
> The Other Greg was disputing this requirement for special training, by
> claiming that his troops would have been "wired from birth for drone
> control" and that they would have been using the multiple perspectives
> thus gained from toddlerhood on.

In my post, I didn't address the "toddler" aspect, again because I was
focusing on how Mr. Chalik's "people would be wired for drone control
from birth" phrasing could easily be interpreted in a way contrary to
what he might have intended to communicate.
>
> [BTW, wikipedia says "a toddler is a child between the ages of one and
> three."]
>
> Taking the context into consideration, I do not think my interpretation
> was at all unreasonable.

Nor did I construe it as such, nor did I intend to portray it as such.
Indeed, I even pointed out that your interpretation was one I could
easily have reached.
> --
> Richard Aiken

I've probably irritated both of you.  From where I've been reading, you
both seem to have been talking past each other.  If I've at least helped
you both to see some ways in which you've been talking past each other,
then I consider this message to have been fruitful.  If it gets both of
you to drop your differences and gang up on my, I have a thick
paratrooper skin.... ;-)