Some thoughts on the meaning of Doom
David J.
- I was musing a bit on Doom the other day, observing the near endless
- flow of postings on tactics, etc. as well as the almost unlimited supply
- of custom .wad files. I was also recalling how the game has supplied me with
- near endless hours of entertainment and happiness, and that I recall
- hearing myself tell several friends that the $40 I paid for my registered
- version was a relative bargain.
-
- I've also noticed that it's multiplayer features are unlike anything
- I've ever seen before, and that my friend and I are always planning for
- the next time we can set aside a whole day for some serial Doom. And that
- the game is addicting for all ages (myself and my above mentioned friend
- are well into our thirties).
-
- So my question to all the Doom players of the world is: how often does a
- PC game come out like this where it is practically a cultural revolution?
- I don't recall anything since Pac Man that has had so much influence.
First of all, let's not go overboard. We're talking about a PC game that
has sold about 100,000 copies to date. There are no Doom lunchboxes, Doom
umbrellas, Doom trapper keepers, or Doom Saturday morning cartoons. Doom
has not made the cover of Time and Newsweek, and Doom has not spawned any
Top 10 records. It's simply a very popular PC game (one of the most
popular in years, though), not a "cultural revolution."
You bring up an interesting point when talking about Doom -- it's given
many people countless hours of entertainment. For the type of game it
is, you don't see that often. I'm an old-school gamer (and the ripe old
age of 22), and I miss the games that would allow you to go on and on
as much as you liked. Games like Pac-Man, Q-Bert, Robotron, Galaga,
Juno First and Donkey Kong (all old favorites of mine) never had definite
endings. There were sort of mystical levels you could achieve (the 9th
Key, the Pie Frame, Level 100, 1,000,000 points) but they never ended
once you beat all the baddies. I think this is one of the problems with
major label shareware today. It ends at some point. You can go through
the whole thing again, but after beating it, why would you?
This is why games like Doom, Mortal Kombat and SFII bug me, because after
you've beaten all the bad guys, it's over. You've won. There's little
desire to go back -- for me at least. The only exceptions to this are
sports games, which have to end at some point and are fun for me because
I love sports. (I've pumped enough quarters into Cyberball and NBA Jam
that I could probably buy another computer.) Two-player options then
become the thing for games like Doom, but since I don't have the modem
for it, it wouldn't do me any good. So while the registered version of
Doom is sitting on my hard drive, I'm playing XQuest, Traffic Department
and Moraff Stones regularly, along with Ms Pac-Man and Hyperoid for Win3.
Why am I not playing Doom? I've finished it, and...well, the thrill is
gone.
Right now, I would (almost) trade my copy of Doom for any of these:
- Galaga
- Cyberball
- Robotron 2084
- Juno First
- NBA Jam
- Q-Bert
- Donkey Kong
But they don't exist. I've tried the substitutes, and they ain't it.
You can't tell me that these games wouldn't be decent sellers for PC.
And you surely can't tell me that someone couldn't make completely
accurate ports of most of them (NBA Jam excluded). So why can't I
play them on my PC? That's all I want to know.
Okay, I'll stop whining now...
--
L8A...
David J. (dwa...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu)
"I'll never tell you to get down -- it's all about comin' up." -Ice Cube
Lord of Chaos
>krzew...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com (Daryl Krzewinski X3960) writes:
>
> Right now, I would (almost) trade my copy of Doom for any of these:
>
> - Galaga
> - Cyberball
> - Robotron 2084
> - Juno First
> - NBA Jam
> - Q-Bert
> - Donkey Kong
>
>"I'll never tell you to get down -- it's all about comin' up." -Ice Cube
I'm not gonna say anything... except that I strongly disagree.
How could anyone think Donkey Kong was better than DOOM?!?!?
Especially someone who's deathmatched all day.
But yes, DOOM is a wonderful cultural revolution.
Alexandre Bourget
: has sold about 100,000 copies to date. There are no Doom lunchboxes, Doom
: umbrellas, Doom trapper keepers, or Doom Saturday morning cartoons. Doom
: has not made the cover of Time and Newsweek, and Doom has not spawned any
: Top 10 records. It's simply a very popular PC game (one of the most
: popular in years, though), not a "cultural revolution."
I don't think that any people here considers DOOM as a real cultural
revolution... We all LOVE the game, and we want to play it like crazy
demons until we get completly tired! It's a game, we know it, but it's
at our point of view, the best game created ever... that's all...
: Key, the Pie Frame, Level 100, 1,000,000 points) but they never ended
: once you beat all the baddies. I think this is one of the problems with
: major label shareware today. It ends at some point. You can go through
: the whole thing again, but after beating it, why would you?
: This is why games like Doom, Mortal Kombat and SFII bug me, because after
: you've beaten all the bad guys, it's over. You've won. There's little
: desire to go back -- for me at least.
Talking for you pal! What's the point about the score uh? Your score gets
higher, and higher and higher and HIGHER and what's happening after that?
Nothing! No goal, no spectacular end, nothing... For me, games like
donkey kong or pac-man are ssooooo boring. Look at a pinball. Pinball
games are cool, funny to play. Your score is getting higher and higher.
After 10 minutes, you've passed in all the machine's ways and what's
happening then uh? Nothing at ALL! Say anything you want, in doom you
have a REAL goal, not just millions of stupid numbers...
: Why am I not playing Doom? I've finished it, and...well, the thrill is
: gone.
I think you didn't go on infant2.sphs.indiana.edu to get some new wads... ;)
: Right now, I would (almost) trade my copy of Doom for any of these:
: - Galaga
: - Cyberball
: - Robotron 2084
: - Juno First
: - NBA Jam
: - Q-Bert
: - Donkey Kong
Right now, I would trade my copy of Doom to get these craps out of this
world... (NOT!) (NBA Jam is cool indeed...........)
Atreid
--
Acces Public LLC Site Internet Public Ville de Quebec
Pour informations: (418) 692-4711 bl...@llc.org
Brian Armontrout
out for either Super Nintendo or Sega Gen, and it got an editorial
comment in PC Computing as the thing to play networked.
-- Brian
(I am not a big-time DOOM player yet, but I have been impressed
by DOOM's Seventh Guest-like graphics(in the shareware version)
bar...@hope.edu
>Actually, DOOM is getting close to cultural icon status: it is
>out for either Super Nintendo or Sega Gen, and it got an editorial
>comment in PC Computing as the thing to play networked.
>-- Brian
>(I am not a big-time DOOM player yet, but I have been impressed
But in time you will be...
>by DOOM's Seventh Guest-like graphics(in the shareware version)
Well, they're not quite THAT detailed, but they are a lot
faster and you do have much more freedom of movement.
-Steve
bar...@hope.edu
Alan Wen (409)696-8909
>Actually, DOOM is getting close to cultural icon status: it is
>out for either Super Nintendo or Sega Gen, and it got an editorial
>comment in PC Computing as the thing to play networked.
Uhm..... simply... uhm.. no.
>-- Brian
alan
Stile
: In article <1994Jun29....@leo.vsla.edu>, barm...@leo.vsla.edu (Brian Armontrout) writes...
: Uhm..... simply... uhm.. no.
: >-- Brian
: alan
Uhm.... simply..... uhm.. that's _your_ opinion. I know tons of people,
not just on the net, but people I see physically, who would disagree with
you.
As far as Doom not having replayability: I was (ashamedly) getting bored
playing Doom (version 1.1, and I hadn't heard about the network stuff). I
got v1.2, learned how to get it to play networked, and it made _every_
level come back to life. I've played in 2, 3, and 4 player configurations.
And then, I tried deathmatch. BOOOOOM! Every level of every episode,
memorized completely by playing them hundreds of times, came jumping back
to life 10 times better. You're playing against humans, now. Separate
rooms. Complete sound systems. In coop mode, two phone lines and two
headset telephones to provide real-time full duplex communications. Screw
macros!
OCF.UNT.EDU, remember that? Hundreds of new WADS. And Doom became immortal.
When was the last time you created a new level for Pac Man? (I loved Pac Man)
And now, we have infant2.sphs.indiana.edu! YAY!
The pictures I've seen of Doom II were a bit of a let down as far as
something new. But, what the heck, there are many people who haven't
heard of Doom, so when Doom II is released as a regular commercial game
it will give everyone everywhere the chance to see it. So, I guess it
should be somewhat the same, after all. I wouldn't mind seeing Doom II
packadged with the original Doom (registered). Id could possibly include
a catalog of the best mission disks for Doom. They could charge a fee for
the diskettes involved, and then the public in general could play levels
made by people here, on the net.
I would like to see the so-called "six degrees of freedom" added to DOOM,
or at least Doom II. Quake will be yippee neato I'm sure, but I *KNOW* I
want it in Doom. Maybe Id could take donations for software developement. :)
Alan Wen (409)696-8909
>Alan Wen (409)696-8909 (cpw...@summa.tamu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1994Jun29....@leo.vsla.edu>, barm...@leo.vsla.edu (Brian Armontrout) writes...
>: >Actually, DOOM is getting close to cultural icon status: it is
>: >out for either Super Nintendo or Sega Gen, and it got an editorial
>: >comment in PC Computing as the thing to play networked.
>
>: Uhm..... simply... uhm.. no.
No no no no no... I don't mean that I don't think Doom is at whatever
cultural icon status you were babling about. Hell, I play doom more that
most people.
I mean "no" as it will NOT be coming out for the SNES and it's only coming
out for the Genesis only when the MARS expansion unit comes out for it.
Get with it. Read the FAQ.
alan
Lorik
: Actually, DOOM is getting close to cultural icon status: it is
: out for either Super Nintendo or Sega Gen, and it got an editorial
: comment in PC Computing as the thing to play networked.
I doubt it's out for either of those systems. After making Wolfenstien
3D on SNES, Id vowed never to work for Nintendo again. And, Genesis just
can't handle something like Doom. I do know they are currently working
on a Jaguar version, but there's no set release date..
--
,-----------------------,-------------------------------------------------,
| iNSANITOR [OgreHorn] | |
| insa...@xmission.com | Good... Bad... I'm the guy with the gun. |
`-----------------------'------------------------[Ash - Army of Darkness]-'
Lorik
: The pictures I've seen of Doom II were a bit of a let down as far as
: something new.
Well, look at Spear of Destiny, it was just Wolfenstien with new maps. I
expect Doom II to be the same thing. Although, it has new beasties (SoD
may have as well, I didn't play it long enough to tell), so thats a bonus.
Brian Lindahl
: Maybe Id could take donations for software developement. :)
Isn't that what registration fees are supposed to be for? :>
Paul Robinson
: Stile (jtdi...@ouray.Denver.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: : The pictures I've seen of Doom II were a bit of a let down as far as
: Well, look at Spear of Destiny, it was just Wolfenstien with new maps. I
: expect Doom II to be the same thing. Although, it has new beasties (SoD
: may have as well, I didn't play it long enough to tell), so thats a bonus.
Spear of Destiny had about 5 new enemies, all of near or at the
"hardness" of The Boss at the end of the original game, that required you
to shoot him with a chaingun.
Actually, in terms of "stiffness" (how hard to defeat him)
Bruce Springsteen in Wolf3d was about the equivalent of 1/2 of
a Baron in DOOM.
Brian Armontrout
indicates that it must be hugely popular, and on its
way up, IMHO,and think about it, games are seldom
mentioned in PC Computing but DOOM was(BTW, I'm
not a diehard DOOM player yet, right now I'm into
XCOM/UFO and RPG's)
-- Brian
Keenan Clay Wilkie
>Stile (jtdi...@ouray.Denver.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
Aah, he's probably a software pirate who doesn't know the meaning of
"Registration".
Cory Dodt
let me say that Doom may not be a cultural revolution, but I would not be
patiently waiting out this long boring summer in fervent anticipation of the
day I get to play PAC-MAN with my friends again. I've only dmatched a couple
of times, and then only against one other player, but the thrill is unlike
anything I've ever experienced. Running for one's life from
someone sitting 6 feet away is an incredible, and very 90's experience.
Now, coming in the fall, we will be buying network cards and brining in
multiple extra computers so that at any time there will be at least 4 computers
and four humans ready to deathmatch between classes.
For the first time in my life I'm actually anxious to go BACK to school, and
DOOM is the reason!
So final verdict: Doom is not the end-all be-all of human culture. Probably
not even of video games. Still, it's got staying power, and it's the funnest
damn thing I've ever done with a computer. Nuff said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Damon Dodt
cdamond@
uclink2
ocf
The Mighty "."
The correct way to punctuate a sentence that begins with, "Of course, it
is none of my business, but --" is to place a period after the word "but."
Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period.
Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you
talked about.
-Lazarus Long
What's another word for Thesaurus?
-Steven Wright
Huh huh. Huh huh huh.
-Butthead
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
azog
>DEATHMATCH!! There is simply no substitute. Going back to the original thread,
>let me say that Doom may not be a cultural revolution, but I would not be
>patiently waiting out this long boring summer in fervent anticipation of the
>day I get to play PAC-MAN with my friends again. I've only dmatched a couple
>of times, and then only against one other player, but the thrill is unlike
>anything I've ever experienced. Running for one's life from
>someone sitting 6 feet away is an incredible, and very 90's experience.
Deathmatch is indeed the greatest thing since sliced sex. However,
Ive played modem Doom and net Doom, and I must say, that for the
experience, modem Doom is the best.
Usually we play later at night, 10pm or there abouts, so the house i
pretty much quiet. I also personally turn off the music, but leave
the sound effects. Now turn out the lights, and you have a fantastic
killing experience!
Modem Doom is much more fun than net Doo, IMHO. Your opponent is
nameless and faceless (well, kinda), and runs silent. How many
times have you heard a grunt and started to feel cold sweat
flow? Net doom, on the other hand, you can look over the partition
and see your player. Not so much to cheat and see where he is at,
but just the physcial aspect...
--
Billy D'Augustine az...@world.std.com
unjustifiable existance
Servo
DOOM is actually coming to the Sega 32X system this fall or winter. Pretty neat, but if you think about it, the cartridge format will make it impossible to change anything (ie no external .WAD's or new grafix & sounds). Too bad, since that feature is one of the reasons that I like DOOM so much.
On the upside, Sega's liberal violence policy ought to make sure that little, if any, blood n' guts are cut from their rev of the game.
(Tom) Servo
Matthew T Koetz
>cda...@blizzard.Berkeley.EDU (Cory Dodt) writes:
>>DEATHMATCH!! There is simply no substitute.
>Deathmatch is indeed the greatest thing since sliced sex. However,
>Ive played modem Doom and net Doom, and I must say, that for the
>experience, modem Doom is the best.
>Usually we play later at night, 10pm or there abouts, so the house i
>pretty much quiet. I also personally turn off the music, but leave
>the sound effects. Now turn out the lights, and you have a fantastic
>killing experience!
>Modem Doom is much more fun than net Doo, IMHO. Your opponent is
>nameless and faceless (well, kinda), and runs silent. How many
>times have you heard a grunt and started to feel cold sweat
>flow? Net doom, on the other hand, you can look over the partition
>and see your player. Not so much to cheat and see where he is at,
>but just the physcial aspect...
I totally agree! I am a big fan of net Doom, but it can't hang with
MoDoom.
To get back to the original thread (to copy someone else's line), I think
Doom is quite a powerful influence on many people. At my school (I just
graduated high school), when I introduced Doom to a couple friends, it
instantly became the most popular game in our lab. From us few, it drew
nearly 50 people in very little time. This may not sound like much, but
considering that most of the kids in my school couldn't care less about
computers, that's a considerable number.
One of the most amazing things was that Doom appealed to several kids who
had never touched a computer. By first playing around with the game, they
gradually taught themselves a lot about computers (although, it was only
DOS - 8^). I was also able to persuade my system admin. to let me keep
the lab open after school so kids could "do some homework." It turned out
that all we did was play deathmatches, but we formed a close-knit group,
and we still keep in touch to play MoDoom. I even ran a small tournament
for about 10 of us (unfortunately, I only finished 3rd).
So I guess you could say Doom had quite an impact at Como Park...
Well, anyway - keep on Doomin'!
Matt
Steven Lam
>>Ive played modem Doom and net Doom, and I must say, that for the
>>experience, modem Doom is the best.
Net-Doom IS THE BEST! My room mates and I have an Ethernet
network (quite cheepe, cards are only $120 CND) hooked up
in the townhouse we stay in when we're on campus.
It's nice having a deathmatch with no other
net traffic to slow us down! we usually do 3 on 3.
>>Modem Doom is much more fun than net Doo, IMHO. Your opponent is
>>nameless and faceless (well, kinda), and runs silent. How many
>>times have you heard a grunt and started to feel cold sweat
>>flow? Net doom, on the other hand, you can look over the partition
>>and see your player. Not so much to cheat and see where he is at,
>>but just the physcial aspect...
Net doom is GREAT, as long as you don't play it in a room
full of computers. The LAN my friends and I have set up
basically has a computer in each bedroom. So using headphones
totally isolates every player from everone else. It's much
better than Modem doom. Quite a few times there are instances
where Player #1 kills player #2, during the shootout #3
hears you and kills #1, but when #2 re-apears seeking vengance
kills the first thing that moves #3, while #3 re-appears, and #1
sees the shoot out between #2 and #3 attempts to kill everyone,
all hell breaks loose when there's a 3 on 3 cross-fire-vengance-
your-ass-is-mine-revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold-ASH-is-my-
god-eat-plasma-and-shotgun-shells-fresh-meat shoot out!
Like to see that in Modem doom. 8)
--
e-mail: al...@freenet.carleton.ca
Cory Dodt
: network (quite cheepe, cards are only $120 CND) hooked up
: in the townhouse we stay in when we're on campus.
: It's nice having a deathmatch with no other
: net traffic to slow us down! we usually do 3 on 3.
: full of computers. The LAN my friends and I have set up
: basically has a computer in each bedroom. So using headphones
: totally isolates every player from everone else. It's much
: better than Modem doom. Quite a few times there are instances
: Like to see that in Modem doom. 8)
Ditto, my man. Networks may require cards, but all that's connecting those
cards are CORDS, and cords can be extended...
If you don't like having an opponent nearby, try having a network extension
cord that runs from your room to the other two (completely separate, doors
in between and the whole 9 yards) rooms on one floor and two rooms on the
floor below you. Forget the headphones, get speakers set up all over the
room so you have realistic stereophonic sound that your opponents can't hear
! because they're not in the room with you. Then FRAG FRAG FRAG FRAG FRAG
FRAG FRAG until the four of you are so damn tired that you have to go
to bed even though it's only 2 am and you've only killed each other 90 or
100 times...
Ever formed a sniper group on modoom? What's that, you say? BLAM! Green
goes down. Red celebrates but not too long because he knows where green is
going for ammo next and he knows where the two choice sniper positions are.
So he messages his pal brown "Go to the left sniper pt. across from the BFG"
and they're on their way, green gets to the BFG but too slow brown got there
first BLAM! green down again and red who went to his sniper point but not
to hunt GREEN OH NO IT'S HIM AGAIN ARRRRGH BLAM! brown goes down yet another
notch in red's gun AHHHHHH INDIGO IS BEHIND ME UGH... . . . .
DEFINITION
sniper group (n)
(only to be found in network doom)
where two or more players team up to hunt down a third from a
known position, to be followed immediately thereafter by one of
the team doublecrossing the others
EPILOGUE
HAHAHAHHA Indigo forgot bazookas come with _two_ rockets, didn't
he, chuckled Red to himself as he strolled away from the carnage,
his armor still smoking from being hit by most of Indigo's shotgu
blast. He can't help but put on his light de-amplification visors
(also known as sunglasses) he is so cool. "Now to pick up the
BFG."
--"..ome in, calling Green, come in Green."
"That you Brown? What the hell do you want?"
"I have a fix on Red's position. Prepare to form sniper group.
I have confirmation on Indigo's collaboration..."
"We'll nail that bastard this time."
"Damn right we will, Green."
--
_________________________________
The Mighty "." / \ \\
/ Cory Damon Dodt \___\\_________
_________________________ cdamond@ \
uclink2.berkeley.edu |
________________________ ocf.berkeley.edu |
FINGER FOR PGP^^^ _____/
_____________________ I suck at ASCII graphics. So sue me. /\
_______________ ___________________________________________\/
Yan Lee
: I'm not gonna say anything... except that I strongly disagree.
: How could anyone think Donkey Kong was better than DOOM?!?!?
: Especially someone who's deathmatched all day.
Actually Donkey Kong was quite revolutionary. It's the first platform
game. So it's as revolutionary as Doom. However, I think comparing Donkey
Kong with Doom is BS.
: But yes, DOOM is a wonderful cultural revolution.
Pasi Ilola
: >Modem Doom is much more fun than net Doo, IMHO. Your opponent is
: >nameless and faceless (well, kinda), and runs silent. How many
: >times have you heard a grunt and started to feel cold sweat
: >flow? Net doom, on the other hand, you can look over the partition
: >and see your player. Not so much to cheat and see where he is at,
: >but just the physcial aspect...
: I totally agree! I am a big fan of net Doom, but it can't hang with
: MoDoom.
: To get back to the original thread (to copy someone else's line), I think
: Doom is quite a powerful influence on many people. At my school (I just
: graduated high school), when I introduced Doom to a couple friends, it
: instantly became the most popular game in our lab. From us few, it drew
: nearly 50 people in very little time. This may not sound like much, but
: considering that most of the kids in my school couldn't care less about
: computers, that's a considerable number.
: One of the most amazing things was that Doom appealed to several kids who
: had never touched a computer. By first playing around with the game, they
: gradually taught themselves a lot about computers (although, it was only
: DOS - 8^). I was also able to persuade my system admin. to let me keep
: the lab open after school so kids could "do some homework." It turned out
: that all we did was play deathmatches, but we formed a close-knit group,
: and we still keep in touch to play MoDoom. I even ran a small tournament
: for about 10 of us (unfortunately, I only finished 3rd).
: So I guess you could say Doom had quite an impact at Como Park...
Perhaps the Doom frenzy is an early implication of what kind of effects VR
systems will have when released publically. I feel that Doom is as close to
real Virtual Reality as you can get nowadays (with affordable equipment), even
if it's wihout 3D glasses.
--
Pasi Ilola / Dance Nation, Finland (il...@mits.mdata.fi)
"Black Card. End of discussion." -A.J. Rimmer, BSc SSc
Scott C. Dang
> Perhaps the Doom frenzy is an early implication of what kind of effects VR
> systems will have when released publically. I feel that Doom is as close to
> real Virtual Reality as you can get nowadays (with affordable equipment), even
> if it's wihout 3D glasses.
Even so, Doom is a far cry from what is actually possible and available,
and how affordable the equipment is, is only relative to supply vs. demand.
--
.-------------------------------------------------.
[ A Message from Scott C. Dang <scd...@ctp.org> |
`-------------------------------------------------'
Antony Suter
[snip]
> Net doom is GREAT, as long as you don't play it in a room
>
> Like to see that in Modem doom. 8)
...well, use RMSSetup for 3 or 4 players with serial lines. Get those
computers together and up those line speeds with NULL modem cables for
best results.
--
- Antony Suter [0] ant...@werple.apana.org.au
- "Savannah River, K reactor, 1968. That was a _Very_ good year."
- Email or use finger to get PGP public key block. -
Ashraf Ghebranious
simplistic view but the doom engines fails to offer VR in any form at all.
Look at Under World. They made more of an attempt to capture VR despite the
fact the graphics are poor in comparison. In fact, you can even say that doom
is a souped up version of Wolfenstein 3D. Nothing new expect profits of course.
My opinon...not a flame.
ashraf
---
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
DBA
Management Information Systems Division
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
PH: 61 6 249 0620
Fax: 61 6 249 0449
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
**************************************************************************
Edward A. Brunner
Ashraf Ghebranious (axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: To me all doom is and will every be is 3d Pacman with guns. This is a very
: Look at Under World. They made more of an attempt to capture VR despite the
: fact the graphics are poor in comparison. In fact, you can even say that doom
: is a souped up version of Wolfenstein 3D. Nothing new expect profits of course.
Have you tried deathmatch? You might be impressed.
Ted B.
Ian CR Mapleson
axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) writes:
> To me all doom is and will every be is 3d Pacman with guns. This is a very
> simplistic view but the doom engines fails to offer VR in any form at all.
> Look at Under World. They made more of an attempt to capture VR despite the
> fact the graphics are poor in comparison. In fact, you can even say that doom
> is a souped up version of Wolfenstein 3D. Nothing new expect profits of course.
I wish people would stop calling these games VR this and VR that. They're
*not*.
For a system to be a virtual reality system, it *must* have head tracking
and must be immersive. Personally, I'd also make the qualification of
having a decent refresh rate, but that's just personal bias. But the first
two criteria are internationally accepted definitions.
I prefer to call things like Doom 'soft' VR.
Decent VR with graphics even that of the quality of Doom is some way off on
a workstation affordable to the majority of people reading this group.
Right now, you need something like a decebt SG platform to do good quality
VR graphics. I wouldn't want anything less than a Crimson.
I can't believe Division call their system VR. It has head tracking and is
immersive, but the graphics are crap and the frame rate sucks. It's like
playing Doom on an 386SX25 with no extra hardware (a clip of their system
was shown on TV last night. Pah! I'd heard about their systems before from
some other contacts).
Oh, whilst I'm on the subject, I have some info for you all.
A *BIG* dissapointent, in fact. It appears the main processor in the
SG/Nintendo game system (which is NOT called Project Reality) will be
running at a, IMHO, pathetic 80MHz. Yes, the graphics will be done by 64 bit
hardware ic's supplied by SG (grud knows what engine they'll use. Better
means bigger cost), but I had *hoped* that the main chip would at least be
an R4400. Doesn't seem to be the case. What a pity.
I await the info on what the system can actually *do* with some trepidation.
We shall see.
Ian.
PS. Source: New Scientist, last week's issue. I'll type out the article
when I can remember to bring it in.
Mike Acar
speed of the processor is secondary to the design and architecture when it comes
to the actual speed of the chip. 20Mhz 68040s run about the same as 33Mhz
486DXs.
--
Mike Acar -=- ma...@mcs.kent.edu -=- Reality exists through being perceived. -=-
Scott Amspoker
>I wish people would stop calling these games VR this and VR that. They're
>*not*.
>
>For a system to be a virtual reality system, it *must* have head tracking
>and must be immersive.
*yawn*
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International | [X] None of the above
s...@rt66.com *or* |
sc...@basis.com |
Daniel Pasco
When I see my friends lean WAY over to the side of their seats trying to avoid
an imp's fireball, the phrase "immersed" comes to mind. This may not fit the
exact definition of VR, but any game good enough to coax a player to lean
over to see if a monster is around a corner (and, sad to say, you probably
all know whay I mean) deserves at least a commendation for a superior effort.
Daniel
David Morning
>mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
>>
>>axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) writes:
>>> ...the doom engines fails to offer VR in any form at all.
>>> Look at Under World. They made more of an attempt to capture VR despite the
>>> fact the graphics are poor in comparison...
>>I wish people would stop calling these games VR this and VR that. They're
>>*not*.
>>For a system to be a virtual reality system, it *must* have head tracking
>>and must be immersive. Personally, I'd also make the qualification of
>>having a decent refresh rate, but that's just personal bias. But the first
>>two criteria are internationally accepted definitions.
> So when was this official standard established? "VR" means Virtual Reality.
>That is, a reality that really isn't. It needn't have any specific level of
>technology.
So Pong and Space Invaders are virtual reality? How fascinating!!
I always assumed the term 'virtual reality' meant 'close to, but not quite
the real thing' and usually involved getting kitted out in rather bizzare
garb culminating in what looked like two Gameboys glued to some spectacle
frame.
If 'virtual reality' meant a 'a reality that really isn't' wouldn't it make
more sense to call it 'not reality'?
I suspect the fuzzing if the issue by the likes of Sega in Virtua Racing
has led to the definition of Virtual Reality meaning the opposite of what
the words actually convey!!
Next time I'm 'virtually' home, I'll remember I'm not home at all, rather than
nearly home...
What a silly discussion!!
Scott Ashdown
>Oh, whilst I'm on the subject, I have some info for you all.
>
>A *BIG* dissapointent, in fact. It appears the main processor in the
>SG/Nintendo game system (which is NOT called Project Reality) will be
>running at a, IMHO, pathetic 80MHz. Yes, the graphics will be done by 64 bit
A pathetic 80MHz?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how you can judge the power of a system
knowing nothing but its clock rate?
--
Scott Ashdown
Engineer, MPR Teltech Ltd.
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
ash...@mprgate.mpr.ca
Casey Barton
>> ...the doom engines fails to offer VR in any form at all.
>I wish people would stop calling these games VR this and VR that. They're
>*not*.
>For a system to be a virtual reality system, it *must* have head tracking
>and must be immersive. Personally, I'd also make the qualification of
>having a decent refresh rate, but that's just personal bias. But the first
>two criteria are internationally accepted definitions.
So when was this official standard established? "VR" means Virtual Reality.
That is, a reality that really isn't. It needn't have any specific level of
technology.
You're setting yourself up to look like a fool a few years from now, when
VR *must* have a full-body,force-feedback telemetry suit, 3D sound,
smell-o-rama (tm) olfactory output, and a rendering engine capable of at least
850 million polygons/s. Or perhaps something more along the lines of Gibson's
black box and electrodes.
>I prefer to call things like Doom 'soft' VR.
A few years from now, you'll be calling Sense8's current stuff "soft" VR.
>Right now, you need something like a decebt SG platform to do good quality
>VR graphics. I wouldn't want anything less than a Crimson.
I'm beginning to think your criteria for VR is "If it runs on hardware that
regular people can actually buy, it ain't VR."
>I can't believe Division call their system VR. It has head tracking and
>is immersive, but the graphics are crap and the frame rate sucks.
But five years ago, I'll bet it would have been full-out VR to you, because
it would have been new technology. (And unaccessible to most people...)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Casey Barton (a guy) cba...@clark.dgim.doc.ca |
| http://pctcp132.dgcp.doc.ca/personal/index.html |
Allen B Bratlie
the morality of the youth of the good old US of A, and drive us further
down the one way road to hell that they have been dragging society down
for these many years !
Or on the other hand it could just be another kick-ass action game :-)
Al
(This was meant as a joke for those of you who don't have a clue !)
Chris McClellen
>*YAWN*
>When I see my friends lean WAY over to the side of their seats trying to avoid
>an imp's fireball, the phrase "immersed" comes to mind. This may not fit the
>exact definition of VR, but any game good enough to coax a player to lean
>over to see if a monster is around a corner (and, sad to say, you probably
I agree. I have actually seen someone fall out of a chair trying to lean
to the left. Actuallly the chair tipped over. Too bad for the player
though, as he tried to manuver while he was tipping over. Basically,
the monsters gave him what, so he tipped over in vain. I thought
it was funny, and I know the player I was watching was deeply
embarassed.
Now, in death match mode, I wonder if I slide left and right alot if
I can make him dizzy by making him sway back and forth in his chair.... hmm
The Rink
>the morality of the youth of the good old US of A, and drive us further
>down the one way road to hell that they have been dragging society down
>for these many years !
> Or on the other hand it could just be another kick-ass action game :-)
I kind of liked your post until you said you weren't serious.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
"My son is a sophomore in computer science here," -- my dad
"I know him well." -- Paul Sand.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| The Rink, High King of the Bits, and Grand Hacker Exalted |
| Even Above FPS Who Tries Hard, But Never Quite Makes It |
---------------------------------------------------------------
s...@kepler.unh.edu
Ashraf Ghebranious
>From: ebr...@orion.it.luc.edu (Edward A. Brunner)
>Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the meaning of Doom
>Date: 26 Jul 1994 15:41:11 GMT
>Ashraf Ghebranious (axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au) wrote:
>: To me all doom is and will every be is 3d Pacman with guns. This is a very
>: simplistic view but the doom engines fails to offer VR in any form at all.
>: Look at Under World. They made more of an attempt to capture VR despite the
>: fact the graphics are poor in comparison. In fact, you can even say that doom
>: is a souped up version of Wolfenstein 3D. Nothing new expect profits of
>course.
>: ashraf
>Have you tried deathmatch? You might be impressed.
>Ted B.
I must admit no. How do I try this mode? I dont like using the cheats so I die
a lot but I dont mind.
Ian CR Mapleson
It's not a silly discussion for one simple reason. When people keep using the
phrase to describe games as VR when they are not, it ups peoples'
expectations of what VR actually is and what current technology can really do.
Commercially, this is inadvisable as people will then be dissapointed when
they come face to face with proper VR system which are, at best, kinda jerky
and none too detailed at the moment without the use of OTT hardware.
To answer Casey's question, this 'official standard' was established, in a
semi-official way, about 2 years ago. Email me for info as I don't have the
conference paper to hand (I'm on campus writing this). The papers from the
conference have been collected into a book, published in 1992. Email me for
the name, etc.
On a similar theme, many people witter on about cyberspace and often refer to
the Internet by using the word. Yet another mistake. At present, there are
_no_ genuine environments that qualify as true cyberspace zones. There are 3
in the research phase, but none are publicly accessible to the world at large.
The Internet is not cyberpscae as W. Gibson defined the word 'cyberspace'.
My concern lies in the way the media, and people like ourselves, hype up what
games technology is capable of actually achieving.
I remember going into a computer store once and seeing an Archimedes doing a
'real time' wireframe (with hidden lines removed) animation. "Hey, cool!", I
thought. But on closer inspection... it was just reading in stored images off
a hard disk! :(
Using terms to describe things which don't fit the terms as defined will
affect people's perceptions of the technology in the same way my perception
of that Arc was affected by seeing a fake animation (the advertising was
clearly inferring that the animation was being done real time, which was just
a fudge).
Anybody wants to chat further about VR, then move this to email.
Ian.
Ian CR Mapleson
'Elite' did the same thing some ten years ago; this effect is not "immersion"
as the term is defined.
I agree with you about the commendation, though. :-)
Ian.
PS. There was a post I saw just a few minutes ago wittering about VR helmets
for Doom. An obvious question springs to mind: do these present a stereo view
or not? Somehow, I think not. If this is the case, I feel it's a bit of a con.
But people will buy them anyway. Ah well, at least (later on) they'll find
them useful for future games.
Ian CR Mapleson
> A pathetic 80MHz?
>
> Perhaps you'd like to explain how you can judge the power of a system
> knowing nothing but its clock rate?
If you'd followed my earlier posts and actually _talked_ to people in the
industry, many were expecting the system to use an R4400 as a means of
bringing down the price, and spread the fame, of SG ic's.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned, 80MHz is pathetic.
If you _read_ my post it's quite clear I'm dissapointed with the _main_
processor and in this respect I have every right to express my opinion. I
didn't judge the overall power of the system, I merely stated I was greatly
dissapointed that they didn't take a cool opportunity to use a more powerful
central processor.
SG have been saying that they want to expand their business and using the
R4400 in this system would have been a good way to do it.
Ian.
PS. The reason I say pathetic is because of my knowledge of the kind of
processors speeds that are now being achieved. Email me for info if you want
to know more.
Scott Coleman
>In article <31abhj$o...@news.u.washington.edu> phst...@u.washington.edu (Daniel Pasco) writes:
>>*YAWN*
>>When I see my friends lean WAY over to the side of their seats trying to avoid
>>an imp's fireball, the phrase "immersed" comes to mind.
Heh heh, and I thought *I* was the only one who ducked his head when
heading down the steps to the rocket launcher courtyard in E1M1 ;-) My
officemates have learned not to stand too close to my chair when I am
involved in an intense DEATHMATCH, because if they do their toes will be
run over by the wheels of my chair as I physically dodge rockets and
other ordinance. ;-)
--
Scott Coleman tm...@uiuc.edu
President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)
Ed Green Fan Club #005
Life is temporally limited -- drive velocitously!
Strife
My problem is I keep squinting and moving my eyes closer to the screen,
hoping to see a monster or something that's far awar :) I've wacked my
nose many times now :)
Frank
=============================================================================
= Frank Provo -finger my E-mail | "I never drive faster than I can see, and =
= str...@stein.u.washington.edu | besides that; It's all in the reflexes." =
= | -Jack Burton, Big Trouble in Little China =
= Club House Talk Site: |============================================
= 137.140.5.1 5000 | I NEED A 1989 UD GRIFFEY JR. ROOKIE CARD! =
=============================================================================
Ian CR Mapleson
:D:D
And then of course, when you play at home on a lino floor...
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! *zing!*
I can just see this chair flying across the room and into the kitchen,
containg an impified man surprised by a fireball and holding the remains of a
keyboard! :D:D
Ian (being silly for once) Mape's.
Doug DeJulio
Ian CR Mapleson <mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>To answer Casey's question, this 'official standard' was established, in a
>semi-official way, about 2 years ago.
Feh. A "Virtual Reality" is simply a simulated world. Nobody has the
authority to redefine this.
Zork was a virtual reality, although a primitive text-based one. But
it was a real, genuine virtual reality. So are MUDs.
>On a similar theme, many people witter on about cyberspace and often refer to
>the Internet by using the word. Yet another mistake. At present, there are
>_no_ genuine environments that qualify as true cyberspace zones
Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
--
Doug DeJulio
d...@zardoz.elbows.org
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/
Klaus Breuer
>the real thing' and usually involved getting kitted out in rather bizzare
>garb culminating in what looked like two Gameboys glued to some spectacle
>frame.
>If 'virtual reality' meant a 'a reality that really isn't' wouldn't it make
>more sense to call it 'not reality'?
Well. My english is not all that hot, but as far as I know 'Virtual'
means 'Seeming to be, but isn't'.
>What a silly discussion!!
I agree, but it's fun watching grown people bash their heads in for
idioticies >:-)
Ciao,
Klaus
---
Klaus Breuer, Rudelsweiher Str. 6b, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
"Geez, I need a _reason_ for everything?" -- Calvin
"Should I or shouldn't I? Too late, I did!" -- Hobbes
Donovan Charles Young
Hehe, yea, I'm one of them! I can't help put 'dodge' out of the way of a
Cacodeamon or Imp fireball -- it's reflex. My wife just stares at me and
shakes her head. <big grin>
--
__,;,/| Donovan Young
\'o.0`/ EMail: don...@america.net
=(_,_)= BBS: Cyberdyne Systems (404) 518-0157
U
Chris Pollard
>containg an impified man surprised by a fireball and holding the remains of a
>keyboard! :D:D
>
quite funny at the time, We were playing one of those wads with one large
arena and a group of weapons in the centre. Having just fragged my opponent,
I ran to the weapons area, knowing that would be his first port of call.
Little did I know, he was following me... As I ran across the weapons,
I reached the wall and turned to wait for him, plasma at the ready...
He, on the other hand, let rip with the last weapon he had picked up.
As I turned, I was confronted with this huge green BFG blast coming right
at me! SHIIIIIT! and I was on the floor. My pal almost died laughing. :)
Chris.
Ian CR Mapleson
d...@zardoz.elbows.org (Doug DeJulio) writes:
> Feh. A "Virtual Reality" is simply a simulated world. Nobody has the
> authority to redefine this.
When million of dollars of tax payers' money is spent on research into the
area, I'm afraid they most certainly do.
> Zork was a virtual reality, although a primitive text-based one. But
> it was a real, genuine virtual reality. So are MUDs.
No they're not. I can't be bothered to argue this point. All you're doing
by using terms in vague ways is spreading confusion. Some common ground is
needed for discussions in this field. Calling a text game VR is just plain
daft.
> Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
> systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
Wrongo! :D
Try _asking_ the person who invented the term! William Gibson. And you can't
argue that point because he even had a fun copyright battle with some idiot
company that tried to use the term for something else.
I met and I asked him for the official definition and he said:
"Cyberspace is a visual representation of abstract data."
NOTE the word "visual"!!! He explained that this means visual scenery, such
as is described in his books, like Neuromancer.
The Internet is NOT like this. It isn't visual (yet) and the data isn't
'abstract' in nature, by which he said he meant a visual way of representing
data that is obscure in nature. In his books, cities represent corporate
entities and computer links, etc. "Ice" represents anti-hacker software.
That kind of thing. The majority of the net as it stands is just text. That
isn't abstract, that's just ASCII! :D:D
Face it, some terms ARE officially defined. They have to be.
And, as I said before, at the moment there are only two or three _genuine_
Cyberspace projects as Gibson defines the term. One is in Sweden (New
Scientist, 1993) and is based around the idea of new ways of visually
representing data such as weather measurements, or stock market changes,
population shifts, and so on.
In future, get your facts straight before posting.
Consider: how are those in the business of developing VR systems supposed
to discuss their work if no common ground exists as far as terms are
concerned? All scientific, and come to think of it non-scientific,
disciplines have defined terms (jeez, I mean, check out the official
definition of a 'second'! It's about 5 lines long! :D). Some need more than
others.
VR is defined, whether you like it or not. Business and commerce decided
what was what.
Cyberspace is defined, by its inventor, so there's no WAY you can argue
that one. Cyberspace is NOT "a space in which cybernetic systems can
exist.", which is a silly expression anyway. You have to define 'cybernetic',
'space', 'system', for the sentence to have any meaning. Have you? No.
When multi-million dollar budgets are at stake, contract writers like
precise terms.
Definitions are and definitons will be. Live with it.
Bye! :)
Ian.
Roger Hill
|> Yeah, I have to agree here...I do it all the time. They've got it good
|> enough that it tricks your body into breathing faster etc...The first time I
|> put it in and satrted playing I was staggered by the quality of the sky and
|> the sense of depth it gave you.
Yeah... I know what you mean... and the motion sickness... after one half hour
of playing, I feel like puking my guts out...
--
Serge Ah-Hee My opinions do not necessarily
stu...@bnr.ca reflect those of my employer.
Bell Northern Research 6C23 O.O
(613)763-9610 \_/ "if it moves, it grooves..."
Lizard Man
Yeah, I have to agree here...I do it all the time. They've got it good
Kyle D. Lanclos
> Yeah, I have to agree here...I do it all the time. They've got it good
> enough that it tricks your body into breathing faster etc...The first time I
> put it in and satrted playing I was staggered by the quality of the sky and
> the sense of depth it gave you.
I've had friends threaten to buy me a seat-belt for my computer chair.
--
Kyle L.
kla...@eis.calstate.edu
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My synapses are not firing the correct weights. Please secure the output.
Insanitor
: >On a similar theme, many people witter on about cyberspace and often refer to
: >the Internet by using the word. Yet another mistake. At present, there are
: >_no_ genuine environments that qualify as true cyberspace zones
: Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
: systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
Nah, a cyberspace is a psuedo-physical world, where you can move, and
interact with other people. Net-Doom is cyberspace, albeit a limited
one. We sometimes call IRC cyberspace, because we can interact. But we
can't move, so really it's not cyberspace. By my definition, the
Internet as a whole is cyberspace, but individual parts (IRC, Telnet,
etc) aren't.
--
,-----------------------,-------------------------------------------------,
| iNSANITOR [OgreHorn] | Don't drink and park, accidents cause people. |
| insa...@xmission.com | |
`-----------------------'-------------------------------------[Anonymous]-'
Insanitor
: > Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
: > systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
: Wrongo! :D
: Try _asking_ the person who invented the term! William Gibson. And you can't
: argue that point because he even had a fun copyright battle with some idiot
: company that tried to use the term for something else.
: I met and I asked him for the official definition and he said:
: "Cyberspace is a visual representation of abstract data."
Ack, please don't say Gibson invented the word, he said himself he
didn't invent it, he just knows what it means.
Ack again, take this to a different base, please... Games discussion is
really no place to be dicussing definitions of "cyberpunk" terms...
Casey Barton
>> Zork was a virtual reality, although a primitive text-based one. But
>> it was a real, genuine virtual reality. So are MUDs.
>
>No they're not. I can't be bothered to argue this point. All you're doing
>by using terms in vague ways is spreading confusion. Some common ground is
>needed for discussions in this field. Calling a text game VR is just plain
>daft.
(ObNostalgia: Infocom used to have ads, just after graphic adventure games
started coming out, saying "Our games have the best visuals out there. Without
graphics." I agreed completely. Sigh.)
Feh. It's just a matter of scale. Virual Reality, regardless of what Mondo
2000 has told you, requires no specific level of technology. True, when you
talk about it to the average person, goggles & glove systems are inferred, but
that's only because the term has been misapplied. Over, and over, and over.
>> Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
>> systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
>
>Wrongo! :D
>
>I met (William Gibson) and I asked him for the official definition and he
>said:
>
>"Cyberspace is a visual representation of abstract data."
Ok.
>NOTE the word "visual"!!! He explained that this means visual scenery, such
>as is described in his books, like Neuromancer.
Bollocks. A bar graph is a visual representation of abstract data. So is
text, for that matter -- all data on a computer starts off as zeroes and ones.
Text is a method of representing ~8 bits of data with a single character.
>The Internet is NOT like this. It isn't visual (yet)
Huh? The Internet is a computer network, not an interface. "Internet"
doesn't imply *any* specific level of interface. Data is data is data. It's
all zeros and ones. Since when does how we look at something affect what it
is? You can find 3D filesystem navigators for SGI systems right now. You're
saying that if I retrieve files via FTP with a text interface, it's not
"cyberspace". But if I retrieve files via FTP using a goggle & glove metaphor,
where I pick up "blocks" of data and move them to my system, it suddenly
becomes cyberspace? Nonsense.
>and the data isn't 'abstract' in nature, by which he said he meant a visual
>way of representing data that is obscure in nature.
Now you're just confused about the definition of abstract, Ian. Abstract
data is simply data without context.
>The majority of the net as it stands is just text. That isn't abstract,
>that's just ASCII! :D:D
It's *data*! Pure and simple. If I look at it as a list of numbers, or if I
look at it as a 3D object in a stereoscopically rendered environment, it the
same old data.
>And, as I said before, at the moment there are only two or three _genuine_
>Cyberspace projects as Gibson defines the term. One is in Sweden (New
>Scientist, 1993) and is based around the idea of new ways of visually
>representing data such as weather measurements, or stock market changes,
>population shifts, and so on.
Sure. Bar graphs. :)
>Consider: how are those in the business of developing VR systems supposed
>to discuss their work if no common ground exists as far as terms are
>concerned? All scientific, and come to think of it non-scientific,
>disciplines have defined terms
This is why *no* respectable researcher will refer to "Virtual Reality" or
"cyberspace" without explaining themselves right then and there. Because there
*is no* official definition.
>(jeez, I mean, check out the official definition of a 'second'! It's about 5
>lines long!
An international unit of time equal to the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods
of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom. Just one line. :)
>VR is defined, whether you like it or not. Business and commerce decided
>what was what.
Nonsense. Business and commerce saw "Lawnmower Man" and figured that was
it. So did you, apparently. Like I've said before, trying to cast a definition
in stone (ie. specifying a hardware standard for VR) is at best a futile
effort, because it's going to be outdated ten (or even two) years from now.
RICHARD ABBOTT
>>(jeez, I mean, check out the official definition of a 'second'! It's about 5
>>lines long!
>An international unit of time equal to the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods
>of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
>levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom. Just one line. :)
Comes out as three on my newsreader ;-)
***********************************************
RJAb...@ITS.Dundee.ac.uk
Richard Abbott
It's not a Bug merely an undocumented feature
***********************************************
Mike McAulay
: > Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
: > systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
: Try _asking_ the person who invented the term! William Gibson. And you can't
: argue that point because he even had a fun copyright battle with some idiot
: company that tried to use the term for something else.
: I met and I asked him for the official definition and he said:
: "Cyberspace is a visual representation of abstract data."
: NOTE the word "visual"!!! He explained that this means visual scenery, such
: as is described in his books, like Neuromancer.
Gibson postulates the direct inputting of visual data into the nervous
system. But why stop there? The ultimate immersive VR will provide
indistinguisable-from-the-real-thing data to *all* the senses.
Once we have that, how parochial will your visual-only medium seem?
Meantime, what we are (and have been for all time) left with is *degrees
of immersion*. Seen in this light, a novel is a form of VR, albeit a
*relatively non-immersive* form. All virtual worlds exist along a
spectrum of immersion.
: Face it, some terms ARE officially defined. They have to be.
Yep. "Lamer" for instance.
: VR is defined, whether you like it or not. Business and commerce decided
: what was what.
Yours is obviously an extremely mediocre and unimaginative mind.
: Cyberspace is defined, by its inventor, so there's no WAY you can argue
: that one. Cyberspace is NOT "a space in which cybernetic systems can
: exist.", which is a silly expression anyway. You have to define
: 'cybernetic', 'space', 'system', for the sentence to have any meaning.
: Have you? No.
Shrilly he bleats as the steel-toed Godzilla boot crushes his head,
crushes his head. Hate to break it to ya mate, but we're laughing at
you, not with you.
--
+----------------+----------------------------------- ------- ---- --
| Mike McAulay | Therefore is man only himself when lost to himself
| c...@netcom.com | in The Charioting -- A.C.
+----------------+-------------------------------------- ----
| All opinions expressed are my own and not my employer's
+-------------------------------------------------------- -
Ian CR Mapleson
cba...@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Casey Barton) writes:
> <mostly twaddle, actually>
I haven't seen so much barf in all my life! Go ask Gibson! He _invented_ the
term Cyberspace! Go on! Ask him! Sheesh. :\
Re VR in general: you ignored my point about having a common ground for
discussion amongst those in the field. Go chew a MERV.
As for my dictionary quote, gimme a break. I meant lines of _text_, not
sentences. It was a large font dictionary. Don't be so damned pernickity.
I'm ending here. You're just beginning the old jump-on-small-points biz.
Try reading the _book_ Gibson was involved in, called "Cyberspace". I got
him to sign my lecturer's copy. :-)
Gibson witters on in Chapter 2, I think. He's head of the Academy on
Cyberspace.
Oh, and my reference to the Internet was clearly intended to be a reference
to it's _textual_ nature which undoubtedly dominates above all else. I have
no doubt this will change, with Mosaic, etc.
> ... So did you, apparently. ...
See? Insult time. It's at this point that I dispair of postings. I know what
I know. I'm about to get a research post developing VR systems. More than you
I bet (if not, congrats. I'm being nasty 'cos I feel like it for once).
One word on Lawnmower Man: most folks in the VR field I speak to tell me they
feel that film upped the public's expectations of what was currently possible
waaay too much. I believe I mentioned this problem a few days ago.
I assume you know the film has NOTHING to do with the original story?
Anyway, whilst you're wittering away complete twaddle, I get to use some
fabby equipment and work with some cool people on a ridiculously neat VR
project that, by Gibson`s definition, IS Cyberspace. I'll ask the guy if I
can natter about it as right now I think it's partly militarily funded so I
can't say much, be on the safe side etc. I _would_ like to describe the
project, because it's megacool and just the kinda thing which explains what
I mean. Maybe tomorrow. I have an interview.
Have a nice life! :D
Bye!
Ian.
PS. It is _possible_ that I may be asked to make a PWAD of a research park
and be _paid_ for it! Now that's what I call employment! :D:D We shall see.
PPS. Ok, I'll be nice, here's an example of what I mean.
Current status: well, it's easy to get a cheesy head set and a naffy VR
setup with slow response.
Research: currently, there is work into direct tapping of nerves, the optic
nerve especially. A direct optical feed. _Think_ about it. This is even
beyond what was represented in Wild Palms. So far, a 9 by 9 resolution feed
has been achieved. The next step is a 1000 by 1000 feed. I can't say more,
for obvious reasons. But the guy could see colour, brightness and position.
Oh, the guy was a blind war veteran, in case you're wondering.
Now, how can you POSSIBLY call these _both_ VR and at the same time include
the current Internet, textual muds, etc? It's daft! All people in the field
are suggesting is let's have some defined terms to make things easier to
talk about. Why you don't like this idea I don't know. Hard VR and Soft VR
is the current idea, but you are at least right in that it's not enough.
I'm off to Doom for a bit... :-)
Doug DeJulio
> that one.
It's not defined by its inventor. It's misunderstood by the guy who
popularized the term. There's a difference.
> Cyberspace is NOT "a space in which cybernetic systems can
> exist.", which is a silly expression anyway. You have to define
> 'cybernetic', 'space', 'system', for the sentence to have any meaning.
> Have you? No.
Gee, I thought I'd stick with the standard technical definitions.
Look up the science of cybernetics. I'll help you. Here's an excerpt
from what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about it:
>DEFINITION:
> The theory or study of communication and control in living organisms
> or machines. Hence (as back-formation) CYBER'NETIC a., pertaining or
> relating to cybernetics. So CYBERNE'TICIAN, CYBER'NETICIST, one who
> is skilled in cybernetics.
> Used in Fr. form [CYBERNETIQUE] (= the art of governing) by
> A.-M. Ampere [ESSAI SUR LA] Philos. [DES SCIENCES], 1834.
>
>QUOTATIONS(S):
> 1948 N. WIENER, Cybernetics 19
> "We have decided to call the entire field of control and
> communication theory, whether in the machine or in the animal,
> by the name Cybernetics."
There's been serious research in that area going on since the 40s at
least. It started with research into anti-aircraft guns in World War
II that used feedback in targeting. Quoting Groliers Encyclopedia,
"Much of the early work in cybernetics focused on the use of feedback
by servomechanisms (see SERVOMECHANISM) and other kinds of
AUTOMATION."
It has to do with the way systems with information feedback loops
behave. Cyber does *not* just mean mechanical or computer-related.
Any system large and complex enough for an information system with
feedback mechanisms to be represented in can be considered a
cyberspace. The interent is a cyberspace, and your brain is a
cyberspace. And, the whole complex system consisting of the internet
and all its human users taken collectively is an even larger
cyberspace, with richer feedback loops. You and I are engaged in a
feedback loop right now, for example.
Doug DeJulio
Insanitor <insa...@xmission.com> wrote:
>Doug DeJulio (d...@zardoz.elbows.org) wrote:
>: >On a similar theme, many people witter on about cyberspace and often refer to
>: >the Internet by using the word. Yet another mistake. At present, there are
>: >_no_ genuine environments that qualify as true cyberspace zones
>
>: Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
>: systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
>
>Nah, a cyberspace is a psuedo-physical world, where you can move, and
>interact with other people.
Nope, that's a type of virtual reality, not a cyberspace. Gibson's
"Cyberspace" was in fact just a virtual reality interface to the
cyberspace consisting of the world's global information network.
Cyberspace and virtual reality are orthogonal terms -- they don't
*have* to have anything to do with each other.
Doug DeJulio
Insanitor <insa...@xmission.com> wrote:
>Ian CR Mapleson (mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: > Feh again. What's a cyberspace? It's a space in which cybernetic
>: > systems can exist. The Internet fits. It's a cyberspace.
>
>: Wrongo! :D
>
>: Try _asking_ the person who invented the term! William Gibson. And you can't
>: argue that point because he even had a fun copyright battle with some idiot
>: company that tried to use the term for something else.
>
>: I met and I asked him for the official definition and he said:
>
>: "Cyberspace is a visual representation of abstract data."
>
>Ack, please don't say Gibson invented the word, he said himself he
>didn't invent it, he just knows what it means.
No, he doesn't even know what it means. Gibson is not a technical
person. As far as literature goes, I think he has put out some great
stuff. As far as technical stuff goes, he's a barely-literate twit
who's extremely dangerous because other nontechnical folks take his
opinion too seriously.
What's a namespace? A space in which names can be represented.
What's a cyberspace? A space in which cybernetic systems can be
represented. The Internet is a cyberspace.
If you want me to adopt another definition, make me believe the
definition is useful. Don't argue based on the authority of a
nontechnical sci-fi author.
--
Doug DeJulio
d...@zardoz.elbows.org
s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za
Concerning a couple of comments recently raised under Comments about Doom:
Quote:
>>"Cyberspace is a visual representation of abstract data."
> Huh? The Internet is a computer network, not an interface. "Internet"
>doesn't imply *any* specific level of interface. Data is data is data. It's
>all zeros and ones. Since when does how we look at something affect what it
>is?
I define Virtual Reality as a simulation of reality be it a game or OS.
True Virtual reality would include all five senses but any of the others and
sight would be enough at the current level of tech that we have.
Cyberspace on the other hand I personally see as a virtual continuum into
which organic beings interface by means of electronic/cyber systems.
Therefore the Internet is definitly Cyberspace!!
Cheers
Storm.
P.S. I am sorry but I have to put in here that this is an adress currently
on loan to me but you will be able to reach me here for a while. New adress
will follow shortly! <G>
Steven Lam
>True Virtual reality would include all five senses but any of the others and
>sight would be enough at the current level of tech that we have.
>
>Cyberspace on the other hand I personally see as a virtual continuum into
>which organic beings interface by means of electronic/cyber systems.
>
>Therefore the Internet is definitly Cyberspace!!
Here's my $0.02.
VR: I slightly agree, but it's not only the emersion of the 5 senses
into a virtual environment, but the illusion your mind expriences
when you enter a virtual environment. ie. when you move your
head, the virtual environment moves accordingly, you also have
depth perception in a virtual environment. DOOM on the other
hand is not VR, visually it's great, but it does not give you
a total feeling of being placed in a virtual enronment.
Currently our tech. allows us to virtualize sight, movement,
some touch, and sound. And remember the environment must
be VIRTUAL, for a VR definition, the environment you interact
with must not exist at that time. ie. if the environment
you are interacting with exists physically at that time, then
it's hyper-reality (like telepresence).
Cyberspace: I agree, but why only organic beings?
franklin
: cba...@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Casey Barton) writes:
: > <mostly twaddle, actually>
: I haven't seen so much barf in all my life! Go ask Gibson! He _invented_ the
: term Cyberspace! Go on! Ask him! Sheesh. :\
Whether he *invented* the term has been debated. Even if he did, he got it
wrong... I know that kind of sounds ridiculous, but it is not what the
etymology of the word means, so he was stupid to give that definition.
By analogy, suppose I coin the phrase "tactile reality", but I say
"what that means is we can smell things in the virtual world". Maybe
I've invented the phrase, but I've given it a damn silly definition.
: Try reading the _book_ Gibson was involved in, called "Cyberspace". I got
: him to sign my lecturer's copy. :-)
: Gibson witters on in Chapter 2, I think. He's head of the Academy on
: Cyberspace.
So what! Sorry, but one thing that really gets to me with loads of
science stuff is that the people who know enough to know they don't know it
all keep quiet, and so the popularizers have it all their own way. Gibson
may be a good writer, but if he has any deep technical knowledge, he manages
to conceal it well in his novels. The situation is even worse with VR,
because there the hypesters aren't even writing *fiction*.
: See? Insult time. It's at this point that I dispair of postings. I know what
: I know.
Yeah, and I remember when you tried to lecture those of us with degrees in
statistics about how to conduct a survey. You knew what you knew
then, too.
I'm about to get a research post developing VR systems. More than you
: I bet (if not, congrats. I'm being nasty 'cos I feel like it for once).
Hmm... I think there's a possibility I might be doing the same - maybe I'd
better be nice to you :)
: One word on Lawnmower Man: most folks in the VR field I speak to tell me they
: feel that film upped the public's expectations of what was currently possible
: waaay too much. I believe I mentioned this problem a few days ago.
Yeah, I think the bit about giving you telepathic powers was probably a
few months ahead of it's time :-) But this is where I complain about the
hypesters - "you'll be able to go on virtual holidays" etc. And that wasn't
a reporter - that was someone working at a university. (I don't remember the
details).
P.S. My VR lecturer hasn't been able to bring himself to see The Lawnmower
Man.
: Anyway, whilst you're wittering away complete twaddle, I get to use some
: fabby equipment and work with some cool people on a ridiculously neat VR
: project that, by Gibson`s definition, IS Cyberspace. I'll ask the guy if I
: can natter about it as right now I think it's partly militarily funded so I
: can't say much, be on the safe side etc. I _would_ like to describe the
: project, because it's megacool and just the kinda thing which explains what
: I mean. Maybe tomorrow. I have an interview.
Why do I worry about someone who is going to work on VR systems who thinks
Gibson should tell him how to do it? Especially for the military. (It may
be that Gibson does know what he's talking about, but has to hide it in
his books because he's working for the military too. In which case, I
apologise).
Dave
Suhonen Aleksi
: Here's my $0.02.
And hereds mine.
: VR: I slightly agree, but it's not only the emersion of the 5 senses
: into a virtual environment, but the illusion your mind expriences
: when you enter a virtual environment. ie. when you move your
: head, the virtual environment moves accordingly, you also have
: depth perception in a virtual environment. DOOM on the other
: hand is not VR, visually it's great, but it does not give you
: a total feeling of being placed in a virtual enronment.
The first movies and TVs were virtual realities in their time. The watchers
felt totally immersed in them, because they were something new. They
immersed you with a part of one sense that you had. HMD's immerse you with
two whole senses you have and as time and technology advances they are now
the equivalent of the first TVs and movies. When a person sees DOOM for the
very first time (esp. if he hasn't played comp. games or even seen a telly
before) the said person will be COMPLETELY immersed in it (providing that
he care to be immersed and that he is capable of immersing [I.e. can play
the game])
: Currently our tech. allows us to virtualize sight, movement,
: some touch, and sound. And remember the environment must
: be VIRTUAL, for a VR definition, the environment you interact
: with must not exist at that time. ie. if the environment
: you are interacting with exists physically at that time, then
: it's hyper-reality (like telepresence).
: Cyberspace: I agree, but why only organic beings?
*GRIN*
--
Aleksi Suhonen [s15...@cc.tut.fi] A Bodiless Voice in the Void of CyberSpace.
To debug is mundane, but to FIND bugs is heavenly!
Steven Lam
>felt totally immersed in them, because they were something new. They
>immersed you with a part of one sense that you had. HMD's immerse you with
>two whole senses you have and as time and technology advances they are now
>the equivalent of the first TVs and movies. When a person sees DOOM for the
>very first time (esp. if he hasn't played comp. games or even seen a telly
>before) the said person will be COMPLETELY immersed in it (providing that
>he care to be immersed and that he is capable of immersing [I.e. can play
>the game])
VR was coined for the technology that is being developed today.
It's cyberhype that's has coined the term VR to everything
from a TV to a toster oven.
TV and Movies are not VR, they do not emerse, then are passive
they can be non-causal, they require a bit of imagination. They
have never been nor are VR.
VR is totally causal and interactive. It almost totaly replaces
your reality with an artificial one, not one filmed or recorded
by someone else.
Watching TV or playing a game, that's not VR. You can shift
in your chair a bit, grab for a handfull of chips, press pause
and go for a drink in the fridge. If you're playing a game
and come to a cliff, you can walk off the cliff with no worries
no thought come accross your mind that you might get hurt. In
VR it becomes terrifying when you try walking down a set of
virtual stairs and you have no legs! Look down at your legs,
and imagine they're not there... not try to imagine how you'd
react if you ACTUALL SAW YOU HAD NO LEGS!
s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za
Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
future. I mean who would want to live in the real world if you could escape
and sculpt your own. Not that I am against VR in any way. I just think
that there should be some sort of control proposed for people who are not
yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
Anyone care to comment?
Cheers
Storm Wilde (One hundred thousant lemmings can't be wrong. :-)
P.S. This adress is currently on loan. New adress will follow shortly.
PDeMaio
>From: s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za
>Subject: Re: Cyberspace & Virtual Reality
>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 11:47:25 GMT
>Hi Dere,
>Anyone care to comment?
>Cheers
To quote (hopefully correctly) Dennis Miller:
"When an out of work construction worker can come home and f*ck Claudia
Shiffer for $19.95 on friday night, It's going to make crack look like rock
candy."
To quote myself (hopefully more correctly):
VR is a great idea but hopefully it will never get so good that people stop
going on vacations or going out to the park or dancing at a club. I mean why
would anyone go out to try to meet a girl or play basketball when they can
stay home and screw a pretty girl than they could ever meet or dunk a moster
reverse 360 windmill jam that they could never make.
The only hope as far as I'm concerned is the natural tendency of people to
reject technology that invades into there social life too much. This is
one of the reasons that working out of the home has never really caught on,
thankfully. I guess another more Darwinian way to look at this, is that
people who get too wrapped up in this stuff will naturally select themself out
of existance because they will miss out on reproducing.
I reallize that this is a ways off, but full VR will come. I may be a bit
Orwellian, maybe pessimistic is a better word, but technology is just like
anything else: Too much can be a bad thing.
PDeMaio
Is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just an oncoming train?
Jon Yankovich
: Hi Dere,
: Anyone care to comment?
: Cheers
A drug that inspires creativity, encourages imagination and
promotes intelligence and mental growth, allows young people to test
their theories about the world in a virtual environment where they won't
be hurt, and allows people to associate with people not only in their
town, but anywhere in the civilized world. More friends, more sharing,
more growth, more imagination and creativity, or...
..drugs.
I was a youth until two days ago, but I still feel like a child.
And I've done drugs, and I'm not stupid. And I'd prefer to abuse a good VR.
Justin T. Ballard
I don't think all things said about VR and computers appply to
every person. What I don't like is people who live their lives
through the computer. Example: Everybody knows the two guys
'chatting' through the computer who are in the same building or
maybe in the same computer room. Chatting is interesting and it
can be fun but if I have a friend near enough that I don't have
to 'chat' then I would rather be talking to them face to face or
at least the phone.
My other pet peeve is the business move to voice mail and automated
answering systems(you know the ones 'Dial 1....'). I would love
a company that would go back to a secretary or operator to handle
incoming calls. It has some valuable uses granted(They have it for
my bankcard and several airlines use it also)but I like real
people once in awhile.
The other one that idea that I really don't like(the already have
this concept in practice though), is remote shopping. Your
virtual malls. I fear the day when everybody can do everything
from home.
Just think you'll have your home office, you'll shop from home,
you have your virtual wife, and you'll take virtual vacations.
I just think a society who has life to easy will weaken and
I sometimes fear that for our own society.
Now what I have just said is taking everything to paranoid
extremes, I admit. But when I guy tells me he rather jack-in
then jack-off it makes me wonder a little(is there a hyphen
in jack-off).
Just my $.38 worth. :-)(REALLY BIG)
####
--
ALPHA TECH Justin Ballard
Personal Computer Consulting 4470 Turney Road
Microcomputer Service and Support Cleveland, OH 44105
internet EMAIL: jt...@po.cwru.edu (216)441-6309
Serafin Jeffrey Dale
<s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za> wrote:
>Hi Dere,
>
>Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
>future. I mean who would want to live in the real world if you could escape
>and sculpt your own. Not that I am against VR in any way. I just think
>that there should be some sort of control proposed for people who are not
>yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
>
I think that if VR does become the drug of the next century it will probably
be better for society. The current chemical based drugs, are associated with
alot of crime, since it is illegal [Canada], but I can't forsee any crime
associated with VR that would result in murder, or robbery. Also the few
people who have wierd urges will be able to live them out without affecting
the rest of us.
The downfall of all this is the affect it has on the user, and I think this
is what you are talking about.
What will happen is people won't be able to cope with other people, why bother
with people you don't get along with when you can create your own world of
people to socialize with. People will only live in there virtual worlds
and not in the real world, and we may lose some very creative or intelligent
minds if these people don't express there ideas to the real world, but only
implement them in there own useless worlds.
Then again I could be totally wrong?
*************** JeFf sErAfIn ******************
Mattias Myrberg
: with people you don't get along with when you can create your own world of
: people to socialize with. People will only live in there virtual worlds
: and not in the real world, and we may lose some very creative or intelligent
: minds if these people don't express there ideas to the real world, but only
: implement them in there own useless worlds.
Personally, I'd refrain from predicting the existence of "virtual" people,
imagine how much we don't YET know about the shaping of the human mind.
Of course, there's the possibility of humans being easily fooled,
but I don't think a virtual person-community would be very interesting
in the long run, not with the currently available technology.
: Then again I could be totally wrong?
I don't agree with you on the "useless" part..
--
Mattias Myrberg
mat...@krille.update.uu.se
Ian CR Mapleson
VR will be used for all sorts of things.
Entertainment, education, helping the disabled, communication, medical uses
(surgery; already happening, this is), video-conferencing, design, industry,
architecture, etc, etc.
It will also be used for fighter aircraft, remote sensing, exploration and
all the way along the line to military torture.
Age controls would preclude its use in education and would be a foolish move.
Games companies would also not like this.
Just thinking VR is this or that isn't good enough. What do you actually know?
If you're concerned about something, do some research to investigate and see
if your fears are true, though you might get biased results if you're just
looking to prove something. What exactly are the kind of dangers that you are
thinking of? Would their seriousness and rate of occurence be bad enough to
require _laws_ that restrict the rights of all?
People are all to willing to have laws and regs solve problems these days
before considering that legitimate users may often be hindered by the attempt
the curb the activities of a small minority, besides the simple fact that
laws are not preventative, they are an after-the-event measure.
Countries like the UK here like to pass laws on crime, thinking it'll solve
the problem. Tougher sentences, more police powers, etc.
Solving the problems of poor housing, inner city decline, unemployment and
so on never seems to occur to them as a better solution.
From what I hear, there is a famous case involving a BBS in the US which is
peing prosecuted for breaking the laws of another state, even though the
act concerned is obscure in nature. Govts are oh so willing to restrict and
control. The Internet is one of the last truely free places there is, but it's
getting worse. Bringing in laws on VR would be a disaster, IMHO.
And why are adults _continually_ seen as people who are somehow more likely
to be more sensible in their use of technology? That's compete garbage.
Children don't design nukes, fight wars, murder each other on a regular
basis with semi-automatic weapons and generally act like idiots. Adults do.
Oh, better switch this to email or a VR group. It's not exactly Doom related,
is it?
Bye! :)
Ian.
David Hawks
>In article <s9046569.2...@babel.ee.up.ac.za> s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za writes:
>>Hi Dere,
>>
>>Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
>>future. I mean who would want to live in the real world if you could escape
>>and sculpt your own. Not that I am against VR in any way. I just think
>>that there should be some sort of control proposed for people who are not
>>yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
>VR will be used for all sorts of things.
>Entertainment, education, helping the disabled, communication, medical uses
>(surgery; already happening, this is), video-conferencing, design, industry,
>architecture, etc, etc.
>It will also be used for fighter aircraft, remote sensing, exploration and
>all the way along the line to military torture.
>Age controls would preclude its use in education and would be a foolish move.
>Games companies would also not like this.
>Just thinking VR is this or that isn't good enough. What do you actually know?
>If you're concerned about something, do some research to investigate and see
>if your fears are true, though you might get biased results if you're just
>looking to prove something. What exactly are the kind of dangers that you are
>thinking of? Would their seriousness and rate of occurence be bad enough to
There is no doubt that VR could be very detrimental to young and old alike.
Not neccessarily dangerous. All you have to do is look at all the
Nintendo/Sega users, and then all the MUD heads and all the others that
let their life fall apart while they escape to their own little world.
If any of you know any MUD heads, how many of you know someone who has
failed out of school because they played MUD for hours and hours. Hours
that even stretched across days with very little sleep. VR is something
that will be here sooner or later, it will be up to the individual to use
it responsibly. It is just like anything, all things in moderation.
-- David
--
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| ha...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu | That which doesn't kill | W:(910)350-7803 9-5 EST|
| hawk...@wl.corning.com | me makes me stronger. | H:(910)799-2898 |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Jon Yankovich
: To quote (hopefully correctly) Dennis Miller:
: "When an out of work construction worker can come home and f*ck Claudia
: Shiffer for $19.95 on friday night, It's going to make crack look like rock
: candy."
: To quote myself (hopefully more correctly):
: VR is a great idea but hopefully it will never get so good that people stop
: going on vacations or going out to the park or dancing at a club. I
I dont see why one wouldnt want to dance at a virtual club,
with, say, no gravity and sticky walls, or something, so people could
dance on any surface they could fit their feet on. Sounds like fun to me...
: Why would anyone go out to try to meet a girl...
Simple: 1/3 of relationships is the interpersonal challenge,
something that is very far away from computers'; abilities.
: The only hope as far as I'm concerned is the natural tendency of people to
: reject technology that invades into there social life too much.
^^^
Is that true? I spend 2-3 hours talking to people on a local
chat BBS. When people voice me, I often wish mentally that they'd have
used e-mail instead. I don't think people regect technology. Of
course, when you add a word like 'too', it always makes you right.
: I reallize that this is a ways off, but full VR will come. I may be a bit
: Orwellian, maybe pessimistic is a better word, but technology is just like
: anything else: Too much can be a bad thing.
This comment is a bit spiritualized, but I support it
nonetheless. People are arguing about how VR/Tech/whatever will reach a
critical mass and then become a negative influcence. I believe that
before this happens, humanity will make a giant evolutionary step. Some
are saying 15 years, some are saying 50. It's not the end of the
world. It's the start of another. And good technology will be one of
the keys to getting us there.
: Is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just an oncoming train?
Neither. It's God's headlights.
-jon
Jon Yankovich
: be better for society. The current chemical based drugs, are associated with
: alot of crime, since it is illegal [Canada], but I can't forsee any crime
: associated with VR that would result in murder, or robbery. Also the few
: people who have wierd urges will be able to live them out without affecting
: the rest of us.
How about this; play enough realistic video games, and you'll
become desensitized to the violence. In VR, a Virtual Reality, where
people die and no one cares, people will become desensitized very
quicky. Then, when they get mad in RL, they'll hurt eachother.
: The downfall of all this is the affect it has on the user, and I think this
: is what you are talking about.
: What will happen is people won't be able to cope with other people, why bother
: with people you don't get along with when you can create your own world of
: people to socialize with.
I feel like you're approaching the whole subject wrong. Look at
the internet; people could create anthing they want (well, textually),
but instead of isolating themselves, there's more interconnectivity.
This is what better VR networks will yield. More people communicating
at higher rates become better people.
: We may lose some very creative or intelligent
: minds if these people don't express there ideas...
Again, I think you'll looking at this pessimisticly. And
again, I'll site the internet as an example: The Internet represents
the worlds largest framework for the worlds largest video game. If
society was interested in wasting mental resouces, imagine the fun we'd
be having with a govrenment-subsidized TCP/IP version of DOOM. Look.
My point is, people are going to use the experimental/hypothetical
nature of VR to do More with their imaginations, freeing them from the
confines of natural space, not less.
: Then again I could be totally wrong?
Hey, we got this far, didn't we?
-jon
philip d massimi
>In article <s9046569.2...@babel.ee.up.ac.za>,
> <s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za> wrote:
>>Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
>What will happen is people won't be able to cope with other people, why bother
>with people you don't get along with when you can create your own world of
>people to socialize with. People will only live in there virtual worlds
>and not in the real world, and we may lose some very creative or intelligent
>minds if these people don't express there ideas to the real world, but only
>implement them in there own useless worlds.
Then again, some of the most creative, intelligent, brilliant people in
history were absolutely anti-social. It's possible then, that this type
of thing may actually INCREASE the amount of creativity and intelligence
in the world.
If you ask me, too much stock is placed in being "social" (and dare I add
"politically correct"). The majority of people that I meet everyday aren't
worth the air they steal, so why SHOULD we bother with them, if we feel more
comfortable with a select few that interact w/ us in our virtual worlds?
A note from a pessimist.
"Me... prejudiced? Nah... I hate everyone." :)
Phil Massimi -----------------------------------------
aka "Cpt. Mad Mass" --- Sure, it's a small world, ---
Scout, U.S. Cavalry --- but I'd hate to have to paint it. ---
1/33 Armor Battalion -----------------------------------------
mas...@cis.ohio-state.edu S.Wright
philip d massimi
>People are all to willing to have laws and regs solve problems these days
>before considering that legitimate users may often be hindered by the attempt
>the curb the activities of a small minority, besides the simple fact that
>laws are not preventative, they are an after-the-event measure.
Who told you laws are not preventative? It's the punishment that is an
after-the-fact measure... the law is, in fact, preventative. Knowing that
there could be a very negative consequence to committing a crime, prevents
MANY people from committing those crimes. In fact, it prevents ME from
committing many crimes. If there were no law against it, you can bet I'd
be robbing banks! I could really use the money! In fact, there are a
couple of people that I would LOVE to pop off. But I don't, because there
is a high degree of risk involved, and the consequences if I am caught are
too severe.
Nevertheless, I do agree that there is such a thing as "too much law". It's
called "socialism".
>Countries like the UK here like to pass laws on crime, thinking it'll solve
>the problem. Tougher sentences, more police powers, etc.
There's nothing wrong with a good stiff sentence as far as I'm concerned.
For example, if some moron disrespects the life of another human being, and
murders him, then why the hell should we respect HIS life? The death penalty
is appropriate. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Although I tend to agree that stiffer sentences might not solve the problem
entirely, I also think that it couldn't hurt to try it. :)
>Solving the problems of poor housing, inner city decline, unemployment and
>so on never seems to occur to them as a better solution.
No, it has probably occurred to them... for a minute or two. It probably
just didn't stick long as being very likely. Poor housing, inner city
decline, unemployment, crime... they're all symptoms of a larger problem.
Solving the poor housing problem is not going to solve the unemployment
problem, and stopping crime is not going to prevent inner city decline.
>From what I hear, there is a famous case involving a BBS in the US which is
>peing prosecuted for breaking the laws of another state, even though the
>act concerned is obscure in nature. Govts are oh so willing to restrict and
>control. The Internet is one of the last truely free places there is, but it's
>getting worse. Bringing in laws on VR would be a disaster, IMHO.
Hehehe... I agree completely on this point. Ever read the book "1984"?
>And why are adults _continually_ seen as people who are somehow more likely
>to be more sensible in their use of technology? That's compete garbage.
Nope... not garbage... they are.
>Children don't design nukes, fight wars, murder each other on a regular
>basis with semi-automatic weapons and generally act like idiots. Adults do.
Yes they do. Have you ever been around combat arms soldiers? The majority
of them are between 17 and 20... basically children. Are you aware that
the average age of murdered men, AND of men who have murdered other men,
has dropped below 21 yrs old? Do you know how old the average gang member
in the city is? Younger than 18 yrs old. They are children, and they are
fighting wars, and murdering each other on a regular basis w/ semi (and
fully) automatic weapons.
Still, I stand behind you on your main point. :) Let's not get stupid.
Don't worry about the people spending all of their time in their "virtual
worlds"... worry about the people spending all of their time running drugs,
and running in gangs, and committing crimes that REALLY hurt people.
Bob Tausworthe
: be better for society. The current chemical based drugs, are associated with
: alot of crime, since it is illegal [Canada], but I can't forsee any crime
: associated with VR that would result in murder, or robbery. Also the few
: people who have wierd urges will be able to live them out without affecting
: the rest of us.
I can think of crimes associated with VR. And not any Neurmancer sh*t. Consider
that if VR services cost money, there may well be groups of people who are
willing to rob etc to get the funds to play in VR. Especially if they are VRing
more than 40hrs/week.
tozz
Christopher Mountford
>Ian CR Mapleson (mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
>: cba...@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Casey Barton) writes:
>: > <mostly twaddle, actually>
>: I haven't seen so much barf in all my life! Go ask Gibson! He _invented_ the
>: term Cyberspace! Go on! Ask him! Sheesh. :\
All this fuss about a definition. Perhaps you put too much faith in strict
definitions. There is popular usage, which no-one can do anything about, and
there are analytic rational consistent definitions, which are sensible, and
then there are definitions which are set by some arbitrary power, and these
really suck.
This is just my opinion but I have to agree with Casey Barton on this.
Whatever terms you are using, I think it's better to get your concepts
straight. Lucky we don't request a definition for your favourite word;
"twaddle". Virtual Reality is a term continuing a series of computer
terms virtual memory, virtual *everything* but the key concept is that
you refer to a hypothetical model which the computer makes it possible
to address as if the virtual was actual. You all know this. For the
sake of consistency, I'd say cyberspace is every representation of data
which enables reference to the data through the space. Then all you have
is degrees and levels within that definition. I *know* what you are
talking about when you say VR and cyberspace but must we worship Gibson?
Compter games are cyberspaces, so is text, what you refer to is best
described as
IMMERSION
This term is often used and is more naturally suited and uncorrupted by
misleading common usage. The idea of course to fool the senses into
acting naturally in a simulation. But this happens in every computer game,
even when typing on a keyboard. The actual actions to effect a change in
the cyberspace may start out being unnatural, and I see that ImmersionVR
is supposed to counter that but once you have used a game for a while or
typed a fair bit, you only think about what you want to happen and the rest
is automatic. You think in the defined space because you understand it's
laws. Different Wordprocessors feel different, you can feel the load on
a machine and other things. You have a mental presence in any defined
space which parallels the functions available to you.
The reason I prefer this kind of definition is that it is more universal
than yours. It makes a kind of sense instead of the arbitrary 'that's just
the way it is' stuff. Just as VR is good because it has little assumed
knowledge, so are terms which actually make sense. The main problem with
computers is the arbitrary use of different standards for no good reason.
Wouldn't you like to make terms more easily accessable to people without
having to *learn* their way around? With so much information around, the
less of it you need to swap genres the better.
Sorry if this got out of hand. I think it's relevant to your discussion
though this newsgroup might have a NSR falling through the floor by now.
oh well
Engine.
Christopher Mountford
>Hi Dere,
>Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
>future. I mean who would want to live in the real world if you could escape
>and sculpt your own. Not that I am against VR in any way. I just think
>that there should be some sort of control proposed for people who are not
>yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
>Anyone care to comment?
Yes.
Too late. I think what is dangerous is to think that TV does not flow onto VR.
What we call VR now will not be the last form of escape. Escapism is what is
dangerous. The VR experience is neutral. It's fun/powerful/useful etc but like
all technology, even books and radio, there are always some people calling
it the devil's device. The devil is the real world. Everyone knows how bad
that is. That's what people escape from whether it's mentally or with a book
or TV or any medium.
We have a social problem. People want to escape. So we learn to deal with this
problem in an every day sense. People are addicted to TV. That's something to
be concerned about considering how badly adjusted it can/could make you.
But only adjusted to reality, adjusted fine to TV! The problem should be
treated now and recognised as a social issue, or a health issue. I think
education is the key to this. If people don't know how to care for themselves
then how can they teach their kids. It is not the job of a central govt or
organization to look after people's minds, it's their job to redistribute
resources so that everyone can access the cream of what human thought and
creation have brought about. So what does all this mean?
Censorship is only for people who can't look after themselves. And I believe
there are very few of these. Kids can do alot worse than seeing genitalia
on a computer screen, even *sex* ! But as for time spent actually using VR
instead of whatever else they are supposed to be doing, I would tend to
favour any method that teaches them what they should be doing rather than
prohibiting them from doing what they think they want.
One sure fire way of making a kid stop doing something is to arbitrarily tell
them that they are forbidden to do it. That's just the way it works. People,
even kids like to be treated as if they can handle what life presents them.
If they can't, they like to see it first for themselves. They are like adults
in this. People respond best to reasoning. People like to think that the
person advising them has their interests at heart, and they like to be able
to see this without being told! I never really believed that my parents were
helping me by forbidding me something. But when they explained things to me
I was always more co-opreative. That's natural human ego. Kids are just like
everyone else except they have less experience.
The whole thing is about education. That's the way I see it. TV is a powerful
medium but it's not used for the people, it's used to use the people. Because
of money.
The way to free people from escapism like what will happen with VR is to
make them free from ignorance. It's not about limiting anything. That's a
police state attitude. If something's not right we need more enforcement of
doing the right thing. That's way fucked. You are trying to free someone.
Recognise this and see that it can't be accomplished effectively by boxing
them in on another side.
Freedom of education, actually happening, that's the way.
Engine.
Christopher Mountford
>I don't think all things said about VR and computers appply to
>every person. What I don't like is people who live their lives
>through the computer. Example: Everybody knows the two guys
>'chatting' through the computer who are in the same building or
>maybe in the same computer room. Chatting is interesting and it
>can be fun but if I have a friend near enough that I don't have
>to 'chat' then I would rather be talking to them face to face or
>at least the phone.
>My other pet peeve is the business move to voice mail and automated
>answering systems(you know the ones 'Dial 1....'). I would love
>a company that would go back to a secretary or operator to handle
>incoming calls. It has some valuable uses granted(They have it for
>my bankcard and several airlines use it also)but I like real
>people once in awhile.
>The other one that idea that I really don't like(the already have
>this concept in practice though), is remote shopping. Your
>virtual malls. I fear the day when everybody can do everything
>from home.
That day's come already. Years ago. I think it's fine because the
possibility is not the problem. If people never need to go out,
they'll only go out when they want to. They won't want to if they
don't know how good it can be. I can only think of my own experience.
>Just think you'll have your home office, you'll shop from home,
>you have your virtual wife, and you'll take virtual vacations.
>I just think a society who has life to easy will weaken and
>I sometimes fear that for our own society.
I think you have the mechanisms messed up here. People do what
they want. You don't want to stop this, you want to give people
the information or experience you have for arriving at your wisdom.
>Now what I have just said is taking everything to paranoid
>extremes, I admit. But when I guy tells me he rather jack-in
>then jack-off it makes me wonder a little(is there a hyphen
>in jack-off).
>--
> ALPHA TECH Justin Ballard
> Personal Computer Consulting 4470 Turney Road
> Microcomputer Service and Support Cleveland, OH 44105
> internet EMAIL: jt...@po.cwru.edu (216)441-6309
Engine.
Christopher Mountford
>In article <s9046569.2...@babel.ee.up.ac.za> s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za writes:
>>Hi Dere,
>>
>>Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
>>future. I mean who would want to live in the real world if you could escape
>>and sculpt your own. Not that I am against VR in any way. I just think
>>that there should be some sort of control proposed for people who are not
>>yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
>all the way along the line to military torture.
>Age controls would preclude its use in education and would be a foolish move.
>Games companies would also not like this.
>People are all to willing to have laws and regs solve problems these days
>before considering that legitimate users may often be hindered by the attempt
>the curb the activities of a small minority, besides the simple fact that
>laws are not preventative, they are an after-the-event measure.
YES!
>Countries like the UK here like to pass laws on crime, thinking it'll solve
>the problem. Tougher sentences, more police powers, etc.
>Solving the problems of poor housing, inner city decline, unemployment and
>so on never seems to occur to them as a better solution.
A major pattern exists between those who have education and access to
information (which amounts to a similar thing) and poverty and crime.
I don't think this is a fact that should be ignored.
>From what I hear, there is a famous case involving a BBS in the US which is
>peing prosecuted for breaking the laws of another state, even though the
>act concerned is obscure in nature. Govts are oh so willing to restrict and
>control. The Internet is one of the last truely free places there is, but it's
>getting worse. Bringing in laws on VR would be a disaster, IMHO.
>And why are adults _continually_ seen as people who are somehow more likely
>to be more sensible in their use of technology? That's compete garbage.
Adults are just kids who know more and have had more time to work out how
to get what they want without stuffing things up for themselves later on.
>Children don't design nukes, fight wars, murder each other on a regular
>basis with semi-automatic weapons and generally act like idiots. Adults do.
But those adults were kids once. Many regret their actions later in life.
Foresight (information) can help anyone.
>Oh, better switch this to email or a VR group. It's not exactly Doom related,
>is it?
Nor should it be! VR group? alt.cyberspace seems as good a place!
>Bye! :)
>Ian.
I agree with what you say and I think the easy option is taken too often.
I hate seeing intelligent people make the unjustified assumption that crime
is fixed by more police or tougher penalties. If you made drugs legal, crime
would fall through the floor because you would then be faced with a health
problem, which I believe what drugs are. VR should be treated the same way.
Socially and treated with a good dose of information. Wide ranging opinions
and facts wherever available. How can someone tell another person what to do?
Sharing information and experience is a far superior way to get someone to
do what you see as being right. Force is for those whose point is not as
plain as they think. For people who cannot see the other side to the argument
and those people never help anything.
Engine.
Christopher Mountford
>In article <Cut15...@cee.hw.ac.uk> mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
>>People are all to willing to have laws and regs solve problems these days
>>before considering that legitimate users may often be hindered by the attempt
>>the curb the activities of a small minority, besides the simple fact that
>>laws are not preventative, they are an after-the-event measure.
>Who told you laws are not preventative? It's the punishment that is an
>after-the-fact measure... the law is, in fact, preventative. Knowing that
^^^^^^^
>there could be a very negative consequence to committing a crime, prevents
>MANY people from committing those crimes. In fact, it prevents ME from
^^^^
>committing many crimes. If there were no law against it, you can bet I'd
>be robbing banks! I could really use the money! In fact, there are a
>couple of people that I would LOVE to pop off. But I don't, because there
>is a high degree of risk involved, and the consequences if I am caught are
>too severe.
I will not bother here debating 'facts' because I think that's what has
mislead you. I just would like to say that I find what you say very disturbing
because you don't seem to appeal to a critical view of your 'facts'.
All too often are people content to substitute knowledge for thought.
I am not trying to bring you around to my way of thinking. I know that is
impossible. When you have decided so much, no amount of persuasion can change
your view. I'd like to think that argument can change my views as it has in
the past.
>Nevertheless, I do agree that there is such a thing as "too much law". It's
>called "socialism".
You carry with you a baggage of prejudice, and from the etymology of that
word it implies an unreasonable extrapolation beyond what your finite
experience can provide. I believe this is a kind of brainwashing which you
suffer from and it's probably been a result of a lack of information (not
facts) and from misinformation, though probably performed with your tacit
consent.
>>Countries like the UK here like to pass laws on crime, thinking it'll solve
>>the problem. Tougher sentences, more police powers, etc.
>There's nothing wrong with a good stiff sentence as far as I'm concerned.
>For example, if some moron disrespects the life of another human being, and
>murders him, then why the hell should we respect HIS life? The death penalty
>is appropriate. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You quote again, a motto which is at the core of all suffering in the world
today. If you were wrongly found to be guilty of murder, as happens to people,
you would regret those words I am sure. No judicial system is secure. Why is
it ok for you to kill someone else when you say that they are wrong to kill?
Please do not quote some more facts. Justify yourself.
>Although I tend to agree that stiffer sentences might not solve the problem
>entirely, I also think that it couldn't hurt to try it. :)
I disagree again (surprise! we just don't see eye to eye... an understatement)
I think that trying stiffer sentences is just what has gotten the USA into
the big crime problem that it is in now. And there are social and economic
implications. If you think the USA is a healthy nation, you have a lot of
well justified opposition. (By this I don't mean a lynch mob of commies, I
just mean that bald opinion will not tip the scales for you. Judged
independantly of course.)
And sorry to be a serious party pooper but I just don't think it's much to
chuck a smilie about. :|
>>Solving the problems of poor housing, inner city decline, unemployment and
>>so on never seems to occur to them as a better solution.
>No, it has probably occurred to them... for a minute or two. It probably
>just didn't stick long as being very likely. Poor housing, inner city
>decline, unemployment, crime... they're all symptoms of a larger problem.
>Solving the poor housing problem is not going to solve the unemployment
>problem, and stopping crime is not going to prevent inner city decline.
You are probably right that it only occured to them for a minute or two.
Pity these solutions require years to enact. Longer than the average govt
term for sure. No coincidence either. Symptoms of what problem? I say it's
education. Not laws.
>>From what I hear, there is a famous case involving a BBS in the US which is
>>peing prosecuted for breaking the laws of another state, even though the
>>act concerned is obscure in nature. Govts are oh so willing to restrict and
>>control. The Internet is one of the last truely free places there is, but it's
>>getting worse. Bringing in laws on VR would be a disaster, IMHO.
>Hehehe... I agree completely on this point. Ever read the book "1984"?
>>And why are adults _continually_ seen as people who are somehow more likely
>>to be more sensible in their use of technology? That's compete garbage.
>Nope... not garbage... they are.
>>Children don't design nukes, fight wars, murder each other on a regular
>>basis with semi-automatic weapons and generally act like idiots. Adults do.
>Yes they do. Have you ever been around combat arms soldiers? The majority
>of them are between 17 and 20... basically children. Are you aware that
>the average age of murdered men, AND of men who have murdered other men,
>has dropped below 21 yrs old? Do you know how old the average gang member
>in the city is? Younger than 18 yrs old. They are children, and they are
>fighting wars, and murdering each other on a regular basis w/ semi (and
>fully) automatic weapons.
More glorious facts. The problem here is that facts DONT speak for themselves
and since children are doing these things, this tells me that they feel
justified in their actions. If you and I and everybody else do not agree,
then what is the deficiency they have? It is not innate immaturity, I think
it is the benefit of your knowledge, experience and the information you have
about what these actions mean in a wider sense. I say again it's an
educational problem. Or rather an educational solution.
>Still, I stand behind you on your main point. :) Let's not get stupid.
>Don't worry about the people spending all of their time in their "virtual
>worlds"... worry about the people spending all of their time running drugs,
>and running in gangs, and committing crimes that REALLY hurt people.
I agree with that, but my disagreement was that your worrying makes your
capacity to find a real solution dimmed by arbitrary facts that don't make
sense... at least to me. But the topic is people spending time in VR so though
I won't worry too hard about that, I'll worry about the opinions you
exhibited here, common opinions for sure, perhaps mine are not as popular.
> Phil Massimi -----------------------------------------
> aka "Cpt. Mad Mass" --- Sure, it's a small world, ---
> Scout, U.S. Cavalry --- but I'd hate to have to paint it. ---
> 1/33 Armor Battalion -----------------------------------------
> mas...@cis.ohio-state.edu S.Wright
Engine.
azog
>All this fuss about a definition. Perhaps you put too much faith in strict
>definitions. There is popular usage, which no-one can do anything about, and
>there are analytic rational consistent definitions, which are sensible, and
>then there are definitions which are set by some arbitrary power, and these
>really suck.
Ive been following this arguement off and on, and have come to one
conclusion. The person who is insisting on 'VR is this and cyberspace
is that' is just a over-read wannabe.
Definations be as they may, standards also, dont concern me.
When I start to feel as if I am *IN* the game, that satasfies
me.
--
Billy D'Augustine az...@world.std.com
tell me now, where is the end to our strife?
Christopher Mountford
> I feel like you're approaching the whole subject wrong. Look at
>the internet; people could create anthing they want (well, textually),
Why do people here keep thinking that the internet has anything to do with
text? This network is not biased to any popular transfer protocols. There are
many graphics based protocols but as most people know, global
bandwidth is too small to make it popular.
Engine.
philip d massimi
>mas...@cis.ohio-state.edu (philip d massimi) writes:
>>In article <Cut15...@cee.hw.ac.uk> mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
>>>People are all to willing to have laws and regs solve problems these days
[...]
>>>laws are not preventative, they are an after-the-event measure.
>>Who told you laws are not preventative? It's the punishment that is an
>>after-the-fact measure... the law is, in fact, preventative. Knowing that
> ^^^^^^^
>>there could be a very negative consequence to committing a crime, prevents
>>MANY people from committing those crimes. In fact, it prevents ME from
> ^^^^
>>committing many crimes. If there were no law against it, you can bet I'd
>>be robbing banks! I could really use the money! In fact, there are a
>>couple of people that I would LOVE to pop off. But I don't, because there
>>is a high degree of risk involved, and the consequences if I am caught are
>>too severe.
>I will not bother here debating 'facts' because I think that's what has
Hehehe... I'm inclined to believe that you aren't willing to debate the
"facts" because you know I'm right, as much as you hate it. The phrase
that you so nicely underlined above is logical and true, and your follow-
up to it in no way addresses the question at hand... which is whether or
not the existence of laws are preventative.
>mislead you. I just would like to say that I find what you say very disturbing
>because you don't seem to appeal to a critical view of your 'facts'.
>All too often are people content to substitute knowledge for thought.
If you're implying that I am one of these people, you are mistaken. I have
thought about these issues for a GREAT many years, and I have come to my
beliefs through a great deal of logic and debate.
>I am not trying to bring you around to my way of thinking. I know that is
Gee... how noble of you.
>impossible. When you have decided so much, no amount of persuasion can change
>your view. I'd like to think that argument can change my views as it has in
>the past.
Hehehe... so now you're implying that you are rational and reasonable, but
I am stubborn and close-minded, eh? Well, you can afford to be stubborn if
you're right. :) Seriously, as I said, I have not arbitrarily chosen my
stance on these types of issues. In fact, I used to be quite liberal... to
the point where I was pro-choice, and anti-capital-punishment. I used to
be naive as well. It was plenty of arguments (with other liberal people,
some conservative people, and even with myself) which led me down what I
now believe is the more sensible path. But it's not the same, is it,
because I disagree with your ideas. The only way someone is reasonable as
far as you're concerned, is if they hold your beliefs. This is the
impression I get from your post.
>>Nevertheless, I do agree that there is such a thing as "too much law". It's
>>called "socialism".
>You carry with you a baggage of prejudice, and from the etymology of that
>word it implies an unreasonable extrapolation beyond what your finite
>experience can provide.
A lot of big words here... probably used hoping I wouldn't catch the
meaning. Well surprise, surprise! Let's sort this out for the rest of
the readers, shall we? He's saying that I'm just prejudiced twds socialists
and that when I use the word "socialism" the way I did, I am drawing
conclusions which I have no evidence to support... conclusions which I have
not had enough experience to make. So who in your opinion WOULD have
enough experience to draw conclusions like that? You? The media? The
people of the Soviet Union? Do you even KNOW anyone that was born in
Russia? Let me educate you: I speak Russian, and I have more than a dozen
good friends who came to the US from Russia. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM
will tell you that what they had was CRAP compared to what we have. And
these aren't farmer boys either... these are people from St. Petersburg,
Moscow, and Kiev. Most of them have SPECIFICALLY told me (because
I specifically asked, in case I ran into someone like you) that life in
a socialist state is oppressive and frightening. Two of them in fact were
soldiers when the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan. But you probably think
that they're just inexperienced as well, because what they say doesn't
support what you want to believe, right?
>I believe this is a kind of brainwashing which you
>suffer from and it's probably been a result of a lack of information (not
>facts) and from misinformation, though probably performed with your tacit
>consent.
Hehehe... speaking of a lack of information and of misinformation, how many
bleeding heart college profs were involved in brainwashing YOU?
>>>Countries like the UK here like to pass laws on crime, thinking it'll solve
>>>the problem. Tougher sentences, more police powers, etc.
>>There's nothing wrong with a good stiff sentence as far as I'm concerned.
>>For example, if some moron disrespects the life of another human being, and
>>murders him, then why the hell should we respect HIS life? The death penalty
>>is appropriate. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>You quote again, a motto which is at the core of all suffering in the world
Again? That's the first time I used that quote. This "motto", as you put
it, is NOT at the core of all the suffering in the world. What is at the
core of all the suffering in the world is a FAILURE to live up to it. If
people would live by this "motto", we'd be in great shape. I think you're
thinking of the take-off from this "motto"... "Do unto others as they do
unto you." Read them carefully so you can understand the difference,
because the difference is a big one.
>today. If you were wrongly found to be guilty of murder, as happens to people,
>you would regret those words I am sure.
Hehehe... first of all, how many people does this "happen" to? Here's
another "fact" for you: there have been an average 1 out of every 3000
convictions that have been proven to be wrong. Now granted, just because
I can't PROVE that someone's innocent, doesn't mean they aren't. However,
by the same token, just because someone CLAIMS to be innocent, even up to
their dying breath, doesn't mean that they are. So even if there HAVE
been more people than the 1 out of every 3000 that have been innocent,
the percentage is still minute. Which means that almost ALL convicts are
truly guilty of their crimes.
Second of all, you don't know me, so don't tell me what I would regret.
I personally believe that the good of the country is more important than
the good of one person. If I was wrongly found to be guilty of murder,
and 3000 other men were RIGHTLY found to be guilty of murder, and if the
death penalty was in force, although I am not in a hurry to die, I would
at least die with the satisfaction that my sacrifice would mean that
justice would be done in 3000 other cases, that 3000 men who REALLY
deserved to die would reap their rewards, and that the country would
be safer as a result.
Another thing to consider is that by your logic, we shouldn't punish ANYONE,
in ANY WAY, because we might be punishing an innocent person... and God
knows we wouldn't want to do that!
>No judicial system is secure. Why is
>it ok for you to kill someone else when you say that they are wrong to kill?
>Please do not quote some more facts. Justify yourself.
To "kill" someone else, in and of itself, is not wrong. The circumstances
are what make "killing" wrong. For example, if someone broke into my house
and tried to cut my wife's throat with a knife, you can bet your ass I'd
blow his freakin head off! And not only would I not be "wrong" for doing
so... I would actually be "wrong" if I DIDN'T do it! What makes "killing"
wrong is when the victim didn't do anything to deserve to die, when
his death will not save another life, or when his death is not necessary
to ensure the safety of the people.
>>Although I tend to agree that stiffer sentences might not solve the problem
>>entirely, I also think that it couldn't hurt to try it. :)
>I disagree again (surprise! we just don't see eye to eye... an understatement)
>I think that trying stiffer sentences is just what has gotten the USA into
>the big crime problem that it is in now. And there are social and economic
>implications.
First of all, would you care to explain why you think stiffer sentences are
what has gotten us into our "big problem"? Simply saying "I think so" is
not enough. Justify yourself.
Oooohhhh!!! There are social and economic implications everybody! Wow,
that's a deep insight! Would you care to explain that too? What
implications are you referring to, and how do they apply to the issue at
hand (the "big problem")?
If you think the USA is a healthy nation, you have a lot of
>well justified opposition. (By this I don't mean a lynch mob of commies, I
>just mean that bald opinion will not tip the scales for you. Judged
>independantly of course.)
Never said the USA was a healthy nation. It is healthier than most,
but that doesn't mean it's healthy compared to the absolute. Man, you
are one piece of work! It's the Pot calling the Kettle black, ladies and
gentlemen! Bald opinion won't tip the scales for you either, friend.
>And sorry to be a serious party pooper but I just don't think it's much to
>chuck a smilie about. :|
Hahaha... that wasn't a isn't-this-a-pleasant-conversation-we're-having
smile, it was a wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-these-stinking-criminals-were-made-
to-pay-for-their-crimes ironic kind of smile. It was also kind of a I-have-
to-smile-to-pick-the-meat-out-of-my-teeth-and-wipe-the-blood-off-my-lips
smile. And I really don't care WHAT you think warrants a smile... I enjoy
what I do, so I smile while I do it.
>>>Solving the problems of poor housing, inner city decline, unemployment and
>>>so on never seems to occur to them as a better solution.
>>No, it has probably occurred to them... for a minute or two. It probably
>>just didn't stick long as being very likely. Poor housing, inner city
>>decline, unemployment, crime... they're all symptoms of a larger problem.
>>Solving the poor housing problem is not going to solve the unemployment
>>problem, and stopping crime is not going to prevent inner city decline.
>You are probably right that it only occured to them for a minute or two.
>Pity these solutions require years to enact. Longer than the average govt
>term for sure. No coincidence either. Symptoms of what problem? I say it's
>education. Not laws.
They're symptoms of a people that are growing lazier instead of more
industrious, of a people that believe the country OWES them something,
instead of the other way around, of a people that would rather take the
easy way out and give them what they want, rather than face the difficult
position of forcing them to be productive.
>>>Children don't design nukes, fight wars, murder each other on a regular
>>>basis with semi-automatic weapons and generally act like idiots. Adults do.
>>Yes they do. Have you ever been around combat arms soldiers? The majority
>>of them are between 17 and 20... basically children. Are you aware that
>>the average age of murdered men, AND of men who have murdered other men,
>>has dropped below 21 yrs old? Do you know how old the average gang member
>>in the city is? Younger than 18 yrs old. They are children, and they are
>>fighting wars, and murdering each other on a regular basis w/ semi (and
>>fully) automatic weapons.
>More glorious facts. The problem here is that facts DONT speak for themselves
So what? That has nothing to do with anything. These facts are addressing
the incorrect statement that children don't fight wars, murder, etc. These
facts don't HAVE to speak for themselves.
>and since children are doing these things, this tells me that they feel
>justified in their actions.
Hehehe... funny, it tells me that they have learned that they can get
away with doing what they want to do, often without having to accept ANY
responsibility for their actions, and knowing that even if they DO get
caught, they're probably only going to get their hands slapped.
>>Still, I stand behind you on your main point. :) Let's not get stupid.
>>Don't worry about the people spending all of their time in their "virtual
>>worlds"... worry about the people spending all of their time running drugs,
>>and running in gangs, and committing crimes that REALLY hurt people.
>I agree with that, but my disagreement was that your worrying makes your
>capacity to find a real solution dimmed by arbitrary facts that don't make
>sense... at least to me.
Worrying? Not sure what you mean... I'm not really worrying... I'm just
venting. My ability to find a "real" solution (and I question whether or
not "real" only applies to a solution that you approve of) is not dimmed
by arbitrary fact. These "facts" are merely supportive evidence of
my beliefs, and are not arbitrary.
>I'll worry about the opinions you exhibited here, common opinions for sure,
>perhaps mine are not as popular.
Why worry about it? I have a right to believe what I want, as do you. I'm
going to continue trying to influence people, as I expect you will too.
There's no sense worrying about it, because what's going to happen will
happen whether we're involved or not.
>Engine.
Mad Mass
---
Ted Frank
>>>Nevertheless, I do agree that there is such a thing as "too much law". It's
>>>called "socialism".
>
>>You carry with you a baggage of prejudice, and from the etymology of that
>>word it implies an unreasonable extrapolation beyond what your finite
>>experience can provide.
>
>A lot of big words here... probably used hoping I wouldn't catch the
>meaning. Well surprise, surprise! Let's sort this out for the rest of
>the readers, shall we? He's saying that I'm just prejudiced twds socialists
>and that when I use the word "socialism" the way I did, I am drawing
>conclusions which I have no evidence to support... conclusions which I have
>not had enough experience to make. So who in your opinion WOULD have
>enough experience to draw conclusions like that? You? The media? The
>people of the Soviet Union? Do you even KNOW anyone that was born in
>Russia? Let me educate you: I speak Russian, and I have more than a dozen
>good friends who came to the US from Russia.
While I'm no fan of "socialism," equating the concept "socialism" with
"Bolshevik Soviet Union Communism" is the same as equating David Duke
with "Republicanism." Just because Duke calls himself a Republican
doesn't mean he defines the set. Same with the Soviet Union and
socialism.
How did all of this nonsense get into the *.games.* groups?
--
ted frank
Resident of Hyde Park, Chicago, the world's only neighborhood
with an Indian restaurant named "Ragin' Cajun."
rpar...@charlie.usd.edu
of advantages too! To regulate VR would only lead to other things being
sanctioned. I am 14 years old and think that it would be great to be able
to create my own world now and then, besides VR can help to teach. It's not
like VR's sole purpose is to entertain, imagine a method better than tele-
teaching (I'm talking about teaching over the phone and television), a
worldwide classroom that would in my thinking hold a childs attention more
than conventional teaching methods.
It is not true death to die doing something you love.
-Brian Parsons
Rpar...@charlie.usd.edu
Ray Cromwell
Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
|While I'm no fan of "socialism," equating the concept "socialism" with
|"Bolshevik Soviet Union Communism" is the same as equating David Duke
|with "Republicanism." Just because Duke calls himself a Republican
|doesn't mean he defines the set. Same with the Soviet Union and
|socialism.
How about equating socialism with a stagnant economy, misallocated
resources, people with a poor understanding of economics, and
law/economic students at universities with a habit of trolling?
Eric Adair
: I personally believe that the good of the country is more important than
: the good of one person.
While I am a supporter of a well-applied death penalty, this statement
scares the crap out of me. The breadth of tyranny that could be justified
with this very line is staggering. The good of one person is the good of
the country, because that's all the country is. There are no groups.
There is no state. There is only the individual. If in any system, the
good of the individal is considered to be of less importance than that of
the state, then that system has destroyed itself. It is my sincere hope
that you just didn't bother to think about what you were saying before
you typed that line, and that it does not in fact represent your
philosophy, because if it does, you are little better than the socialists
which you profess to despise...
Eric Adair
Jon Yankovich
: jov...@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Yankovich) writes:
WHAT!?!?!
<ahem> "[The Internet] is not baised to any popular transfer protocols."
WRONGO.
What do you call Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol?
It's popular! It's a protocol! And the internet is BUILT around it!
The Internet is also "biased" to "popular transfer protocols" like:
HTTP / HTML
FTP (File Transfer Protocol)
In a couple of years, The Internet will probably integrate more
protocols like VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language) and the like.
And while we're at it, you said:
"Why do people here keep thinking that the internet has anything
to do with text? ... global bandwidth is too small to make [graphics]
popular."
JEEZ!
The Internet is textual because "global bandwidth is too small,
blah blah", like you said. Think about it!
Your post is most likey a thinko,
I hope I've made that violently clear.
-jon
Paul Martz
> Doesn't anyone out there think that VR is very dangerous the youth of the
> future. I mean who would want to live in the real world if you could escape
> and sculpt your own. Not that I am against VR in any way. I just think
> that there should be some sort of control proposed for people who are not
> yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
I think we should get rid of those horrible books, I mean, God forbid
someone working an assembly line all day might be able to escape it by
coming home and reading a science fiction book where he can imagine
himself a great space explorer flying from one alien world to the
next. People might stop going to work altogether, just to stay home
and read books all day. We need to enact laws to protect people from
themselves.
Sound a little extreme? There's really no difference between VR and
books, VR is books for people with lousy imaginations.
--
-paul "Eno is the one, Eno's the one to take
pma...@dsd.es.com One hundred percent for your stomach's sake...
Evans & Sutherland Bubbly bubbly Eno!"
Chris Gray
In article <Cut15...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
> Children don't [...] murder each other on a regular
> basis with semi-automatic weapons and generally act like idiots.
So just who is shooting whom in Auld Reekie these days? Check out the age
profile of the shooter and the shot. If they're all 42-year olds like me
I'll eat my sporran.
(Of course when they're armed you don't call them "children". "Sir", maybe)
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray cg...@btma74.se.bel.alcatel.be Compu$erve: 100065,2102
__________________________________________________________________________
"So how's life?"
"Hm, it's got mushrooms in it".
Chris Gray
In article <336n22...@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu>, mas...@cis.ohio-state.edu (philip d massimi) writes:
> The majority of people that I meet everyday aren't
Watch this guy. He thinks he owns the air we breathe...
Christopher Mountford
>In article <cjmount.777482040@extro> cjm...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Christopher Mountford) writes:
>>mas...@cis.ohio-state.edu (philip d massimi) writes:
>>>In article <Cut15...@cee.hw.ac.uk> mapl...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
>>>>laws are not preventative, they are an after-the-event measure.
>>>Who told you laws are not preventative? It's the punishment that is an
>>>after-the-fact measure... the law is, in fact, preventative. Knowing that
>> ^^^^^^^
>>>there could be a very negative consequence to committing a crime, prevents
>>>MANY people from committing those crimes. In fact, it prevents ME from
>> ^^^^
>>>committing many crimes. If there were no law against it, you can bet I'd
>>>be robbing banks! I could really use the money! In fact, there are a
>>>couple of people that I would LOVE to pop off. But I don't, because there
>>>is a high degree of risk involved, and the consequences if I am caught are
>>>too severe.
>>I will not bother here debating 'facts' because I think that's what has
>Hehehe... I'm inclined to believe that you aren't willing to debate the
>"facts" because you know I'm right, as much as you hate it. The phrase
>that you so nicely underlined above is logical and true, and your follow-
>up to it in no way addresses the question at hand... which is whether or
>not the existence of laws are preventative.
My point here is not about law. It is about being arbitrary.
I don't consider your assertions logically supported despite what you say.
>>because you don't seem to appeal to a critical view of your 'facts'.
>>All too often are people content to substitute knowledge for thought.
>If you're implying that I am one of these people, you are mistaken. I have
>thought about these issues for a GREAT many years, and I have come to my
>beliefs through a great deal of logic and debate.
>>I am not trying to bring you around to my way of thinking. I know that is
>Gee... how noble of you.
Your logic contained assumptions I do not agree with.
>>impossible. When you have decided so much, no amount of persuasion can change
>>your view. I'd like to think that argument can change my views as it has in
>>the past.
>Hehehe... so now you're implying that you are rational and reasonable, but
>I am stubborn and close-minded, eh? Well, you can afford to be stubborn if
>you're right. :) Seriously, as I said, I have not arbitrarily chosen my
^^ you are leaning on this guy hard here
>stance on these types of issues. In fact, I used to be quite liberal... to
>the point where I was pro-choice, and anti-capital-punishment. I used to
>be naive as well. It was plenty of arguments (with other liberal people,
>some conservative people, and even with myself) which led me down what I
>now believe is the more sensible path. But it's not the same, is it,
>because I disagree with your ideas. The only way someone is reasonable as
>far as you're concerned, is if they hold your beliefs. This is the
>impression I get from your post.
This is an impression I contest.
>>>Nevertheless, I do agree that there is such a thing as "too much law". It's
>>>called "socialism".
>>You carry with you a baggage of prejudice, and from the etymology of that
>>word it implies an unreasonable extrapolation beyond what your finite
>>experience can provide.
>A lot of big words here... probably used hoping I wouldn't catch the
>meaning. Well surprise, surprise! Let's sort this out for the rest of
>the readers, shall we? He's saying that I'm just prejudiced twds socialists
You underestimate them.
>and that when I use the word "socialism" the way I did, I am drawing
>conclusions which I have no evidence to support... conclusions which I have
>not had enough experience to make. So who in your opinion WOULD have
>enough experience to draw conclusions like that? You? The media? The
>people of the Soviet Union? Do you even KNOW anyone that was born in
^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is what you call socialism, along with "too much law" then on your
terms I have no disagreement. Russia is irrelevant to my point.
>Russia? Let me educate you: I speak Russian, and I have more than a dozen
>good friends who came to the US from Russia. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM
>will tell you that what they had was CRAP compared to what we have. And
>these aren't farmer boys either... these are people from St. Petersburg,
>Moscow, and Kiev. Most of them have SPECIFICALLY told me (because
>I specifically asked, in case I ran into someone like you) that life in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you seem to think that I am a socialist and I think Russia is a fun
place to live. I am puzzled as to why.
>a socialist state is oppressive and frightening. Two of them in fact were
>soldiers when the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan. But you probably think
>that they're just inexperienced as well, because what they say doesn't
>support what you want to believe, right?
Nope. You don't seem to have much clue about what I think. Leave me to say.
>>I believe this is a kind of brainwashing which you
>>suffer from and it's probably been a result of a lack of information (not
>>facts) and from misinformation, though probably performed with your tacit
>>consent.
>Hehehe... speaking of a lack of information and of misinformation, how many
>bleeding heart college profs were involved in brainwashing YOU?
College Profs? None. (that I am aware of :)
>>>>Countries like the UK here like to pass laws on crime, thinking it'll solve
>>>>the problem. Tougher sentences, more police powers, etc.
>>>There's nothing wrong with a good stiff sentence as far as I'm concerned.
>>>For example, if some moron disrespects the life of another human being, and
>>>murders him, then why the hell should we respect HIS life? The death penalty
>>>is appropriate. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>You quote again, a motto which is at the core of all suffering in the world
>Again? That's the first time I used that quote. This "motto", as you put
Actually I meant that you quote again, this time the quote is ...
Quoting is an appeal to some assertion which is usually outside of the
reasoning of the argument, as in your case. I guess you feel it sums
up your opinion, nothing wrong with that but it doesn't support an
argument.
>it, is NOT at the core of all the suffering in the world. What is at the
>core of all the suffering in the world is a FAILURE to live up to it. If
and that failure is something you can count on . We're HUMAN. We know
that already. You already said you would kill and rob of it were not
for the law. May I assume you don't mind being killed or robbed or is this
*your* human frailty shining through?
>people would live by this "motto", we'd be in great shape. I think you're
>thinking of the take-off from this "motto"... "Do unto others as they do
>unto you." Read them carefully so you can understand the difference,
>because the difference is a big one.
Yes I think I was. Because I assumed that the quote was relevant to the
preceding sentence. I should have checked. I would use that quote to
describe the position on how one should act rather than what is a
justified punishment for people who don't adopt that motto. Presumably
murderers don't.
>>today. If you were wrongly found to be guilty of murder, as happens to people,
>>you would regret those words I am sure.
>Hehehe... first of all, how many people does this "happen" to? Here's
One person would be enough if it were you.
>another "fact" for you: there have been an average 1 out of every 3000
>convictions that have been proven to be wrong. Now granted, just because
>I can't PROVE that someone's innocent, doesn't mean they aren't. However,
>by the same token, just because someone CLAIMS to be innocent, even up to
>their dying breath, doesn't mean that they are. So even if there HAVE
>been more people than the 1 out of every 3000 that have been innocent,
>the percentage is still minute. Which means that almost ALL convicts are
>truly guilty of their crimes.
Then your position is almost justified. Almost.
>Second of all, you don't know me, so don't tell me what I would regret.
>I personally believe that the good of the country is more important than
>the good of one person. If I was wrongly found to be guilty of murder,
>and 3000 other men were RIGHTLY found to be guilty of murder, and if the
>death penalty was in force, although I am not in a hurry to die, I would
>at least die with the satisfaction that my sacrifice would mean that
>justice would be done in 3000 other cases, that 3000 men who REALLY
>deserved to die would reap their rewards, and that the country would
>be safer as a result.
Well some of us have not lived so great a number of years. I would
not think of being wrongly convicted of murder and then murdered
for it would give me *any* satisfaction. I disagree with your point
that the country would be safer. Many people assume that the death
penalty deterrs people. There seems to be no evidence to help support
this claim. Also I think that if you were a killer, you would not
think as you do now. If it is just the law which stops you killing
then I think you need help. I'd hate to see you worked into a state
where you think that the penalty is worth the crime.
>Another thing to consider is that by your logic, we shouldn't punish ANYONE,
>in ANY WAY, because we might be punishing an innocent person... and God
>knows we wouldn't want to do that!
No that's not MY logic. I've got no idea where you got it.
Death is permanent. Jail sentences are possible to compensate to
*some* degree.
>>No judicial system is secure. Why is
>>it ok for you to kill someone else when you say that they are wrong to kill?
>>Please do not quote some more facts. Justify yourself.
>To "kill" someone else, in and of itself, is not wrong. The circumstances
>are what make "killing" wrong. For example, if someone broke into my house
>and tried to cut my wife's throat with a knife, you can bet your ass I'd
>blow his freakin head off! And not only would I not be "wrong" for doing
>so... I would actually be "wrong" if I DIDN'T do it! What makes "killing"
>wrong is when the victim didn't do anything to deserve to die, when
>his death will not save another life, or when his death is not necessary
>to ensure the safety of the people.
I think this is too simplistic. For purposes of law, some balance must be
reached, I agree with that, and the case can be debated, but for purposes
of this debate, right and wrong are not so simple to keep separate. You can
define your own system of ethics but it is opinion.
Can you kill an innocent to save your own life?
>>>Although I tend to agree that stiffer sentences might not solve the problem
>>>entirely, I also think that it couldn't hurt to try it. :)
>>I disagree again (surprise! we just don't see eye to eye... an understatement)
>>I think that trying stiffer sentences is just what has gotten the USA into
>>the big crime problem that it is in now. And there are social and economic
>>implications.
>First of all, would you care to explain why you think stiffer sentences are
>what has gotten us into our "big problem"? Simply saying "I think so" is
^^
>not enough. Justify yourself.
I know you said you would die for your country but don't take it personally.
>Oooohhhh!!! There are social and economic implications everybody! Wow,
>that's a deep insight! Would you care to explain that too? What
>implications are you referring to, and how do they apply to the issue at
>hand (the "big problem")?
Big CRIME problem USA has too much violent crime.
>>Engine.
> Mad Mass
ut of time .. more later
Chris Fodor
> <s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za> wrote:
>>Hi Dere,
>>
>>yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
>>
>be better for society. The current chemical based drugs, are associated with
>alot of crime, since it is illegal [Canada], but I can't forsee any crime
>associated with VR that would result in murder, or robbery. Also the few
Pattern for crime associated with <ITEM>.
1. _Some_ people _abuse_ <ITEM> (immerse themselves to the exclusion of reality)
2. These abusers end up in pathetic, destroyed states.
3. The government outlaws it because we can't let these people hurt themselves.
4. Several people realize they can make a lot of money smuggling <ITEM>
5. These people start shooting each other so they can sell <ITEM> exclusively.
6. <ITEM> is misused and is of poor quality due to criminal distribution.
7. Everyone starts talking about how bad <ITEM> is and how we need to build
more jails and buy more cops. Politicians start talking about the
<ITEM> War, and the War on <ITEM>
Nothing is inherently evil. Men make it so. If we stopped at stage
3, we might end up culling out those inferior specimens of humanity
that lack self-control. Unfortunately, the current system only encourages
an absolutely lawless subclass in which the deadly "Gangsta" survives and
is immortalized.
If people abuse VR and destroy their own lives... fuck 'em, I don't want
them passing on their inferior genes, and there are enough responsible,
intelligent people to take their place. Sure it's sad, but so is a world
full of people who expect the government to take care of them.
Chris
Christopher Mountford
>In article <Custx...@cdf.toronto.edu> a228...@cdf.toronto.edu (Serafin Jeffrey Dale) writes:
>>In article <s9046569.2...@babel.ee.up.ac.za>,
>> <s904...@babel.ee.up.ac.za> wrote:
>>>Hi Dere,
>>>
>>>yet adults. I mean VR could be the drug of the next century.
>>>
>>I think that if VR does become the drug of the next century it will probably
>>be better for society. The current chemical based drugs, are associated with
>>alot of crime, since it is illegal [Canada], but I can't forsee any crime
>>associated with VR that would result in murder, or robbery. Also the few
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Pattern for crime associated with <ITEM>.
>1. _Some_ people _abuse_ <ITEM> (immerse themselves to the exclusion of reality)
>2. These abusers end up in pathetic, destroyed states.
>3. The government outlaws it because we can't let these people hurt themselves.
I don't think this is a preferred option. The original (other) thread on crime
started out of debating this kind of position. Why can't people hurt themselves?
Also why must the government solve the problem of activities deemed to be 'bad'
or 'wrong' by making them illegal. I would prefer a REAL preventative measure,
education. People can hurt themselves and others without weapons or technology
and education can address the problem as a whole.
But of course education is an expensive and large scale solution. Some people
would rather see everything economically rationalized. These people are like
critics. "A critic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing."
- Oscar Wilde. I think this is part of the fuel for a detatched and disenchant-
ed modern industrialised world. Detatched from what? Meaning and value.
>4. Several people realize they can make a lot of money smuggling <ITEM>
>5. These people start shooting each other so they can sell <ITEM> exclusively.
>6. <ITEM> is misused and is of poor quality due to criminal distribution.
>7. Everyone starts talking about how bad <ITEM> is and how we need to build
> more jails and buy more cops. Politicians start talking about the
> <ITEM> War, and the War on <ITEM>
>Nothing is inherently evil. Men make it so. If we stopped at stage
>3, we might end up culling out those inferior specimens of humanity
>that lack self-control. Unfortunately, the current system only encourages
>an absolutely lawless subclass in which the deadly "Gangsta" survives and
>is immortalized.
Again I think this is an unfortunate way of dealing with a problem. People
are not something to be culled. If they have it wrong, SPEND the money on
getting them right. It's society which fucked them up in the first place,
I think the strayed should be everyone's problem. Everyone's burden. I think
we should carry the weak.
>If people abuse VR and destroy their own lives... fuck 'em, I don't want
>them passing on their inferior genes, and there are enough responsible,
>intelligent people to take their place. Sure it's sad, but so is a world
>full of people who expect the government to take care of them.
>Chris
I think this is a terrible view. What genes are inferior and superior are
entirely beyond a human to *prescribe*. Of course we can look to evolution
and say that certain genes were bred out and were inferior, but you cannot
compare any two genetic organisms today. Each organism has survived through
it's ancestry of genes which were sufficient to ensure the continuation
to the present. A human is no more successful at this game then a cold
virus.
As for VR, I don't think the problems will be as simple as you make them
sound. I think few people will be entirely fucked up by VR, many will
just be maladjusted. How should we deal with these problems? Same way
we should deal with the same kinds of problems now. Technology is neutral,
I agree with you on that. We have things which can fuck people up existing
today, we should work on them and then we'll realise how to solve these
things when they get more elaboreate than they already are; Education.
That's my vote. Many would disagree.
Engine.
Christopher Mountford
You underestimate them.
On my terms, I think socialism is widely used to mean something else.
>>And sorry to be a serious party pooper but I just don't think it's much to
>>chuck a smilie about. :|
>Hahaha... that wasn't a isn't-this-a-pleasant-conversation-we're-having
>smile, it was a wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-these-stinking-criminals-were-made-
>to-pay-for-their-crimes ironic kind of smile. It was also kind of a I-have-
>to-smile-to-pick-the-meat-out-of-my-teeth-and-wipe-the-blood-off-my-lips
>smile. And I really don't care WHAT you think warrants a smile... I enjoy
>what I do, so I smile while I do it.
And I find that indicative of your emotional patriotism which strikes me
as kind of blind. You don't really care, that's right. That's it in a
nutchell.
>>>>Solving the problems of poor housing, inner city decline, unemployment and
>>>>so on never seems to occur to them as a better solution.
>>>No, it has probably occurred to them... for a minute or two. It probably
>>>just didn't stick long as being very likely. Poor housing, inner city
>>>decline, unemployment, crime... they're all symptoms of a larger problem.
>>>Solving the poor housing problem is not going to solve the unemployment
>>>problem, and stopping crime is not going to prevent inner city decline.
>>You are probably right that it only occured to them for a minute or two.
>>Pity these solutions require years to enact. Longer than the average govt
>>term for sure. No coincidence either. Symptoms of what problem? I say it's
>>education. Not laws.
>They're symptoms of a people that are growing lazier instead of more
>industrious, of a people that believe the country OWES them something,
>instead of the other way around, of a people that would rather take the
>easy way out and give them what they want, rather than face the difficult
>position of forcing them to be productive.
They are. I agree with you. But what to do? I don't think forcing
someonee is a particularly good way of achieving much except resentment
and oppositon. One would hope there are better ways. I propose better
freer education and training. The country is the people. I think the
govt. is there to redistribute resources so that as few people as possible
get fucked over.
[deletia]
>>More glorious facts. The problem here is that facts DONT speak for themselves
>So what? That has nothing to do with anything. These facts are addressing
>the incorrect statement that children don't fight wars, murder, etc. These
>facts don't HAVE to speak for themselves.
>>and since children are doing these things, this tells me that they feel
>>justified in their actions.
>Hehehe... funny, it tells me that they have learned that they can get
>away with doing what they want to do, often without having to accept ANY
>responsibility for their actions, and knowing that even if they DO get
>caught, they're probably only going to get their hands slapped.
What they don't know is how their lives turn out. Would you like
to have your hand slapped at 14 or whenever and go steadily downhill
from there? Perhaps they do understand their plight, my point is
that the problem must be solved by doing something for the kids. It is
true that society and individuals get the horror of these kids first
hand but I still say that the kids who murder require the most attention,
and this for me does not mean turning them into hardened crims by the
time they are 18 by stepping the hand slapping up to whatever level you
advocate.
>>>Still, I stand behind you on your main point. :) Let's not get stupid.
>>>Don't worry about the people spending all of their time in their "virtual
>>>worlds"... worry about the people spending all of their time running drugs,
>>>and running in gangs, and committing crimes that REALLY hurt people.
>>I agree with that, but my disagreement was that your worrying makes your
>>capacity to find a real solution dimmed by arbitrary facts that don't make
>>sense... at least to me.
>Worrying? Not sure what you mean... I'm not really worrying... I'm just
>venting. My ability to find a "real" solution (and I question whether or
>not "real" only applies to a solution that you approve of) is not dimmed
>by arbitrary fact. These "facts" are merely supportive evidence of
>my beliefs, and are not arbitrary.
They are arbitrary because your beliefs are arbitrary. I would say a
real solution is one which addresses the cause, not the symptoms, as
you have agreed this violence is. *Worry* not so much about imposing
your system of the value of punishment on kids who's sense of guilt
is non-existent once you've finished pounding them. Then you justify
killing them because they've become a monster. But your ideas are
what created that monster.
Engine.
Chris Gray
> If people abuse VR and destroy their own lives... fuck 'em, I don't want
> them passing on their inferior genes [...]
Sorry to introduce a note of non-virtual reality, but if you _did_ want them
to pass on their genes then fucking them would be a good way to promote this...
__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray cg...@btma74.se.bel.alcatel.be Compu$erve: 100065,2102
__________________________________________________________________________
VR is books for people with lousy imaginations. - Paul Martz
Mike Bates
Serafin Jeffrey Dale (a228...@cdf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: I think that if VR does become the drug of the next century it will probably
: be better for society. The current chemical based drugs, are associated with
: alot of crime, since it is illegal [Canada], but I can't forsee any crime
: associated with VR that would result in murder, or robbery. Also the few
: people who have wierd urges will be able to live them out without affecting
: the rest of us.
How about this; play enough realistic video games, and you'll
become desensitized to the violence. In VR, a Virtual Reality, where
people die and no one cares, people will become desensitized very
quicky. Then, when they get mad in RL, they'll hurt eachother.
Another example of VR desensitization: I work for a flight simulator
manufacturer. A co-worker told me that he gave up flying lessons
because of all the time he spent flying simulators. In the sim, he
could take foolish risks because he could walk away from any virtual
"crash". Full-flight simulators (with hydraulic motion bases,
wraparound visual systems, and real aircraft controls and instruments)
are realistic enough to make him worry that his devil-may-care
attitude in the sim would affect his "real-life" flying.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Bates FlightSafety International, Simulation Systems Div.
Principal Engineer 2700 North Hemlock Circle
Computer Systems Group Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012
mi...@ssd.fsi.com 918-251-0500 ext. 581
------------------------------------------------------------------------------