kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/17/89)
> Initial directions for this newsgroup have been suggested by > various participants in the alt.cyberpunk newsgroup and its > derivative newsgroups. However, to ensure the highest level of > discussion regarding virtual worlds, we believe that this subject > should be elevated to the level of a sci. newsgroup, with the > formal endorsement of the Usenet community. Uh-oh... This may seem old-fashioned, but why not start a mailing-list and see if the interest is really there. If the mailing list becomes large and unwieldy, then it would be reasonable to talk about a newsgroup. The name sci.virtual-worlds is pretty gruesome. comp.interfaces seems more accurate. Discussion of virtual world interfaces could occur in a subgroup of comp.interfaces if traffic warranted a subgroup. In the meantime, comp.interfaces could handle virtual worlds as well as the more prosaic discussions about mice, trak balls, joysticks, touch-screens, voice actuated systems, and other computer interfaces.
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (11/20/89)
In article <1989Nov16.161429.12549@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uu.net writes: } } > Initial directions for this newsgroup have been suggested by } > various participants in the alt.cyberpunk newsgroup and its } > derivative newsgroups. However, to ensure the highest level of } > discussion regarding virtual worlds, we believe that this subject } > should be elevated to the level of a sci. newsgroup, with the } > formal endorsement of the Usenet community. } }Uh-oh... } }This may seem old-fashioned, but why not start a mailing-list and see if }the interest is really there. } }If the mailing list becomes large and unwieldy, then it would be }reasonable to talk about a newsgroup. The alt.cyberpunk.* groups ALREADY have a fairly havey load that would overwhelm most of the mailing lists I am aware of. }The name sci.virtual-worlds is pretty gruesome. comp.interfaces seems }more accurate. Discussion of virtual world interfaces could occur in a }subgroup of comp.interfaces if traffic warranted a subgroup. In the }meantime, comp.interfaces could handle virtual worlds as well as the }more prosaic discussions about mice, trak balls, joysticks, }touch-screens, voice actuated systems, and other computer interfaces. Is this a suggestion, or just some talk? Remember to include much of the material already in comp.graphics... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin ............................................................................ UUCP:jwm@aplvax.uucp BITNET:meritt%aplvm.BITNET INTERNET:jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) (11/20/89)
In their call for discussion, Rheingold and Jacobson seem to suggest that the content of the group would be more than just that of a comp.interfaces offshoot. In fact, IMHO what they are suggesting transcends even the bounds of a sci newsgroup. My opinion then would be to model the group after the discussions which occur around philosophy and make the group talk.cyberspace. This would keep the group from becoming too specialized (ie turning into another alt.cyberpunk.tech) and would also make it very accessible (ie almost all sites recieve a talk group while some do not subscribe to comp, or sci, or alt) By keeping the cyberspace moniker in the title, the group can thus be saved from turning into s discussion of MFLOPS and MIPS and can be allowed to focus on the what-if's rather than the when's. This is not to say that the group should focus on complete intanbgibles, but simply that it should not be restricted to any technology - either comp or sci. =erik ============================================================================= erik josowitz | University of Texas SOA | erik@vitruvius.ar.utexas.edu.UUCP ============================================================================= "run into the bedroom, in the suitcase on the bed you'll find my favorite axe" ---Pink Floyd =============================================================================
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (11/20/89)
In article <21166@ut-emx.UUCP> ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) writes: >In their call for discussion, Rheingold and Jacobson seem to suggest >that the content of the group would be more than just that of a >comp.interfaces offshoot. In fact, IMHO what they are suggesting >transcends even the bounds of a sci newsgroup. My opinion then >would be to model the group after the discussions which occur around >philosophy and make the group talk.cyberspace. talk.* groups tend to be high volume flamefests (politics, philosophy, abortion, origins, etc.) which many sites refuse to carry. I don't see any reason why a discussion of cyberspace / virtual reality would fall into this category, so instead, I would suggest one of the following: comp.cyberspace soc.cyberspace comp.society.cyberspace I also don't see any need for a moderator -- I think it would be best to have an *unmoderated* group with a faster response time. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (11/20/89)
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes: >The name sci.virtual-worlds is pretty gruesome. comp.interfaces seems ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Both the name and the charter for the group are much to *awesome* to carry on a meaningfully focused discussion. Perhaps the charter could be split into two smaller groups (say on simulation and ergonomics). >more accurate. Discussion of virtual world interfaces could occur in a >subgroup of comp.interfaces if traffic warranted a subgroup. In the >meantime, comp.interfaces could handle virtual worlds as well as the >more prosaic discussions about mice, trak balls, joysticks, ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >touch-screens, voice actuated systems, and other computer interfaces. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ All of these definitely come under the heading of "computer ergonomics" and might be placed in a special newsgroup like: comp.periphs.ergonomics which is an extremely important topic in today's high-tech world where we are trying to improve the interface between man and machine. I vote YES for this newsgroup. =============== Unfortunately, the virtual-world charter is so wide (to include non-computer issues as well) that final names may look something like: sci.ergonomics.computer sci.ergonomics.general The "general" group could address the placement of levers and buttons on a control panel, which is non-computer; whereas, a pilot's interface to his computer-controlled systems would be appropriate in the s.e.computer group. How many people really want the charter to include NONcomputer-oriented user interfaces (ergonomics)? Would simply have the comp.periphs.ergonomics newsgroup be enough? =============== The charter also includes discussions on simulation, which, by itself, isn't an ergonomic issue at all. Of course, ergonomics can best be studied by working models and simulation, but the "pure" simulations issues should stay in the comp.simulation newsgroup. Of course, if the emphasis of the virtual-worlds group will be on computer-simulated virtual worlds, then a name like: comp.simulation.apps.ergonomics (apps = applications) comp.simulation.app-spec.ergonomics (app-spec = application-specific) would be most appropriate. I guess the bottom line is, "Where does the Usenet community want to go with this virtual-worlds group? Will there be a *main* emphasis or is this some awesome group to discussion all topics from placement of controls to special-purpose simulation languages?" I guess I still feel the charter is too broad for a focused discussion. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/20/89)
Perhaps it is parochial of us, but we in the virtual-worlds business like to call it what it is, and it is not simply more of the same interface development. Nor is it limited to activities of computer jocks: many of the people working in this field are out of the medical, architectural, acoustic, psychology, and education disciplines. Whether or not the newsgroup is formed -- and I certainly hope it is -- the term "virtual worlds" is how our colleagues and we at the HIT Lab continue to refer to our research interest. I appreciate the recommendation regarding creation of a mailing list, but mailing lists are notoriously under-representative of the Usenet members who are interested in a topic (since many never come to know of the mailing list). Also, mailing lists allow a very constricted discourse. We have not pursued this course of action and hope we do not have to. Thank you, Kyle, for your thoughtful remarks. I, for one, will not ignore them as we continue this discussion on whether a sci.virtual- worlds newsgroup is a good idea. If you know of others who might wish to participate in this discussion, please let them know of its existence. Because the Call for Discussion was ONLY posted to news.announce.newgroups, there is only limited awareness of it. We'll try to rectify that situation. Thanks. -- Bob Jacobson
johnsonr@boulder.Colorado.EDU (JOHNSON RICHARD J) (11/20/89)
In article <1988@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> Mark M Mehl (mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu) writes: ) Perhaps the charter could be split into two smaller groups (say on ) simulation and ergonomics). Forget the ergonomics. Let's talk virtual worlds. To me that means serious scientific discussion about data representation, communications bandwidth, cognitive psychology, social effects of "jacking in", and the like. Such a topic is interdisciplinary (a catch-phrase meaning no universities yet offer focused degrees in the field). Having a single group for the discussion is necessary for cross-fertilization between the estabilished disciplines. (IMO, cross-posting between groups already present doesn't create an adequate focus.) ) Unfortunately, the virtual-world charter is so wide (to include ) non-computer issues as well) Of course it includes non-computer issues (like sociology, psychology, etc.). That's why sci. is a better tag than comp. Even real life includes non-computer issues (I think 8-). | Richard Johnson johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu | | CSC doesn't necessarily share my opinions, but is welcome to. | | Power Tower...Dual Keel...Phase One...Allison/bertha/Colleen...?... | | Space Station Freedom is Dead. Long Live Space Station Freedom! |
ml@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Michael Lewis) (11/21/89)
The discussion on Rheingold & Jacobson's proposal to create sci.virtual-worlds
seems to center on five issues:
1) Is there enough interest to justify a newsgroup rather than a mailing
list (Kyle Jones)
I suggest that this depends on a vote not individual opinion
2) sci.virtual-worlds is unnecessary because the interests it represents
are already adequately covered in groups discussing interfaces
(Kyle Jones & Mark Mehl)
I disagree strongly. A separate group is needed because widgits aren't
worlds. I view the virtual-worlds approach as a fundamental shift away
from the dualist information processing paradigm that has dominated
cognitive psychology (science?) for the past 30 years. The motivation isn't
a desire for novelty but rather the bankruptcy of this approach in providing
even the vaguest guidance for building systems that people can use.
Even the centerpiece of this view, the LTM/STM (renamed working memory)
distinction, has crumbled in the past decade, leaving us with detailed
empirical data on memory for words in lists, and reaction times to names
of birds. I can't use this "theory" to design interfaces & designing
by hacking is just as silly as designing bridges by welding I-beams.
3) sci.virtual-worlds should be a "comp" group not a "sci" group.
(Peter da Silva & Brian Yamauchi)
This argument seems to mirror the acm siggraph zeitgeist (see '87 special
issue on visualization of Computer Graphics) that if enough gigabits are
funneled through a screen meaning will miraculously emerge. If "comp"
types are relying on miracles it seems to me that a "sci" group
is needed to provide them.
4) sci.virtual-worlds should be a "cyber" extension newsgroup.
(Brian Yamauchi & Peter da Silva)
Other than having a conditioned aversion (by NOS) to the word Cyber, I believe
this is really an argument about the character of the proposed group rather
than its name. We already have a proliferation of Wm Gibson fan clubs on
the net. This is not an objection to punk, cyber or otherwise, but a desire
to characterize the proposed newsgroup as "sci" rather than "alt". Decks
& trodes make fine reading but a glance at the p300 literature shows which
parts of Gibson's romance are fantasy and which parts are locked in your
workstation, as it sits, waiting to be released. My notion (which I believe
is shared by Rheingold, Jacobson, & Johnson) is a legit sci newsgroup
focusing on ecological research in HCI in which JJ Gibson gets more airtime
then Wm.
5) sci.virtual-worlds is too broad and will lead to meandering unfocused
discussions (Mark Mehl & Erik Josowitz)
This is exactly my point in arguing against "cyber" extensions and for
"sci" rather than "comp" or "talk" designation. A diversity of disciplines
interested in a common problem does not imply a lack of focus. We are
talking about the intersection not the union of these fields.
In short: I think that a sci.virtual-world news group is needed and
appropriate as proposed without modification.
-Mike Lewisyamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (11/21/89)
In article <20757@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ml@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Michael Lewis) writes: > >2) sci.virtual-worlds is unnecessary because the interests it represents > are already adequately covered in groups discussing interfaces > (Kyle Jones & Mark Mehl) > >I disagree strongly. A separate group is needed because widgits aren't >worlds. I view the virtual-worlds approach as a fundamental shift away >from the dualist information processing paradigm that has dominated >cognitive psychology (science?) for the past 30 years. I also disagree strongly with #2, but for different reasons. To say that virtual reality is nothing but interfaces + simulation is analogous to saying that architecture is nothing but engineering + materials science. Certainly these fields are relevant and necessary enabling technologies, but the field itself lies at the interface of technology, art, and entertainment, and it makes sense to create a separate group to discuss both potential applications and social implications _as_well_as_ implementation strategies and scientific / engineering research in this area. >3) sci.virtual-worlds should be a "comp" group not a "sci" group. > (Peter da Silva & Brian Yamauchi) > >This argument seems to mirror the acm siggraph zeitgeist (see '87 special >issue on visualization of Computer Graphics) that if enough gigabits are >funneled through a screen meaning will miraculously emerge. If "comp" >types are relying on miracles it seems to me that a "sci" group >is needed to provide them. I don't think anyone needs or expects miracles -- NASA Ames, VPL, and Autodesk are building *real* systems *today*. I also think that you are in the minority in wanting "meaning to miraculously emerge". It seems to me that most people are interested in using virtual reality as a tool for interactive art, computer-aided design, real-time communication, scientific visualization, and/or recreational fantasies. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) (11/21/89)
My opinion(s) on this proposed group: A good 'high-concept' group, for which I have grave doubts that there will be sufficient 'signal' to make it worthwhile putting up with the 'noise'. I believe that the original posting implied that the group would be moderated, though it didn't come out and explictly state it. Moderation would certainly reduce the 'noise' level, presuming a conscientious moderator, but would not necessarily produce enough 'signal' to be worth while. "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ..!uunet!netxcom!ewiles (I'm certain!) | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 OR ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM (I think!) | Vienna, VA 22182
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/21/89)
Several Usenet members, while endorsing the sci.virtual-worlds newsgroup proposal in concept, wonder why we do not make this a comp. newsgroup. Our reply is based on our perception that virtual-worlds research and development spans more fields than conventional computer science (although computers are essential to the construction of a virtual world): psychology, medicine, education, construction/architecture, complex industrial system engineering, manufacturing engineering, and art/entertainment are but a few of the areas where serious work can (and is!) taking place on virtual-worlds science. So, we decided to cast our net broadly, rather than possibly exclude others who might have a professional or personal interest in virtual-worlds. The replies so far have come from both computer technologists and non-technologists; all have been thought-provoking and serious. This is the model we would hope to keep for the future, if and when sci.virtual-worlds is approved. (By the way, in my current projects at UW, I'm working with designers of heavy transportation vehicles, radiologists, two architects, and a major rock group. My boss is out touring with aerospace firms and people who make diving equipment. And we are planning a convocation of philosophers of science and humanists, late next year, to reflect on the upsides and down- sides of virtual-world production. It IS an eclectic field!) Bob Jacobson HIT Lab Univ. of Wash. for himself and for Howard Rheingold, Author
ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) (11/21/89)
In article <20757@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ml@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Michael Lewis) writes: > >The discussion on Rheingold & Jacobson's proposal to create sci.virtual-worlds >seems to center on five issues: > >5) sci.virtual-worlds is too broad and will lead to meandering unfocused > discussions (Mark Mehl & Erik Josowitz) > >This is exactly my point in arguing against "cyber" extensions and for >"sci" rather than "comp" or "talk" designation. A diversity of disciplines >interested in a common problem does not imply a lack of focus. We are >talking about the intersection not the union of these fields. > >In short: I think that a sci.virtual-world news group is needed and >appropriate as proposed without modification. > > -Mike Lewis I think my argument may have been misunderstood (maybe not the first time). My contention is that there are two flaws in the sci.virtual-worlds proposal. 1: a sci group is limiting now I don't know what the solution is. Someone suggested soc rather than sci but that doesnt work either. What we may be witnessing here is a prime example of the fact that the net was created originally for tech folks and all of the major categories reflect that. I strongly agree with the need for a forum for focused discussion on all aspects of VR/AR or Cyberspace research and thought. I would contend that the cyberspace moniker includes the virtual-worlds ideas, while the opposite might not be true. Furthermore, with the coming conference in May (some horn tooting perhaps) using the Cyberspace label, why not use it for the group as well. The amount of interest which we have recieved in support of the conference suggests that the Cyberspace label is inclusive of all fields and that there is very little fear on the part of researchers to associate themselves with that word. 2: discussions should be meandering I believe that discussions in the group should be meandering! I believe that the number of fiel;ds whose research points towards VR/AR/Cspace would almost require that discussions wander between many fields and topics. In my first posting, I was trying to present the fact that cyberspace should not be limited to any field, as the suggestions for comp.interfaces would have it do. I would also argue (as above) that the sci label might do the same. THE GROUP NEEDS TO BE CREATED, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A NAME THAT WILL BE MOST INVITING TO ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INKLING THAT WHAT THEY DO MIGHT RELATE. ONLY IN THIS MANNER WILL DISCUSSIONS BE AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE. ONLY BY ENCOURAGING BROAD-BASED DISCUSSION WILL THE GROUP BE AS PRODUCTIVE AS POSSIBLE. =erik josowitz university of texas school of architecture First Conference on Cyberspace May 4-5, 1990 Austin, TX ============================================================================= erik josowitz | University of Texas SOA | erik@vitruvius.ar.utexas.edu.UUCP ============================================================================= "run into the bedroom, in the suitcase on the bed you'll find my favorite axe" ---Pink Floyd =============================================================================
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/21/89)
Erik suggests we make this a talk. group. Do people take talk. groups
seriously (i.e., would they post to a talk group notices of papers
prepared, suggest alternative research techniques, compare results,
etc.)? Not being familiar with talk. groups -- our system does not
emphasize their availability -- I'm skeptical.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/21/89)
Brian Yamauchi suggests making this a comp.cyberspace, soc.cyberspace, or
similar conference, without a moderator.
We (Rheingold and I) see virtual worlds as including phenomenal constructions
that may include cyberspaces, but may also include other types of visual,
aural, and tactile stimuli alone or in combination. These may or may not
approach the idealization of the cyberspace, as most people conceive of that
term's meaning -- an all-encompassing environmental simulation. Some virtual
worlds may be much more limited in their scope and more dependent on certain
types of psychophysiological illusions than computers put on overdrive.
I'm drawn to the idea of soc.cyberspace (actually, soc.virtual-worlds), but
most of the research being done currently is not social in nature but techno-
logical, psychological, and physiological. For now, it is a science;
hopefully,it can someday accommodate cultural critics and philosophers in
greater
numbers.
As for a moderator, anyone who has observed alt.cyberpunk, the precursor
of this proposed newsgroup, in action knows why a moderator is a good idea.
No amount of speed in turnover is worth the savaging of thought that can
occur in a non-moderated newsgroup, IMHO.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/21/89)
Mark Mehl suggests that the original charter of the proposed newsgroup
is too broad ("awesome" is the way he put it, with asterisks!). He
suggests splitting the newsgroup into two groups, simulation and
ergonomics, with additional subcategories for each.
These are important issues and Mark is correct in noting that Usenet
currently does not (at least to his and my knowing) host such newsgroups.
He and others who share his enthusiasm for these topics should start
a discussion on these newsgroups.
Our "awesome" charter is nothing more or less than what is currently
taking place in at least five laboratories across the nation. We are
not studying simulations per se, nor are we studying ergonomics per se.
We do not feel that we are awesome; neither are our ideas particularly
immense. We are studying virtual worlds, their creation, and their
effects. As Bugs Bunny said, "Th-th-that's All, Folks!" Believe me:
we wouldn't undertake anything we couldn't finish.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/21/89)
In article <14070@boulder.Colorado.EDU> johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu (Richard Johnson) writes: >Forget the ergonomics. Let's talk virtual worlds. To me that means >serious scientific discussion about data representation, communications >bandwidth, cognitive psychology, social effects of "jacking in", and >the like. Such a topic is interdisciplinary (a catch-phrase meaning >no universities yet offer focused degrees in the field). Having a >single group for the discussion is necessary for cross-fertilization >between the estabilished disciplines. (IMO, cross-posting between groups >already present doesn't create an adequate focus.) > >Of course it includes non-computer issues (like sociology, psychology, >etc.). That's why sci. is a better tag than comp. >| Richard Johnson johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu | I agree that there will be a great need to pull together the results of research and develpoment in many areas of computers to effectively establish a cyberspace. Maybe there should be a new TOP-LEVEL!! Something like vr.* or cyber.* Only kidding, folks!! ;^) On a serious note, I would like to see at least two groups. One for the technical discussions about communications, interfaces, computing resources, etc. The other group could concentrate on the psychological and moral aspects of a virtual reality. So, I suggest comp.cyberspace (a good catch-all term) for the first group. I have no preference about where the second group should end up. Comp.cyberspace.effects? /craig Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/22/89)
In <14666@well.UUCP> bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes:
Bob> Do people take talk. groups seriously (i.e., would they post to a
Bob> talk group notices of papers prepared, suggest alternative
Bob> research techniques, compare results, etc.)? Not being familiar
Bob> with talk. groups -- our system does not emphasize their
Bob> availability -- I'm skeptical.
Do people take them seriously? Sure. Do other people consider them
the bowels of USENET? Sure. Perhaps what talk.* needs is image
enhancement. A lot of times when someone wants a group and talk is
suggested as the hierarchy they are put off by being relegated to the
hothead zone. (Should it have been named yell.*?)
I personally don't believe this is correct. As with any other
hierarchy on USENET, and in the altnet, the content of any given group
is not determined by the hierarchy. It is the people who use the
group that make it what it is.
Something to be wary of, though, is that since many sites _do_ look
down on talk.*, many of them don't get any of the groups. This whole
"distribution of hierarchies" is such a muddled issue. It is very
important to some people to be able to garner ten more readers in one
hierarchy than they might have found in another.
If you end up deciding that "talk.virtual-worlds" is the right place
for your group, I would say to put it there. From what I've read so
far though, it just doesn't seem to fit in with the general nature of
talk.*, independent of whether people think positively or negatively
about the hierarchy as a whole.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/23/89)
Would the misc. be a good place for this? It certainly does contain a lot of science, but there seems to be a lot of "non-quantifyable" art aspect to, involving what does and doesn't create a convincing effect. As a talking point: misc.cyberspace - general discussions misc.cyberspace.visual misc.cyberspace.audio A few other thoughts, I like cyberspace better than virtual-worlds because it sounds more like science and less like fantasy (wizards and warriors) to me. That doesn't mean I oppose the original name, just giving some input. I also think that this might be a good place to try a self administrating group, assuming that other agree that a heirarchy is or might be needed. If one person were appointed to determine the need for new namespace within misc.cyberspace we could get some experience with the practice. Perhaps that person could send mail to Greg when a group was desired, just to be sure the actual doing was properly handled. This seems like a nice non-controversial group to peacefully explore the possibilities of distributed management. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/23/89)
Michael Lewis writes: > The discussion on Rheingold & Jacobson's proposal to create > sci.virtual-worlds seems to center on five issues: > > 1) Is there enough interest to justify a newsgroup rather than a mailing > list (Kyle Jones) > I suggest that this depends on a vote not individual opinion ? I didn't say that it was my opinion that there's insufficient interest for a newsgroup. I pointed out that such interest has not been convincingly shown. I don't think the discussion in alt.cyber* would be appropraite for a newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. > 5) sci.virtual-worlds is too broad and will lead to meandering unfocused > discussions (Mark Mehl & Erik Josowitz) > > This is exactly my point in arguing against "cyber" extensions and for > "sci" rather than "comp" or "talk" designation. A diversity of disciplines > interested in a common problem does not imply a lack of focus. We are > talking about the intersection not the union of these fields. *Show* us that the discussion will go the way you say it will. Start a mailing list, if there isn't one already.
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/23/89)
Michael Lewis enumerates the point made against the creation of sci.virtual worlds: > 2) sci.virtual-worlds is unnecessary because the interests it represents > are already adequately covered in groups discussing interfaces > (Kyle Jones & Mark Mehl) I didn't say this. I don't know of a group that's discussion computer interfaces. There are occasional discussion of the pors and cons of mice vs. trak balls, vs. foot pedals in comp.editors, but this is hardly an in-depth exploration. What I said was that a general purpose group called comp.interfaces would be better than sci.virtual-worlds becuase it would provide a forum for the discussion of virtual world interface to computers, electronic communications, and data, as well for for the more prosaic interfaces, e.g. touch screens. As for the person who mentioned comp.periphs, human input devices don't strike me as being peripherals. > I disagree strongly. A separate group is needed because widgits aren't > worlds. I view the virtual-worlds approach as a fundamental shift away > from the dualist information processing paradigm that has dominated > cognitive psychology (science?) for the past 30 years. Brian Yamauchi writes: > I also disagree strongly with #2, but for different reasons. To say > that virtual reality is nothing but interfaces + simulation is > analogous to saying that architecture is nothing but engineering + > materials science. Certainly these fields are relevant and necessary > enabling technologies, but the field itself lies at the interface of > technology, art, and entertainment, and it makes sense to create a > separate group to discuss both potential applications and social > implications _as_well_as_ implementation strategies and scientific / > engineering research in this area. While such speculation and discussion may be entertaining, I think it would be presumptuous to put these discussions in the sci hierarchy this early in the game. There are still substantially hurdles to be overcome on the basic human interface/hardware side of things.
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov22.163405.28428@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uu.net writes: }Michael Lewis writes: } > The discussion on Rheingold & Jacobson's proposal to create } > sci.virtual-worlds seems to center on five issues: } > } > 1) Is there enough interest to justify a newsgroup rather than a mailing } > list (Kyle Jones) } > I suggest that this depends on a vote not individual opinion } } ? } }I didn't say that it was my opinion that there's insufficient interest }for a newsgroup. I pointed out that such interest has not been }convincingly shown. I don't think the discussion in alt.cyber* would be }appropraite for a newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. Sort of like alt.fusion and sci.physics.fusion? I do not believe that this reasoning necessarily follows. "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin ............................................................................ UUCP:jwm@aplvax.uucp BITNET:meritt%aplvm.BITNET INTERNET:jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
brucec@demiurge.WV.TEK.COM (Bruce Cohen;685-2439;61-028) (11/23/89)
I think that erik josowit, zuniversity of texas school of architecture captured my own opinion best: >> THE GROUP NEEDS TO BE CREATED, >> WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A NAME THAT WILL BE MOST INVITING >> TO ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INKLING THAT >> WHAT THEY DO MIGHT RELATE. I build user interfaces for a living, most of them graphical and window-based. so I read comp.graphics and most of the other groups mentioned in this discussion. So far, I haven't seen any evidence in those newsgroups of the the kinds of discussion the proposers of sci.virtual-worlds want. The proposed newsgroup would be interesting and useful to me under any name, so I can't get very excited about what to call it. I'd like to point out in defense of making it a "sci" newsgroup (aside from the fact that we won't have to go through the proposal/discussion/vote cycle again, so the newsgriup can start that much sooner), that sci.nanotech has attempted to attain a similar (perhaps a little narrower) scope, and, at least from my perspective, succeeded nicely. The same example speaks well for moderating the newsgroup: JoSH has done a good job of balancing freedom of expression versus keeping the newsgroup clear of contentious political and religious argumentation. So I would vote for the proposal as it stands. If the consensus is that the name is wrong, then let's agree on another one, but let's not kill off the idea of the group because we can't decide on a name. "Small men in padded bras don't look the same falling from high places." - R.A. MacAvoy, "The Third Eagle" Bruce Cohen brucec@orca.wv.tek.com Interactive Technologies Division, Tektronix, Inc. M/S 61-028, P.O. Box 1000, Wilsonville, OR 97070
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov22.163405.28428@talos.uucp> kjones@talos.uu.net writes: > I pointed out that such interest has not been > convincingly shown. I don't think the discussion in alt.cyber* would be > appropraite for a newsgroup in the sci hierarchy. That's why I created alt.cyberpunk.tech first. There are just too many Neuromantics around to keep people on track. In fact I think that this group has been more technical than alt.cyberspace. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/25/89)
It is appropriate for non-participants in virtual-worlds research
-- and that is a term of art that is now generally used by
scientists in this area, as opposed to cyberspace, which is not
-- to be skeptical about interest in this area. However, in the
next two weeks, both SCIENCE and DISCOVER magazines will be run-
ning articles on virtual-worlds research. (The SCIENCE article
is a short one noticing the existence of our laboratory; it will
be followed up by a longer one in early 1990.) There is similar
interest among the societies: virtual-worlds research will figure
large at the April 1990 SIGCHI conference. (Our lab has been made
a site on the tour of Seattle activities to be shown to attendees.)
My private mail now holds about a dozen pro votes sent to me,
unsolicited, by Usenet users. The reasons for these votes vary,
but each vote comes with a strong endorsement for the concept and
the title of the proposed newsgroup.
I suggest that the vote on this newsgroup will demonstrate that
there is a sizable interest in virtual-worlds research, and that
it is appropriate to locate this newsgroup in sci., where it can
be both eclectic and scientific. But your comments -- all of them
-- are well-taken and you have our thanks for a most interesting
discussion about how Usenet accommodates an emerging field.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<hlr@well.UUCP (Howard Rheingold) (11/25/89)
In article <3057@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >On a serious note, I would like to see at least two groups. One for >the technical discussions about communications, interfaces, computing >resources, etc. >The other group could concentrate on the psychological and moral >aspects of a virtual reality. > One of the ideas that motivated us to call for the creation of this forum is that technical discussions and psychological and moral aspects of the technology should be brought together, not separated. Here is an unprecedented opportunity to perform some technology forecasting while the technology is still developing, rather than after the fact. The cross-disciplinary nature of this field, and the potential for poltical conflict, is evident in the problem of finding a name. I'd like to see a place where the graphics wizards nd the hardware folks and the issues-oriented people can mix it up, rather than retreating into their specialties. Something new is aorning here, and I think it will take many of us, looking from different perspectives, to discern its shape. -- Howard Rheingold hlr@well.sf.ca.us >>what it is is up to us<<
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/27/89)
In response to Edwin Wiles, the sci.v-w newsgroups would be moderated
by Howard Rheingold. Rheingold currently publishes the newsletter,
BRAINSTORMS, and is the author of TOOLS FOR THOUGHT among other cutting
edge science books. He is also the host on The WELL (Whole Earth
'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA) of the "Mind" and "Information"
conferences.
Rheingold is researching material for his forthcoming book with Simon
& Schuster, to examine the nature of virtual worlds research both as
a scientific pursuit and a cultural phenomenon. Howard has been acting
as a go-between among the various virtual-worlds research facilities
for several months now; we thought he would be an ideal moderator for
the proposed newsgroup. Please feel free to ask him questions regarding
his interests and moderating skills.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (11/27/89)
Sure except name it talk.virtual-worlds. It isn't science.
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Support the Free Software Foundation (FSF)ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) (11/29/89)
In article <14666@well.UUCP> bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes: > >Erik suggests we make this a talk. group. Do people take talk. groups (etc...) >-- >BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory > University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA > (206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp > >> "We can do virtually anything." << Bob, you are really beginning to worry me. If you had read what I said, you would realize that I am not calling specifically for a talk.* group. I am calling for a re-evaluation of your decision to put the group in sci.* I feel that for the group to reach as many people as possible, it must be in an accessible newsgroup which does not imply (via its hierarchical header) that anyone would be excluded from the discussion. You respond by claiming that many people do not take talk.* seriously. Well, in the same vein, many of us do not read sci.* groups because the implication is that they will be limited to discussions of a techinical nature. Next, why are you and Howard so damn afraid of the 'cyberspace' label? Your signature states that you are the associate director of some laboratory whose title seems to suggest research in the area of computer/human relations. If this is the case then you must realize that people are afraid over being over-technologicized (sorry bout that word, it just came out that way). The problem with calling the group sci.virtual-worlds is that philosophers, architects, perception and cognitive psych's and half the other people you seem to want to attract to your group will have no idea what the fuck a virtual-world group residing under the sci.* hierarchy will have to do with their field. The initial call for discussion seemed to indicate that you wanted to include these people specifically. What gives? The cyberspace moniker, on the other hand, resides in that fuzzy area where those who don't know that they will be interested might be lured in by the name. The bottom line is DON'T MAKE THE NAME TOO PRETENTIOUS! The above is the reasoning that was used in calling the May 1990 Conference the 'First Conference on Cyberspace'. If you read the Call for Abstracts (which we sent to you personally, Bob) you would see the same attempt to make the conference available to anyone with even the slightest inkling of an idea that might relate. I only hope that your conference (I think you mentioned it) will have the same inclusive spirit and will not exclude people for lack of credentials. It might be noted that the pioneer fiction writer in this field, Gibson, knows little about computers and would probably never think to read a group called sci.virtual-worlds (a guess on my part, I have not had opportunity to ask him). It might also be mentioned that the person who has done much of the most recent and best recieved work in the field, Jaron Lanier, also has nothing in the way of professional credentials. If a group or a conference excludes people from the outset, chances are that it will become nothing more than a field (or an interest group) masturbating itself for a few days (or longer) until the members feel all warm and happy inside. I, for one, would like to see the group being proposed here become a REAL forum for REAL discourse. I do not feel that that can be accomplished by being exclusionary from the outset. {whoops, do I see your finger reaching for the 'f' (for flame) key, Bob?} =erik ============================================================================= erik josowitz | University of Texas SOA | erik@vitruvius.ar.utexas.edu.UUCP ============================================================================= "Is it live, or is it Memorex?" - television commercial "The simulation is never that which conceals the truth - it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true." -----from _SIMULATIONS_, Jean Baudrillard =============================================================================
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/29/89)
The comments by Eugene are obviously in jest...right, Eugene? Eugene? >Name it talk. virtual-worlds. It isn't science. NASA Ames, from where Eugene writes, is home to Mike McGreevy, Scott Fisher, and other significant virtual-worlds researchers. Eugene obviously envies their budget. ;-} -- BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA (206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp >> "We can do virtually anything." <<
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (11/30/89)
news.groups's own ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) said:
-
- I am calling for a re-evaluation of your decision
-to put the group in sci.* I feel that for the group to reach as
-many people as possible, it must be in an accessible newsgroup [...]
-[M]any of us do not read sci.* groups because the implication is
-that they will be limited to discussions of a techinical nature.
This is a valid argument. From the initial call for discussion, I didn't
detect much of an emphasis in the "How to build an artificial environment"
part of a virtual world; that's what the sci implies.
-Next, why are you and Howard so damn afraid of the 'cyberspace' label?
I don't like the "cyberspace" label because of what it implies. And that's
science fiction with little to no basis in reality. Cyberspace is
so intertwined with Gibson and Gibson-esqe writing that it implies something
incompletely different from what the virtual worlds group would be about.
I like misc.virtual-worlds. And if "virtual world" isn't a curious enough
concept for you, then you've been arguing aquariums/aquaria too long.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
He IS President Bongo.craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/01/89)
In article <470@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >I don't like the "cyberspace" label because of what it implies. And that's >science fiction with little to no basis in reality. Are you stating that science fiction has no basis in reality? Or just science fiction that fits the "cyberpunk" label? Without discussing >Cyberspace is >so intertwined with Gibson and Gibson-esqe writing that it implies something >incompletely different from what the virtual worlds group would be about. > Gibson popularized the name, but that doesn't stop someone else from changing the definition of the name. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. I think the confusion between "cyberspace" and "cyberpunk" is a problem. But cyberspace, to me, is a more encompassing name for the technology and applications to be discussed in this group. "Virtual worlds" seems to limit the topics to applications of the technology. Also, virtual-worlds has as much a science fiction sound as cyberspace. /craig
hlr@well.UUCP (Howard Rheingold) (12/02/89)
In article <21499@ut-emx.UUCP> ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen) writes: >Next, why are you and Howard so damn afraid of the 'cyberspace' label? I can't speak for Bob, but I'm not "afraid" of the cyberspace label. The seed of this iea came when I was watching a group of bright grad students at UNC all involved in virtual worlds research, reading news. I asked them if they were following the cyberspace discussions then going on in altyberpunk. They didn't know about the newsgroup. They did readsome sci and comp newsgroups, though. While I have no wish to exclude anybody who has anything reasonable to say, the thought occurred to me that such a newsgroup ought to be set up in such a way that it doesn't exclude people such as those I met at UNC.The research community needs a medium for informal ongoing discussion, and a sci newsgroup seemed like the way to go about it. Of course, on the net, it is highly improbable that anybody is going to come up with a solution that suits everybody. I guess that's why there is a mechanism for voting. In any case, I certainly don't want t turn this discussion into anything acrimonious. One of the reasons for proposing a moderated newsgroup is to filter some of the flaming that seems to break out from time to time just about anywhere. This newsgroup does not have to be solemn and serious to the point of stuffiness, but I don't think it will serve its purpose to degenerate into flamefests. -- Howard Rheingold hlr@well.sf.ca.us >>what it is is up to us<<
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (12/04/89)
In article <14070@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, johnsonr@boulder (JOHNSON RICHARD J) writes: >Of course it includes non-computer issues (like sociology, psychology, >etc.). That's why sci. is a better tag than comp. Even real life >includes non-computer issues (I think 8-). Does it include fish? If it doesn't, it's not science, so forget it. Come to think of it, forget it anyway. Is it time yet for sci.stupid? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "A good punch in the nose IS often effective communication"-- Ken Arndt
mbutts@mentor.com (Mike Butts) (12/06/89)
I support the creation of sci.virtual-worlds. It is apparent to me that
'virtual reality' display technology (combining video goggles, fast 3D graphics
engine, user head position feedback, binaural sound, voice recognition, and
data gloves or the like) is likely to become the next major human/computer
interface technology, superceding windows, mouse and keyboard, especially in
fields such as computer-aided design. It will also probably be the gateway
into new communications media, such as personal conferencing and virtual-world
television. (These are my personal opinions; please note corporate disclaimer
below ;-)
Sci.virtual-worlds would be the medium for technical discussion of these
subjects as they develop. Alt.cyberspace would remain the forum for
speculation on social effects, science-fiction cyberpunk flaming, etc.
--
Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302
Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005
!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM
Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp.craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/08/89)
In article <1989Dec5.173743.651@mentor.com> mbutts@mentor.com (Mike Butts) writes: >I support the creation of sci.virtual-worlds. >Sci.virtual-worlds would be the medium for technical discussion of these >subjects as they develop. Alt.cyberspace would remain the forum for >speculation on social effects, science-fiction cyberpunk flaming, etc. >-- >Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Just to correct a possible misconception, alt.cyberspace was created to discuss the technical aspects of cyberspace and virtual realities without lifestyle overtones. Alt.cyberpunk exists to discuss more fictional (predominately Gibsonian) aspects of these subjects. I see these groups continuing after the creation of an "official" newsgroup for cyberspace and VR technologies. /craig
maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (12/09/89)
In article <3186@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >Just to correct a possible misconception, alt.cyberspace was created >to discuss the technical aspects of cyberspace and virtual realities >without lifestyle overtones. Alt.cyberpunk exists to discuss more >fictional (predominately Gibsonian) aspects of these subjects. >I see these groups continuing after the creation of an "official" >newsgroup for cyberspace and VR technologies. I think this is an instance of revisionist net.history. Alt.cyberpunk, alt.cyberspace, alt.cyberpunk.tech, and whatever other alt.cyber* groups that might spring up in the next few minutes are the products of someone's ability to issue the command creating an alt group, not of some supposed consensus about the nature of the group; there was and is little in the way of consensus concerning what belongs where or what postings are appropriate to what groups. Sci.virtual-worlds would probably have the effect of siphoning off the various technical (or pseudo-technical) discussions about implmentation of cyberspace from the alt groups; alt.cyberpunk might or might not survive. Or to put it another way, think of the formation and prosperity or adversity of newsgroups as the net's evolutionary history--i.e., the whole thing's part intention, part accident, and a hell of a lot of rough justice, *particularly* in the alt.world.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/09/89)
In article <4828@blake.acs.washington.edu> maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) writes: > In article <3186@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: > >Just to correct a possible misconception, alt.cyberspace was created > >to discuss the technical aspects of cyberspace and virtual realities > >without lifestyle overtones. Alt.cyberpunk exists to discuss more > >fictional (predominately Gibsonian) aspects of these subjects. > I think this is an instance of revisionist net.history. I don't think so. That's almost exactly what I had in mind when I created alt.cyberpunk.tech and later on alt.cyberspace. Since I created them, don't you think I'd know *why* I created them? Alt isn't usenet. It doesn't depend on consensus. > Sci.virtual-worlds would probably have the effect of siphoning > off the various technical (or pseudo-technical) discussions about > implmentation of cyberspace from the alt groups; alt.cyberpunk might > or might not survive. I doubt it. There's not likely to be much interest in techy, literary, or other dissection of William Gibson in sci.virtual-worlds. I suspect that the traffic in alt.cyberspace would drop and it might be removed, but alt.cyberpunk and alt.cyberpunk.tech will remain, if only as a place to direct cyberpunk wannabes to when they show up in sci.virtual-worlds. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "If you want PL/I, you know where to find it." -- Dennis
mannion@well.UUCP (John Mannion) (12/10/89)
I'm excited about the proposed newsgroup. I hope it won't be so "scientific" or rigorous that speculative disussions will be discouraged.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (12/10/89)
In article <14878@well.UUCP>, mannion@well (John Mannion) writes: >I'm excited about the proposed newsgroup. I hope it won't >be so "scientific" or rigorous that speculative disussions >will be discouraged. Then why call it a science group? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "All metaphors are capable of misinterpretation". 'The Satanic Verses'
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/10/89)
I had written: >>Just to correct a possible misconception, alt.cyberspace was created >>to discuss the technical aspects of cyberspace and virtual realities >>without lifestyle overtones. Alt.cyberpunk exists to discuss more >>fictional (predominately Gibsonian) aspects of these subjects. > to which Mr. Maddox responded: > I think this is an instance of revisionist net.history. >Alt.cyberpunk, alt.cyberspace, alt.cyberpunk.tech, and whatever other >alt.cyber* groups that might spring up in the next few minutes are the >products of someone's ability to issue the command creating an alt group, >not of some supposed consensus about the nature of the group; there was >and is little in the way of consensus concerning what belongs where or what >postings are appropriate to what groups. > I was the one who issued the command creating alt.cyberspace after some discussion in alt.cyberpunk. Alt.cyberspace was created for the reason stated above. Alt.cyberpunk, since the last flamewar died down (you remember that one don't you, Tom? Or didn't you survive?) has been dealing with issues such as direct neural upload/download and performance art involving computers, among other things. I would call the direct neural hookup, "more fictional", at this juncture of the time/space continuum. But that doesn't mean that the discussions are not interesting or appropriate. Since three of the groups contain "cyberpunk" within their name, they should be used for issues concerning cyberpunks. The definition of which is left as an excercise for the reader. Again, the a.cyberspace group was explicitly created to discuss technical issues and avoid lifestyle permutations. This way we do not need an "alt.frustrated-author.virtual-reality" etc. newsgroup. Although, Tom, you may be waiting for the creation of it. > Sci.virtual-worlds would probably have the effect of siphoning >off the various technical (or pseudo-technical) discussions about >implmentation of cyberspace from the alt groups; alt.cyberpunk might >or might not survive. > Alt.cyberpunk will not only survive the creation of the new group, but will probably flourish due to increased visibility. Alt.cyberspace may not benefit to the same degree, but will still exist. We will just have to wait and see how the moderation of the new group works out. > Or to put it another way, think of the formation and >prosperity or adversity of newsgroups as the net's evolutionary >history--i.e., the whole thing's part intention, part accident, and a >hell of a lot of rough justice, *particularly* in the alt.world. Sounds like life all over. /craig "Real .sig writers do it in one line."
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/10/89)
In article <7248@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <4828@blake.acs.washington.edu> maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) writes: >> I think this is an instance of revisionist net.history. >I don't think so. That's almost exactly what I had in mind when I created >alt.cyberpunk.tech and later on alt.cyberspace. Since I created them, don't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now THIS could be a case of revisionist net.history. Or it could be a lack of coordination. For the moment, I am ruling out complete memory loss and hallucinations on my part. Anyway, I also had issued a newgroup command for alt.cyberspace after soliciting opinions and comment in alt.cyberpunk. /craig
maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (12/11/89)
In article <3203@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: >>>Just to correct a possible misconception, alt.cyberspace was created >>>to discuss the technical aspects of cyberspace and virtual realities >>>without lifestyle overtones. Alt.cyberpunk exists to discuss more >>>fictional (predominately Gibsonian) aspects of these subjects. >> >to which Mr. Maddox responded: >> I think this is an instance of revisionist net.history. >>Alt.cyberpunk, alt.cyberspace, alt.cyberpunk.tech, and whatever other >>alt.cyber* groups that might spring up in the next few minutes are the >>products of someone's ability to issue the command creating an alt group, >>not of some supposed consensus about the nature of the group; there was >>and is little in the way of consensus concerning what belongs where or what >>postings are appropriate to what groups. >> > >I was the one who issued the command creating alt.cyberspace after >some discussion in alt.cyberpunk. Alt.cyberspace was created for the >reason stated above. Right. And Peter da Silva "created" the other groups for *his* reasons (see his posting, if you wish, on this matter), and people who have actually posted to the groups and cross-posted among them have done so for their reasons. I have noticed before this tendency of people who issued the message creating groups to think that somehow (a) others know precisely why they did so, (b) the actual practice in the group will somehow conform to what the message creator had in mind. >Alt.cyberpunk, since the last flamewar died down (you remember that >one don't you, Tom? Or didn't you survive?) has been dealing with >issues such as direct neural upload/download and performance art >involving computers, among other things. I would call the direct >neural hookup, "more fictional", at this juncture of the time/space >continuum. But that doesn't mean that the discussions are not interesting >or appropriate. No one said they weren't. And such discussions will doubtless continue so long people find them interesting. However, I think you'll find that many of these discussions will take place on sci.vw, should it come about--if I'm wrong, that's fine by me. > This way we do not need an >"alt.frustrated-author.virtual-reality" etc. newsgroup. Although, Tom, >you may be waiting for the creation of it. The only frustrations I have with the net have nothing to do with being a writer--with one exception, which is the lamentable tendency of a few pinheads to take shots at me *because* I'm a writer. Are you doing just that? If not, you might explain why I would be waiting for the creation of such a group. If you think I'm frustrated as a writer, I'd also be interested to hear why. >> Sci.virtual-worlds would probably have the effect of siphoning >>off the various technical (or pseudo-technical) discussions about >>implmentation of cyberspace from the alt groups; alt.cyberpunk might >>or might not survive. Your crystal ball seems to be working much better than mine. I'll admit I'm just guessing.
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (12/11/89)
In article <4859@blake.acs.washington.edu> maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) writes: > Right. And Peter da Silva "created" the other groups for >*his* reasons (see his posting, if you wish, on this matter), >and people who have actually posted to the groups and cross-posted >among them have done so for their reasons. I have noticed before this >tendency of people who issued the message creating groups to think >that somehow (a) others know precisely why they did so, Again, there was discussion prior to the creation of the alt.cyberspace group which indicated what it was intended to be about. >(b) the actual >practice in the group will somehow conform to what the message creator >had in mind. Not at all. This is why I described alt.cyberpunk in terms of the most recent postings with some references to prior events. Alt.cyberspace will also be defined by the people who post there. The same does not hold for moderated groups, however. In these groups, there is another force at work. /craig
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/11/89)
In article <3204@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson) writes: > In article <7248@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I don't think so. That's almost exactly what I had in mind when I created > >alt.cyberpunk.tech and later on alt.cyberspace. Since I created them, don't > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Now THIS could be a case of revisionist net.history. No, just great minds thinking alike. After some flames about the name in alt.config and alt.cyberpunk, I went ahead and did the newgroup. Apparently within a day or so of yours, one way or the other. It's steam engines when it's steam engine time. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "So. The primary purpose of the comma operator is to force a sequence point where the butter-fingered acronyms have dropped one." -- Blair P. Houghton
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/12/89)
> Right. And Peter da Silva "created" the other groups for > *his* reasons Seeing as they're the same reasons, by and large, what's your point? > The only frustrations I have with the net have nothing to do > with being a writer--with one exception, which is the lamentable > tendency of a few pinheads to take shots at me *because* I'm a writer. It couldn't be related your lamentable tendency to take shots at folks because they're *not*, of course. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com