rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (06/05/91)
In a footnote to Genny Engel's reply on "corruptibility", Bob wrote: > [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Is it the technology or the people behind the > technology whose corruptibility is at issue? -- Bob Jacobson] My first reaction to this was that it's just a matter of word use-- what we were addressing was the issue of whether the technology has characteristics which make it amenable to corrupt use. Then I backed away from that (hasty) response, because it occurred to me that we hear all too often "it's a computer error" when we mean "it's a programmer error made manifest by the computer". Given that VR technology is far more powerful and malleable, and far less obvious in its functioning than, say, a credit-card billing program, we might want to be careful about how we attribute (or blame) the "user" vs the hardware/software system vs the programmer/creator for the results of a VR interaction. OK, with that out of the way, what I was fussing about a couple of postings ago was the "amenability of the technology to corrupt use"--the idea that a corrupt programmer is given a very powerful tool for manipulating people. That is, I think there are characteristics of the technology which allow manipulating viewer/users in heretofore-unanticipated ways. I'm concerned (a) whether that's really as powerful as I think it is, and (b) how (or whether) we'll try to guard against abuse. (This all may be heading too far off on a tangent; feel free to tell me to "take it to email".) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Simpler is better.