home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Toolkit for DOOM
/
DOOMTOOL.ISO
/
news
/
1400
/
1440
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-08-09
|
5KB
|
111 lines
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.doom,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc,alt.cyberspace
Path: cdrom.com!barrnet.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!dgbt!clark.dgim.doc.ca!news
From: cbarton@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Casey Barton)
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the meaning of Doom
Message-ID: <cbarton.165.2E47E177@clark.dgim.doc.ca>
Lines: 96
Sender: news@clark.dgim.doc.ca (#Usenet News)
Organization: None
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]
References: <CtpJxp.GGx@dcs.gla.ac.uk> <CtvI7q.9DD@cee.hw.ac.uk> <31tkju$nni@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <Cu8qEH.ME6@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 20:05:14 GMT
Lines: 97
Xref: cdrom.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:23154 alt.games.doom:26207 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc:10378 alt.cyberspace:1784
mapleson@cee.hw.ac.uk (Ian CR Mapleson) writes:
>ddj@zardoz.elbows.org (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>> 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.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Casey Barton (a guy) cbarton@clark.dgim.doc.ca |
| http://pctcp132.dgcp.doc.ca/personal/index.html |