HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: se_schn@pavo.concordia.ca (SCHNAAR, SHELDON E.)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Bruce Sterling & Cyberhemian Rhapsodies
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:07:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct5.232618.3870@walter.cray.com>, jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes...
> 
>> there is only one cyberspace.  the questions are:
>> 1) can you afford to have your machine on the net?
>> 2) can you afford to not have your machine on the net?
>> 
>> think about it.
> 
>Think about this: Do you see any Compuserve, Genie, or Prodigy subscribers
>posting in this group? There's no more compelling reason keeping them out
>than marketing strategy and bureaucratic government policy.
> 

I beg to differ as a GEnie subscriber I do not apreciate this kind of statement.
You are overgeneratlizing.   You are, however, quite correct, IMO, that it is
naive to believe in a one NETWORK world.  The Internet proves this.  Sure, it 
connects lots of organizations all over the world, but it is not one net, it is
a collection of nets.  I believe that this is the route that will be taken. 
Also, I do NOT believe in the cyberspace, won't happen, no need, no use, to 
expensive for nothing.


Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: hanyeu@amy12.stanford.edu (Han-Yeu Huang)
Subject: Re: seeking cyberspace references
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:37:43 GMT

In article <97836@bu.edu> ankh@bass.bu.edu (Robert Suyemoto) writes:
> An acquaintance of mine is interested in cyberspace.  I really don't
> know much about it, but if anyone knows of some good references on the
> subject, and would mail them to me (ankh@bass.bu.edu), it would be  
greatly
> appreciated.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Rob
> ankh@bass.bu.edu

Can people e-mail me this info too?  I am at hanyeu@leland.stanford.edu!

thanks in advance!
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:44:56 EDT
From: <DRASCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: ACM and Cyberspace

This is one of a series John Barlow is doing on Cyberspace for the ACM.
I think John Barlow is a GOD in this industry.  He is one of the few people
in this industry with the gift of vision and prose.  However, in the beginning
of this series, (ACM Jan. 1992/v. 35/No.1) John states that "...Cyberspace is,
in its present condition, highly American in Culture and Lanaguage."

I agree that American/English is used almost exclusively on the net, but is it
highly American.  I would ask, "what are the signs of an american dominated
cyberspace?  I have read mail from Africa to Antartica.  Other than the
language, isn't this shared space an international zone of creativity?
A whiteboard for mankind?  Or am I going to get flamed for being shortsighted?
I use the word mankind on purpose, becasue I'm not sure what women's role's are
in cyberspace?  Do we interact differently?  Don't we still have the same probl
ems understaning each other in the new world?

If I'm wrong, and Cyberspace is predominately American can it be changed?
Should it be?

Just a thought....  :-)

Send Flames to DRasch@AUVM.American.edu
From: adye@boi.hp.com (Alan Dye)
Subject: PC Week and Cyberspace 
Summary: Pointer to an article by Bill Catchings and Mark Van Name
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:29:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

On page 70 of the October 5 issue of PC Week, there is an interesting
blurb about "Now's the Time to make Rules for Cyberspace."  

Check it out.  If you don't get PC Week, check with your library, or
a colleague at work.

In summary, it basically says that some planning and the right policies
and equipment can save a lot of grief later.  There they go pushing
standards again... :)


--
___________________________________________________________________________
Alan W. Dye   PHONE: (208) 323-6167        adye%hpdmd48.boi@hp.com
                FAX: (208) 323-6344        71053,1301@compuserve.com
    
Software Applications Specialist           "Cleverness is its own reward."
Hewlett Packard Boise Site Operations  
Information Systems Group                  #include <disclaim.h>
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: space2@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tim)
Subject: Re: seeking cyberspace references
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:36:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.073743.7087@leland.Stanford.EDU> hanyeu@amy12.stanford.edu (Han-Yeu Huang) writes:
>In article <97836@bu.edu> ankh@bass.bu.edu (Robert Suyemoto) writes:
>> An acquaintance of mine is interested in cyberspace.  I really don't
>> know much about it, but if anyone knows of some good references on the
>> subject, and would mail them to me (ankh@bass.bu.edu), it would be  
>greatly
>> appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Rob
>> ankh@bass.bu.edu
>
>Can people e-mail me this info too?  I am at hanyeu@leland.stanford.edu!
>
>thanks in advance!

Try ftp to milton.u.washington.edu  in the /pub/VR ? directory there is
alot of papers and info on cyberspace/virtual-worlds/vr stuff.
Also read the news in sci.virtual-worlds for a while and you will learn what
the current discussion topic are in the field.
From: pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Liberating Tech: Cybernomads
Date: 13 Oct 92 07:44:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town

In <Bvv53y.2H2@iat.holonet.net> johnston@orac.holonet.net (Thomas D. Johnston) writes:

>sophisticated electronics.  Unless there is a breakthrough in this field,
>the writer who suggested "jacking in" within five years is bound to be
>disappointed.
>Tom Johnston, MD

Ah. I, however, don't forsee the DNI before about 2030. However, long before
then we'll be able to use immersive VR for computing. Also, Gibson's neon
block paradigm was many problems, most related to the fact that it supposes
a homogenous net, which never will be the case. Distributive computing is
also going to be interesting, particularly in terms of security. I do not
think that your average console cowboy is going to be of the 'Burning Chrome'
model, but rather a context hacker. 

As I see it, we have 3 waves of hackers: The 'hard' hackers, who put together
the computers in the 70's and early 80's (by hacker I mean someone who works
with computing resources on a basic level, and who share a vague anarchic
spirit) and in the 90's we're seeing the VR buffs, or reality hackers, hacking
worlds together. Wave 3 is going to be the context hackers, putting together
the info in such a way as to point out new levels of relationship, putting it
all in context. I know I'm being vague, but I've not got the idea 100% 
developed.

Anyway, I know this is off topic, but hey....

Peter
--
*******************************************************************************
Peter van Heusden              "The extreme always makes an impression"
CS2, UCT, Cape Town, RSA             J.D. - Lethal Attraction 
pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Compuserve
From: [--- ikke! <A6014BB@HASARA11.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 15 Oct 1992 11:56:06 CET
Organization: SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam

In article <ayiNsB2w165w@freeside.com>, merlin@freeside.com (Merlin the Idiot
Magi) says:
>to train ourselves to use our eyes as children anyway.  The worst
>stumbling block is fitting 720,000 (2 grids of 600X600 resolution)
>electrodes into the human brain.  It could be... messy...
 
First of all, why would you connect 2 grids to a brain, doesn't our brain
combine the two images we get visually anyway to a single image? Second,
I think you are missing the point here. We are not talking about our brain
being a stupid monitor which needs a grid to display an image, we are talking
about a neural system that needs electrical pulses to make our brain imagine
or construct a sensation on which we can base, from experience, what the
outside world looks like. To connect to our brain we only have to connect
to those nerves that are relevant, or that we can work with. In theory this
could be only one nerve. With more nerves connected we could even interact
with the image and create our own visual images just by thought. In short,
our brain is too complex, or in fact too simple, to compare to a monitor.
 
Bjorn (bjorn@sara.nl)
 
>merlin@freeside.com (Merlin the Idiot Magi)
>Rivendell BBS -*- Houston, TX -*- +1(713)941-2236
From: kxgst1+@pitt.edu (Kenneth   Gilbert)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Compuserve
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:16:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Someone mentioned connecting to Compuserve through the Internet in a previous
message.  If anyone knows how to do this (I DO have a Compuserve account)
please let me know.  To the best of my knowledge you can only send e-mail to
a Compuserve account (nnnnn,nnnn@compuserve.com) and the receiver actually
has to PAY for it.  I would be very supprised if they let you connect since
they charge different rates depending on the speed of connection.  I suppose
they could just charge the maximum for an Internet connection...

WRT the concept of Cyberspace, aren't we 'in' cyberspace now?  I know my
brain isn't _directly_ hooked up, but in a sense it is connected.  I only
discovered the net _after_ having read all of Wiliam Gibson's novels, and as
I recall I found the parrallels almost too close for comfort.  I think it
will nevertheless be fascinating to see what unfolds over the next 50 years.

Finally, neural implants.  These things are not only possible, they are
being used in specialized applications.  I recall reading an article a few
years ago where scientists were able to connect a video image to the visual
cortex of a blind patient.  This only provided shadow-like images, but I 
can't imagine it will be too long before this is improved markedly.  

Ken Gilbert
From: tarcil@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (here and gone)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Liberating Tech: Cybernomads
Date: 8 Oct 1992 11:35:32 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

In article <1992Oct3.172901.12465@walter.cray.com> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>
>In article <1aii0pINNndi@agate.berkeley.edu>, marc@eris.berkeley.edu (Marc DeGroot) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct1.042137.14053@walter.cray.com> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>> >What I'm curious about is whether anyone would be lining up to volunteer
>> >for the kind of invasive neurosurgery Gibson talks about. We may not be
>> >too far away from the technology for some of that stuff.
>> 
>> Dave Warner, a medical student at Loma Linda University (and a researcher
>> in the neurology department) tells me that electrodes in the brain
>> will have to be read-only.  He says that pumping electricity into the brain
>> causes the expression of oncogenes -- genes that code for cancer.  The
>> electricity changes the shape of a molecule that regulates gene expression
>> and destroys its ability to do its job, thus increasing the risk of
>> cancer.
>
>Fascinating. Have any of these people been talking to the
>60 Hz-EM-fields-cause-leukemia crowd?
>
>Jeff Carroll
>carroll@lemon.cray.com
>"The dice of God are always loaded." - Emerson

A real stupid thought......doesn't the brain work "USING' electricity to "SEND"
and "RECEIVED" commands, and ideas.....

Just a simple electrical thought from me
From: kxgst1+@pitt.edu (Kenneth   Gilbert)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: RE: Compuserve
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:58:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In article <ayiNsB2w165w@freeside.com> merlin@freeside.com (Merlin the Idiot Magi) writes:

>  Oh good, I was waiting for someone to bring it up.  Excluding the 
>medical knowledge, a crude, visual-only, DNI is possible today.  Research 
>into restoring sight has given us the ability to install electrodes into 
>the visual cortex, impress colors there, and give VERY basic images to 
>the person.  This technology could all be worked together to allor 
>someone to `jack in' and have non-visual feeds.  The system would 
>probably use LOTS of little electrodes, and it would require training on 
>the part of the user to get any sense of the visual messages, but we have 
>to train ourselves to use our eyes as children anyway.  The worst 
>stumbling block is fitting 720,000 (2 grids of 600X600 resolution) 
>electrodes into the human brain.  It could be... messy...
>  /// & ///
>merlin@freeside.com (Merlin the Idiot Magi)

Messy, yes, but then the first computers were quite messy with their miles
of wires and rooms full of vacuum tubes, etc.  A chip the size of my thumbnail
can now do more that those first machines!  That was only 50 years ago.
There is no effective limit to the expansion of technology, except perhaps
the inherent dangers the technology may itself create (atomic energy?).
A fellow from IBM who was recently interviewed on television put it this way:
If the automobile industry progressed at the same rate as the computer
industry, we would now have cars that could travel safely at 1000000 miles
per hour, and do that million miles on a gallon of gas!  (Or something to
that effect).

Ken.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: shaun@octel.com (Attacking Deep Structure)
Subject: Re: Compuserve
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:40:48 GMT

In article <7671@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> kxgst1+@pitt.edu (Kenneth   Gilbert) writes:

>Messy, yes, but then the first computers were quite messy with their miles
>of wires and rooms full of vacuum tubes, etc.  A chip the size of my thumbnail
>can now do more that those first machines! 

You can shrink computer tech down unbelievably, yes, but you're stuck with
retrofitting to the human nervous system, which is going to remain the
same size.  Brains tend to be good distributed processors, so you've still 
got a wide-area interface problem.

>industry, we would now have cars that could travel safely at 1000000 miles
>per hour, and do that million miles on a gallon of gas!  (Or something to
>that effect).

If human evolution had advanced as fast as computers, we probably wouldn't
need neural interfaces to computers!  

Urk.  

-- 
shaun@octel.com  ||  LOTFB: Lying On The Floor Bleeding
             
(I didn't write the above.  I left my terminal unattended, and the janitor 
sat on it.)   
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden)
Subject: Re: Bruce Sterling & Cyberhemian Rhapsodies
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:45:46 GMT

In <Bvv5FL.A5A@rice.edu> ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner) writes:

>In article <7OCT199212074174@pavo.concordia.ca> se_schn@pavo.concordia.ca (SCHNAAR, SHELDON E.) writes:
>>
>>I beg to differ as a GEnie subscriber I do not apreciate this kind of statement.
>>You are overgeneratlizing.   You are, however, quite correct, IMO, that it is
>>naive to believe in a one NETWORK world.  The Internet proves this.  Sure, it 
>>connects lots of organizations all over the world, but it is not one net, it is
>>a collection of nets.  I believe that this is the route that will be taken. 
>>Also, I do NOT believe in the cyberspace, won't happen, no need, no use, to 
>>expensive for nothing.

Please explain? No need? What do you mean, no need? It is needed, as shown by
its use. You're in Cyberspace right now. A better paradigm is definetely
needed, though, and it will probably be graphical, if it goes the way of
desktop computing (I believe it will). Global connectivity is very neccesary,
and a Net full of resources is great, as I've found, working from 0 resource
RSA.

>>
>>


>I think the issue is this.  Can a transfer protocal between Internet, Compuserve, etc.
>be created?  If so, could I access Compuserve from Interner (for example.)  Assume
>for the sake of argument I have accounts or access to both systems.

>If this can be done, will it be done?  If yes, then arn't we back to the
>single net hypothesis (I started in the first place.)

Depends of cost. If not, will CompuServe dissapear, if we can make some better
net available? Methinks, yes, eventually. Remember, the consumers are always
about 10 years behind the visionaries.

>I'm not saying everything is integrated yet (though the phone lines are. You
>can use whatever long-distance server you want but the calls still reace the
>same nodes (i.e. phone numbers.))

>What I am saying is it can happen. I might go so far as to say it will happen.

True.

>ratner

But it won't be homogenous, in terms of speed. The prototocols will be the 
same/similar, but that's all that will be. I believe it will look a bit like
the Internet now is: A lot of dissimilar things connected by a similar
protocol.

Peter

--
*******************************************************************************
Peter van Heusden              "The extreme always makes an impression"
CS2, UCT, Cape Town, RSA             J.D. - Lethal Attraction 
pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za              
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: shaun@octel.com (Attacking Deep Structure)
Subject: Sketch please? 
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:36:41 GMT

In article <ayiNsB2w165w@freeside.com> merlin@freeside.com (Merlin the Idiot Magi) writes:
>  Oh good, I was waiting for someone to bring it up.  Excluding the 
>medical knowledge, a crude, visual-only, DNI is possible today.  Research 
>into restoring sight has given us the ability to install electrodes into 
>the visual cortex, impress colors there, and give VERY basic images to 
>the person.  

Er, I'm sketching pretty hard on this.  I saw a similar experiment on PBS
a few years ago, but the subject, a man who had been blind from birth, 
had had the splice done onto his optic nerve, not into his brain.  The
scientists were able to feed an indistinct image of a black rectange on
a white background into the nerve, and the guy described it more or less
correctly.  The limits I remember were:

1. The capability was only for B & W images  (just the rods or just the
   cones, whichever are contrast instead of color)

2. The splice would have permanently destroyed the use of his eyes, had
   he been able to use them to start with

3. The guy wasn't sure he liked being able to "see."




>to train ourselves to use our eyes as children anyway.  The worst 
>stumbling block is fitting 720,000 (2 grids of 600X600 resolution) 
>electrodes into the human brain.  It could be... messy...

Or impossible.  Remember, they eye transmits images "in parallel" -- all
at once -- to the brain via the optic nerve, not rasterwise like a CRT.
Nor are the receptors on the back of the eye lined up in neat rows on
a flat grid.  Everyone's eyes are slightly different shapes, so 720,000
little neural links to 720,000 * (n neurons per pixel) in the brain would 
be horribly complicated mathematically and extremely invasive surgically.
(Assuming, of course, that the functions of the brain can be mapped down
to the neural level and don't vary much from person to person.  Ho ho ho.)
If you want to take this approach, it would probably be easier to just to
stick in a new artificial brain.

Not quite as outlandish (but still almost unimaginable) would be an optic
nerve switcher, which could take either input from the optic nerve or an
external source and fee that right to the brain for processing.  The box
would be able to perform all the functions of a normal video switcher, like
keying (superimposing signals,) fading back and forth, shrinking, rotating,
picture in picture, etc.  Of course, units that can do this require about
a walk-in closetfull of equipment at the moment, but miniturization marches
on.  Also, if you don't mind wires in your veins, you could have the jack 
anywhere.  Maybe your belly button, since it's sort of set up for it.  :) 

-- 
shaun@octel.com  ||  LOTFB: Lying On The Floor Bleeding
             
(I didn't write the above.  I left my terminal unattended, and the janitor 
sat on it.)
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Bruce Sterling & Cyberhemian Rhapsodies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:03:47 PDT
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner) writes:

> I think the issue is this.  Can a transfer protocal between Internet, Compuse
> be created?  If so, could I access Compuserve from Interner (for example.)  A
> for the sake of argument I have accounts or access to both systems.
> 
> If this can be done, will it be done?  If yes, then arn't we back to the
> single net hypothesis (I started in the first place.)
> 
> I'm not saying everything is integrated yet (though the phone lines are. You
> can use whatever long-distance server you want but the calls still reace the
> same nodes (i.e. phone numbers.))
> 
> What I am saying is it can happen. I might go so far as to say it will happen
> 
> ratner

        It exists, it happens, it already is.  You just have to be
cybersmart enough to use it, there are a few gifted cowboys out here
that have already crossed those bridges, and are expanding to
others.

If you can imagine it, it can happen,
hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
From: adye@boi.hp.com (Alan Dye)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: ACM and Cyberspace
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:14:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


Hi,

In the October 1992 issue of "Communications of the ACM" there is an
article on page 27 "Will Japan Jack In?" by John Barlow that is pretty
interesting.  If you don't belong to the Association for Computing Machinery"
and don't get the ACM Journal, check with your University Library.

Some interesting comments on Cyberspace, Internet, history, direction, 
commercialization, etc...  The author has an email account as well, so you
can email him and discuss your ideas on the article.  

For those who don't know Barlow, he is the co-founder of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation with Mitch Kapor (of lotus fame...)

Alan

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Alan W. Dye   PHONE: (208) 323-6167        adye%hpdmd48.boi@hp.com
                FAX: (208) 323-6344        71053,1301@compuserve.com
    
Software Applications Specialist           "Cleverness is its own reward."
Hewlett Packard Boise Site Operations  
Information Systems Group                  #include <disclaim.h>
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: johnston@orac.holonet.net (Thomas D. Johnston)
Subject: Re: Liberating Tech: Cybernomads
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:43:07 GMT

>A real stupid thought......doesn't the brain work "USING' electricity to "SEND"
>and "RECEIVED" commands, and ideas.....

>Just a simple electrical thought from me

As the first rule of medicine and physiology clearly states, it's never as
simple as we want it to be...yes, the brain "uses electricity" but on a
millivolt and picoamp basis.  Putting electrodes into the brain has been
compared with studying a computer with lightning bolts.  Cell level
recording with microscopic electrodes requires mechanical isolation of the
system-it would not tolerate movement; recordings of large groups of cells
(up to and including EEG) are so far only useful for discerning fairly
gross abnormalities (.i.e. is the patient having a seizure).  The most
successful man-machine interface of this kind, the "House" cochlear
prosthesis (ear) allows only very limited hearing despite very
sophisticated electronics.  Unless there is a breakthrough in this field,
the writer who suggested "jacking in" within five years is bound to be
disappointed.
Tom Johnston, MD