From: caleb%cbmtoruucp@uunet.UU.NET (Caleb J. Howard)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: TECH/PHIL: World Descriptions
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:54:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul26.074359.8606
Organization: Commodore Business Machines (CANADA)
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu



>...However, I can also see people wanting to
>model (say) a living cell with different subsystems; th is requires a
>very different scale.  Others may want to teach an astronomy course by
>taking the class on a virtual tour of the solar system; again, a
>different scale.

Right you are.  I guess I was thinking of a standard for general interaction.
Very much like walking down the street and bumping into someone.  Obviously
specialized interaction (such as you describe) reqiures different conventions
of scale.  Today, we use film and Planetariums and microscopes.  All this 
equipment for transcending scale should be available in VR.  (The equipment
would be virtual).  I just thing that in the interests of mass psychology,
the initial implementation of the general interface should accomodate human
experience as well as possible.

>I don't think this is true.  If we do it right, the machines and
>networks you would need for real-time interaction are already out
>there.

Well, I don't know about you, but my machine...  Well, my machine COULD do it,
but my girlfriend's computer doesn't have the processing power to render any
scene of complexity in real time.  I suspect that a lot of people still have
8 bit systems that would balk at the tasks we are describing.  

I agree that the low end of the market is advancing rapidly, but if the imp-
lementation accomodated non-realtime interaction as well as realtime inter-
action, everybody would be able to get in on it, and no-one would really lose
by it.  We'll still need the email-type interaction, anyway.  Just like we need
voice-mail and answering machines now - to handel communication when both
parties aren't available.

>>With the differences in human schedules worldwide, most communication is
>>done offline anyway.
>
>Yes, but we could agree to meet at any time we like; if we want to
>have a virtual tennis match (with observers) at noon your time and
>midnight my time, why not?

No reason at all.  I think that realtime interaction is the main joy of
the proposed medium.  If it were to be agreeable for all involved to
"jack in" at an agreed upon time, it should certainly be possible.  Not,
I feel to the exclusion of the possibility of having a chess game off-
line, wherein I could review the moves of the game with a virtual opponant
moving the pieces in your stead.  I don't think we are disagreeing here at
all.  I think we are just emphasizing different aspects of the communication.

My main thought through all of this is to accomodate the greatest number of
people possible through a general protocol.  People with really slow
processors, or communications links should have a place on the proposed net.
Just like I can callup my local node on UseNet using 300 BAUD, and still
enjoy the benefits offerred by such a connection.

-caleb

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key to surviving as an egoless entity within the computer industry is to 
                                 be insidious.