HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 05:13:43 GMT
Organization: The Armory

>All of this implies a "dangerous" social situation:  people will only
>desire a "perfect" partner, which they can create/modify in virtual reality,
>and ignore less perfect "real" people.
>
----
>
>People see these images and characters, and then look at real people around
>them and say "I don't want this, I want the perfection that I see on
>television."  As a result, they do not interact with the real people in
>their lives, and are reluctant to form real commitments and relationships.
>
>- Michael Chmilar.  Virtual reality is a hoax.
>

The perfect partner has artificial intelligence at least equal to
mine. When such is available, so also will perfect beings which are
artificial but alive come to be. I shall take one as my mate. I shall
have my body and brain reconstructed to match their perfection and
upon transfering my awareness to that body I will look back at this
old heap and I will simply remember to turn off the power and close
the door for good. That's assuming of course that the new body will
have enhanced sexual capability! Mr. Chlimar, life, is a hoax. The
very computer you are using right now is destined to supercede the
spontaneously arising human body which rots in three score and ten.
The so called natural way to become conscious through evolution is
just the random kick start on what will be ever afterward a controlled
and ever more elegantly perfected process of machine evolution through
direct control by the beings it affects. Until then, no relationship
with a machine will live up to the real thing. There was a hew and cry
that computers would make us all a bunch of video screen nerds as
children. We are not. We are better for it as well. - Steve Walz
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
From: ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner)
Subject: Re: Copy right of photos (was something about VR ethics)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:17:04 GMT

In article <16514@plains.NoDak.edu> tismith@plains.NoDak.edu (Timothy Smith) writes:
>
>     I read an interesting story once that was about the copy righting
>of a person's photo.  It seemed that a certain local sheriff looked 
>alot like some movie star.  When he went for re-election, his photo was
>put on the posters, but few people could tell the difference between 
>he and the movie star, so the movie star sued and won.  The sherif was
>then forced to recieve plastic surgery.  In retaliation, the sheriff
>learned everything about the star and could act exactly like the star.
>He then showed his ability to the star, but there was nothing that could
>be doneabout mannerisms though.  The rest was basically how he lost his
>wife to his madness and all that.  It was really interesting.
>
>
>-Tim Smith
>tismith@plains.nodak.edu


This is a joke, right? Or at least an accounting of a piece of fiction.
FORCED to undergo plastic surgery? I seriously doubt it.
And what good would learning to mimic said actor do AFTER the surgery.
The impersonation would only be effective if the appearance matched.

Look, people. You cannot, repeat cannot, be sued for using your own likeness
unless you try to claim you are someone else.  As this guy was running for
election we can assume he used his own name on the posters, and didn't claim it
was the supposed movie-star's picture.  That just plain is not illegal.

Ratner
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13699 alt.cyberpunk:1995 misc.legal:8966
From: minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The Minotaur)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:03:36 GMT
Organization: Celtic Software Systems, Decatur, GA

allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:

> In article <1992Apr2.031058.19303@reed.edu>, mehawk@reed.edu (Michael Sandy) 
> > 
> > How would you react to someone using a simulation of you in their
> > Virtual fantasy?  What if they did various non-consensual type stuff
> > with that copy?
> > 
> > And no royalties! ;^)
> > 
> 	That's an interesting point. Should people have copyrights over 
> their appearance, etc? I'd say yes. Just as someone shouldn't be able to 
> find out/use my grades, etc. without my permission, they shouldn't be able 
> to use my appearance without my permission. Of course, at some point this 
> runs into freedom of the press- being able to print a photo of someone.
> 	-Allen

If I remember correctly, you _do_ have the right to prohibit the 
publication or commercial use of your likeness.  The catch is, once you 
become a "public figure," you lose that right when the likeness is used 
for the press as part of news.  I'm not exactly sure what defines
"public figure," however.

--John K.
---

--- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on  |
| fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in   |
| the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be   |
| lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty  |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
|   John Kemker       |      minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org      |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
|   alt.address:  kemker.j@atlanta.va.gov                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: sk
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:26:17 GMT

from past experiance I have decerned that Steven King has I a problem with writing and making movesies that weren't a book or story ferst ie.The Dead Zone
From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Man
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:10:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	Peter, I don't know where you're getting your "facts."

#1.  This isn't Stephen King's movie.
	Fact.
	The company paid for his name just so the movie would sell
good.  King was quite upset (according to an LA Times interview)
that the movie had absolutely nothing to do with his short story,
regardless of how old it was.

#2.  I think you're without a clue.
	The movie was lame.  I don't see any similarities really
with Basic Instinct.  Oh sure, I suppose that it's possible that
people will get a vague idea that VR is Only a Bad Thing, but I
haven't seen it happen.
	The innacuracies were disappointing, though.  I could handle
the silly game that they played, but the "Mind enhancer" made me
wince and the virtual sex scene was even worse.  I won't ask where
they installed the tactile sensors when the scientist was playing
with the free fall simulation...and so on.
	Somewhere the writers for the movie confused VR with the
idea of interfacing directly with the mind.  And in the meantime
they cooked up a pitiful idea that VR will enhance our minds and a
hokey drug to help them.  (Why, pray tell, didn't the scientist just
use it on himself?)

#3.  Take it seriously?
	Hardly.  The movie was a joke.  But I AM amused by your smug
attitude.  Whether or not Frankenstein could happen, it was a good
read.  Lawnmower Man just had flashy graphics and a sex scene to
turn on the horomone-infested teeny boppers.
	At best it was a poor rendition of Flowers for Algernon.

	I do honestly think that people make too much of something
at times, but most of the VR talk around here isn't really about
Lawnmower Man (although it might have influenced it).  In fact, most
of the reviews here didn't even go into the abuses of VR.
	Pity it was such a disappointing movie...

Xref: sparky alt.sex:13677 alt.cyberpunk:1988 misc.legal:8959
From: cobra@ziggys.cts.com (Ron Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:35:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: ziggys.HPiuiB2w164w
Organization: Ziggy's Den Of Iniquity, East of East SD CA

> > 
> > People have been commiting simulated violence for a hundreds of years.  Som
> > them are even nice people.
> > 
> > I'd type in some concrete examples, but tonight is my fencing night.
> > 
> > -dk
> 
>    Cute!  Hmm.  I think that you have to take into account the type of 
> "simulated violence" and the spirit it's done in.  It would be hard to 
> imagine an innocent, playful, fun simulation of sexual assault, for 
> instance.  And if your fencing was done in a spirit of real murderousness, 
> then, hey, I *would* be pretty turned off by it.

I think he's got a point there!   Let's realize that most of our physical 
games known as "combatives" in college Phys. Ed. departments (fencing, 
archery, wrestling, boxing, not to mention darts, arm wrestling and a 
host of others that aren't up at intercollegiate competition-level) were 
originaly derived from "the real thing" and were only turned into sports 
so the rich could continue to practice after society became "too 
civilized" to allow such things as dueling in the streets with 12' swords 
and plate armor.   

On another level, someone asked if the THOUGHT of such violence was 
grounds for conviction (or some such query).  If it WAS grounds for such 
conviction, most of us who drive would be in jail for our thoughts 
(recurrent?) that come to mind at least once a month on the freeway (when 
some jerk who REALLY DESERVES TO DIE makes a left turn from the 
right-hand off-ramp and makes a U-turn over the dirt island and ....)

 Chao     |    So many names     \   Opinions and Germs:
 Omikami  |        and           \   Everybody's got an abundance
"Botchan" |  So many interests   \   of both.  We all dump 'em on 
 Raiko    |       foster         \   each other, both intentionally
 Ashido   |  Too many opinions   \   and unintentionally.  Sometimes,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   \   they combine or mutate, thus
This is all done at home, so     \   resulting in something NOBODY was
my boss can't make me shut up!   \   previously prepared to deal with!
                        cobra@ziggys.cts.com
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: rwmira01@vlsi.louisville.edu (Rob Miracle (Non-priv))
Subject: Term in Gibson's "Mona Lisa Overdrive"
Organization: Computing & Telecommunications, University of Louisville
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:19:12 GMT

I am reading "Mona Lisa Overdrive" and having only read "Burning Chrome" I 
am have problem with some of Gibson's terminology (finding Neuromancer is a 
pain in the butt).  In particular, he refers to the "loa" and I must have 
missed it.  It has something to do with Cyberspace.

I am up to chapter 18.  So if I need to keep reading, let me know (if it is 
a spoiler or something).

Thanks
Rob
--
Rob Miracle                |  Internet:   rwmira01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu
Programmer/Analyst-III     |  BITNET:     rwmira01@ulkyvx
University of Louisville   |  CompuServe: 75140,625
Louisville, KY             |  To boldy go where no one has gone before.
Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:1965 rec.arts.sf.written:5423
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: William Gibson's next novel....
Date:  6 Apr 92 12:04:56 GMT

From: tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
>
>	Given the recent confusion (mine included) about a few matters
>Gibsonian, I thought I might post a clarification.  I talked to him last
>night, and he said:
>
>	the virus-loaded thingie does or will soon exist, but it's certainly
>not his next novel; in fact, it's a couple of thousand words that he refers
>to as "the text," and it's poetry, accompanying "a bronze booklike object"
>that weighs a bunch and contains etchings by Dennis Ashbaugh and a diskette
>with the Gibson poem;
>
>	the poem, if the software works the way it's intended to, will
>self-destruct after a single reading ("but you can videotape it");

It's an interesting gimick, but one doomed from the start.  All of the various
brands of PCs lack a tamper-proof area for the software to run.  As soon as
it's accessable for running, it's accessable for cracking--we control the
hardware.
Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:2065 alt.society.civil-liberty:3404
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:46:06 GMT

In <1992Apr5.164737.16759@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>	That's an interesting point. Should people have copyrights over 
>their appearance, etc? I'd say yes. Just as someone shouldn't be able to 
>find out/use my grades, etc. without my permission, they shouldn't be able 
>to use my appearance without my permission. Of course, at some point this 
>runs into freedom of the press- being able to print a photo of someone.

You can solve the problem much more cleanly by strengthening libel laws
to include VR portrayals of yourself in false or damaging situations.
Having copyrights on your appearance means that taking photographs of 
people in public places would require obtaining a license from everyone
in the shot.  It's bad enough that we have a tree at Pebble Beach
which is copyrighted.

                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
      Santa Barbara		|       Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 968-0189 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     | "when you gonna make up your mind?
      (805) 893-4113            |  when you gonna love you as much
      jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu	|  as i do?" -Tori Amos
From: masmith@apollo
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Playboy Article "Adventures in Cyberspace"
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:05:14 GMT
Reply-To: masmith@apollo
Organization: Davidson College, Davidson, NC


	In this thread, has anyone here seen the movie "Brainstorm"
with Christopher Walkin and Natalie Wood?  Excellent movie.  It's
about this team of scientists who develop a system to store 
brainwaves, beginning with the senses and eventually moving to 
emotions and memories.
	Anyway, as expected one of the techs in the lab uses the
equipment to record a sexual encounter.  One of the scientists/
assistants (I'm not really clear on his role) accepts the tape
to look at.  He is impressed by the tape, so makes it into a 
continuous loop and puts it on.  He is missing from work for two
days, when his girlfriend(?) finds him sitting there having 
successive orgasms.  It really messes up his brain, as he is prone 
to debilitating flashbacks.
	This is not quite VR, but does show one of the possible 
abuses.  Anything that simulates reality to that high an extent
without the controls imposed by reality can really mess a person up.

				Russell Nash
				MASMITH@DAVIDSON.BITNET
				MASMITH@APOLLO.DAVIDSON.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14490 alt.cyberpunk:2087 misc.legal:9281
From: speth@cats.ucsc.edu (James Gustave)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Term in Gibson's "Mona Lisa Overdrive"
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:34:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


>?????  I thought that they are the multiple personalites of T-As AI that
>broke loose after the core was dumped in Neuromancer.  Can anyone
>comment on this?  Thanks.

I agree... I don't think it's ever specifically stated as such, but that
was the conclusion I reached also.
However, I'd also include other various matrix-rogues in the loa, too.
Such as Dixie Flatline, and any other various virii/worms/ICE/ICE-breakers
that got loose on their own.
In order to represent themselves to humans in an understandable form, they
draw on a human mythology -> the loa.

The concept of rogues is very intriguing to me.  There is a great example
in Greg Bear's EON.  There have already been cases of genuine computer
virii that are apparently been spontaneously generated (by cascading errors
in programs, etc.) and those are just the ones we've found.  I have to
assume that there are self-replicating strands of code that have reached
the point that they are smart enough NOT to be found.  They could even exist
on the hardware level (after all, it takes a computer to make a computer
these days.)


-- 
Jim Speth
speth@cats.ucsc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: ahawks@isis.cs.du.edu (andy)
Subject: The Well...ftp?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 22:48:18 GMT

I have no idea where to post this, but I think alt.cp readers might have more
info than anyone else...

Is The Well reachable by ftp??  (NOT 'telnet', but do they have an ftp site set
up?)  If not, could someone on The Well suggest the idea to some administrator
over there?  I'd be most grateful....Seems like The Well would be the perfect
place to have a great ftp site set up....

--


ahawks@isis.cs.du.edu						andy

Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: ahawks@isis.cs.du.edu (andy)
Subject: Re: Virtual food
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 05:58:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.043539.13051@muddcs.claremont.edu>
dmoskowi@jarthur.claremont.edu (Denis/Tesser Morris Moskowitz) writes: 
| In article <1992Apr11.230100.10978@husc3.harvard.edu> kim3@husc10.harvard.edu
| (Jason Kim) writes: 
| >I've always wondered where that idea came from in the first place. Why
| >should a person die in real life just because they have a bad dream? I think
| >if it were the other way around--e.g., the pain of having a heart attack
| >during sleep induces a dream about death--then I could understand. But
| >whatever. There is little chance of ever proving it either way.
| 
| We can prove it at least one way...I have several friends who have told me
| that they have died in their dreams, and they're (obviously) still alive.
| Just thought I'd mention that.

What does that prove?  Nothing.  Your friends could be lieing, your friends
could "think" they saw themselves die, etc.  Doesn't prove a single thing.

| >Jason Y. Kim  
| >kim3@husc9.harvard.edu    
| 
| -- 
| Denis/Tesser M Moskowitz        Jen feroca malbona kuniklo; rigardu liajn
| dmoskowi@jarthur.claremont.edu  sovagxajn vangharojn, kaj liajn ungojn kaj
| This Is Realtime!               lian faldan voston.

--


ahawks@isis.cs.du.edu						andy
From: ian@ug.cs.dal.ca (Ian Littlewood)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Man
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:33:27 GMT
Distribution: dal
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Mar24.180003.14875@eff.org> peterco@eff.org (Peter A. Cohen) writes:

>In article  Captain Caveman!!, lemon@unssun.nevada.edu writes:

>>Oh come on guys!  All over the net i've been hearing about how much this
>>movie sucked and how blatantly misrepresentative it may or may have not

>I agree!  It's a science fiction movie, with an emphasis on the word
>fiction!  Shit!  It's sad that people that know better take this stuff as
>seriously as they do.  The cyber-dorks and SF nuts that decry "The
>Lawnmower Man" as inaccurate have something in common with the gay
>activists who slam "Basic Instinct" and the fundamental Christians who
>slammed "The Last Tempation of Christ."  All of them are People Without A
>Clue.

>Stephen King wasn't trying to make a statement on technology or V.R. with
>"The Lawnmower Man."  He was trying to tell a goddamn story- an old story
>at that.  "The Lawnmower Man" is a modernized variation of the old
>Frakenstein tale.  C'mon, V.R. freaks- don't read into it any more than
>that.  You'll look as foolish as necrophiliacs that watch "Frakenstein"
>and say "That couldn't happen!"

>- Peter


No - you're seeing the argument too simplistically. It's not that it's a bad
story... it's that it's a good story told badly. The movie would have been
much better had it not gone to the point of being ridiculous - the VR stuff
outside the mainframe and in the real world, for instance. The way you
should see it is like this: consider a movie about an athlete... an 
excellent athlete who makes an incredible jump - further than anyone has
jumped before... it's still fiction, but it's credible.... now if that same
athlete jumped over buildings it suddenly degenerates and becomes 
ridiculous... that is what happened with the Lawnmower Man.

The fact that people disagree with you is no reason to call them the 
SF equivalent of the gays against Basic Instinct... the two arguments are
completely unrelated and your suggestion that they are one and the same
makes you look stupid.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: tedwards@wam.umd.edu (technopagan priest)
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:35:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.215705.13846@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>Yes, the "need" for sex might be obsoleted, but if we and not
>evolution are in charge of how we configure ourselves, then we are
>very likely going to build in some pleasure center function. Since we
>are social, we are likely going to have these pleasure center
>apparatus used to mutually interact through pleasure. You fail to
>realize that at the point I have described, we are in complete charge
>of our evolutionary destiny, and not the frugal nit-wit nature. We
>will likely come up with something our improved brains would recognize
>as vastly superior to sex in its depth of sensation.

This kind of meta-humanity really takes us to the edges of what
we know about pleasure, pain, and mythology....what is a "feel good"
what is a "feel bad"?  These things which are so deeply locked into
our subconscious, they make no sense when examined from without,
except perhaps as simple signals to motivate us to stay alive.

> Evolution is based on energy-conservation- things tend to evolve
>>into more efficient forms- evolution into a 'human' machine would be a heinous
>>waste of efficiency.

>Since when haven't humans "wasted" stuff and energy in the pursuit of
>fun. There are plenty more stars where this one came from if you are
>nearly immortal, (complete personality and memory back-up's galor
>scattered around to refresh from).  

Evolution is a wierd thing...it guides the population with gentle
tugs and pushes down the energy gradient...only the energy landscape is
ever changing, especially as other populations change themselves!
It's a chaotic global pattern generator with no guarantee it won't
enter a terminal state (i.e. destroy itself).

The question is, when we start playing with our deepest levels of
brain, what are we going to do with pleasure and pain?  When we have
the tools to play with our inborn myth generators and philosophical
pre-dispositions, we can do anything!  It all doesn't matter, we can
meta-evolve into a grand multitude of patterns ourselves, just like
our planet bloomed with the teeming multi-patterns of life, just on a
whimsical accident...

I'm sure these thoughts occured to humanity as we began using powered
machines "Will we still weave and till the fields, or will we 
all dissipear into some sinful mesh of lazyness?"
Just as we discovered new thing to do with our time (like computer
programming), I'm sure our species, and species descendents, will find all
kinds of neat new worlds to explore in the boundless mathematics and
physics of our really, really, really big universe.

-Tom
 



Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal