HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Rights in cyberspace
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:10:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Aug27.010054.539@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>Jeremiah.Blatz@dartmouth.edu (Jeremiah Blatz) writes:

>>If somebody calls up a BBS and downloads an e-copy of _Moby Dick_ there
>>is simply one more e-copy of _Moby Dick_ floating around. Unless the
>>sysop of said BBS deletes his copy, they will never not have it. A
>>farmer, on the other hand, cannot give someone corn without having
>>less, he they grow more. The farmer *can* grow more corn, but it will
>>cost him money to do so.

>The sysop can acquire another copy of Moby Dick, but it will cost him money
>too. 

	Unless you folks down in Australia are doing things *very* differently,
the sysop whose _Moby Dick_ has been downloaded will still have it--despite
the transfer of information, the information remains where it was.

>Look at it this way: Moby Dick is information. Corn is information. 
>Information must be represented in a physical medium. Control and
>distribution of physical media costs money. 

>Moby Dick is corn. It's corn.

	If corn and _Moby Dick_ were really the same, there'd have been 
nothing miraculous about the bit Jesus performed with the loaves and fishes.
-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
		   "I swear I never heard the first shot"
                Wm. Gibson, "Agrippa:  a book of the dead"
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: osendai@well.sf.ca.us (Mark Pesce)
Subject: Re: Jacking In
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:28:22 GMT




With all of this talk about jacking-in, I think it would be a good
time to mention something that I've been warned of by Dave Warner,
a medical neuroscientist at Loma Linda Medical School:\

The brain is READ-ONLY device.

If you attempt to send signals _into_ it, certain cellular
structures are disrupted (no matter how careful you are) and
the brain starts decoding oncogenes (cancer-causing genes).

Evidentally some government (I couldn't guess which one) did quite
a bit of work on this over the last two decades, and found that
their test subjects got cancer.  Rapidly.

So, not to rain on your parade, but neural input is out.
For the moment.

Play safe...

Mark Pesce
Ono-Sendai Corporation
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: gsl2598@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: Brain is READ ONLY
Reply-To: gsl2598@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:40:16 GMT

In article <8H88PB3w165w@angus.mi.org>, thx1138@angus.mi.org (Scott Abfalter) writes:
>
>RE: Brain is READ-ONLY 
>
>   What sort of drivel is that?  How do you explain memory?
[stuff deleted]

Well, Plato said (I think it was Plato) that we know everything at birth,
and we only have to learn to remember.....

But then again, I agree with YOU...

Leprican~~~
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:25:19 -0400 
From: "Carey D. Clevenger" <cc79+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: My thoughts

The way I envision it is this:

1) Forget "jacking in", okay? Although VERY novel, not very practical.
After all, think a moment: When you place a hole in your skull, it will
lead to the brain. EVEN IF you put a metal enclosure around the hole to
keep it from being injured with contaminents, you'll have to have it
cleaned out. YES, disgusting, but realistic. Small, low-grade radio
transmitters would be much easier to use and could POSSIBLY run off of
"brain power" (i.e. biological electricity). Not to mention, they would
eliminate cords.

2) Thinking in terms of accessment to the brain; why worry with
stimulating certain areas? Let's try something.

Close your eyes (not yet, you'll need to read this). Now imagine the
room EXACTLY as it is. Open your eyes back up.

The point is this: your mind CAN remember what things look like. But,
the reliability is dependent on how vivid your imagination is. Why not
control the visiual images through the optic nerve? That's what it was
designed for, and we understand MUCH BETTER how IT works than we do the
brain. True, it will get messy to place branch-wires off of the optic
nerve, but it will be much easier than replicating amino acids and then
worrying where to send them. 

Well, that's my belief anyway.

Carey


Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden)
Subject: Monomyl wire : Is it possible?
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:01:17 GMT

The old favourite of Cyberpunk authors: Monomolecular fibre: Is it possible?
I personally believe that if you every made something 1 molecule thick, it
would be way to weak to cut like the stuff in literature, but I am no expert.

The local Cyberpunk crowd recon that essentially we are looking at some kind
of Carbon chain, linked to a handle via a molecular or electro-static bond.
Any ideas?

Peter

--
*******************************************************************************
Peter van Heusden              "Thou shalt not kill
CS2 lab, UCT, Cape Town               Kill kill kill!"
pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za                    Ministry
From: apdent@actor.reatime.cs.vt.edu (Tripp Lilley)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Re: Jacking In
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:05:19 GMT
Organization: The MultiMedia Lab of Virginia Tech


 try SYNNERS by Pat Cadigan... dare i say it here, but... i consider
her a shade or twelve above Gibson in terms of actually addressing
human issues in here cyberProse... not that he doesn't, but she does
it better... in any case, the premise of the above-mentioned book is 
a nueral virus...

---tripp.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Tripp Lilley   -- APDENT@actor.realtime.cs.vt.edu                          |
| Nuisance to all, benefit to fewer...but often found being cheerfully paisley|
| >>>  my opinions are.                                                       |
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: shaun@octel.com (Attacking Deep Structure)
Subject: Re: Jacking In
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:39:56 GMT

In article <q8cuPB1w165w@cyberden.uucp> moon!cyberden!dev@well.sf.ca.us writes:
>If the 
>process of jacking in will allow data to be recieved, and not just 
>transmitted, then I see no reason why there couldn't be some for of a 
>virus implanted.  It could be placed in the consious mind or 
>sub-consious.  Any comments?

Read Snow Crash.
-- 
shaun@octel.com  ||  "Now is the time on Sprockets when we Lambada!"
              
Laundry: the process of turning perfectly good clothes into lint.
From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: n-Dimensional Cyber Space
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:16:53 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

Here's something I've been a bit curious about since first reading about the
concept of 'Cyberspace' some years ago. Since the human brain can (in theory)
be linked directly to the network, will the mind be capable of dealing with
more than three computer generated spacial dimensions? (I'm not talking about
converting the fourth and higher spacial dimensions into some other form, such
as color, texture, sound, size, etc. I mean an actual 4th, 5th, 6th, ... , and
so on, spacial dimensions.)

Since we are raised in a 3-spacial dimension universe, I would think that we
would have a great deal of difficulty dealing with 4+ dimensions, whereas a
child raised completely in a 4+ dimensional Cyberspace may fit right in.   

Does anyone have any insights on this?

-- 
 Bob Hall,                 | "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
 Workstation Peripheral    | Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it."
 Boeing Computer Services  |                                     -Groucho Marx
From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu (Mark C. Langston)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Re: Biotechnology - Computers
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:11:09 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <dave.0694@ainfo.equinox.gen.nz>, dave@ainfo.equinox.gen.nz (Dave Hassall) writes:
> --
> Does anyone know what developments there have been made as far as
> the biological computer... I believe that it takes the use of
> Biotechnology or Nanotechnology.... 
> 
> caio
> Dave
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dave Hassall     dave@ainfo.equinox.gen.nz      AmigaINFO BBS CHCH NZ

  You may want to check out the latest issue of (I think) Discover, which
had several articles re:  current research at Santa Fe Institute (nifty place),
and a researcher in Japan trying to grow his own, so to speak, microprocessors.

(The issue was a special on artificial life)

For more detailed info, you can contact the Santa Fe Institute...they welcome
this sort of cutting-edge research...


-- 
+--------8<------Cut Here------8<------Cut Here------8<------Cut Here---------+
  Mark C. Langston   |  "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny."                 
  Psychology Dept.   |  "Always listen to experts.  They'll tell you what can't
  Memphis State U.   |     be done, and why.  Then do it."                      
      "Pftph!"       |           -From the notebooks of Lazarus Long         
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: rwehrlee@AFIT.AF.MIL (Robert J. Wehrle-Einhorn)
Subject: Re: Please allow me to introduce myself--
Organization: Air Force Institue of Technology, WPAFB OH
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:42:19 GMT

In article <3357PB1w165w@cyberden.uucp> moon!cyberden!verge@well.sf.ca.us writes:
>From: moon!cyberden!verge@well.sf.ca.us
>Subject: Please allow me to introduce myself--
>Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:05:01 PDT

>Flash, man, to all the plugged-in: seeking (and to share, man) infostuff 
>with cyberpunk bent. Iz you into deconstructionist, nasty-boy SF: Jeter, 
>Shirley, Shiner, Shepard, Rucker, Gibson, & Russo? Drugs: wetbone, orange 
>octogons, wetware, chemical cherries? Sex: concertina wire bras, 
>"Obsolete penises", augmentation, your plastic pal? Ultra-violence: Core 
>tours, monomolecular strangle-wire, brain-rotting nanotech? ALL that FUN 
>STUFF with that viscious edge of no rules, morality sucks, and life is 
>only on the edge? Send "E" to me, and we will talk hackers, screamers, 
>"Bob", rippers, the cybersea, and all those underground (sorta) heros: 
>moon!cyberden!verge@well.sf.ca.us. 

>__________________________________________________________________________
>   |       /         |\
>   | H E   \ Y B E R |/ E N       [ moon!cyberden!verge@well.sf.ca.us ]
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: brain rom and all that... just the obvious stuff
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:57:38 GMT

In article <29AUG199201102112@juliet.caltech.edu> tychay@juliet.caltech.edu (Chay, Terrence Y.) writes:
>the big thing here at caltech seems to be Hopfield/Mead's analog VLSI design
>they have a analog VLSI neural "eye" and a analog VLSI hodgkin-huxley "neuron"
>(complete with Ca++ channelss) already out, and i think they are working on
>an ear...  the "eye" is neural network oriented and is more useful for
>study of Hubel & Weisel and its only possible application is possibly
>for AI computers ("jacking in" *sigh*).

I was tangentially involved with artificial retina chips at JHU, trying
to do very similar things to the Mahowald Retina at CalTech.  

Basically, the chips model the "mexican hat" style responses found
in the retina, which causes Mach Bands.  Computer people have been
doing this processing for a while using convolution filters on images to
enhance edges.  The chip is useful because it does the filtering in
real time at high speed (almost instantly).  

I'm currently involved in artificial cochlea model chips at UMD.
Basically, the cochlea is a set of very tightly tuned bandpass
filters.  Again, computer people have been doing DSP filters which
model the cochlea fairly well, but the programs take a while to run.
The chip allows it to be done in real time, in Analog.  Groups at JHU
are using transconductance amplifiers to model a cascade of 
second order filters.  We're using switched capacitor filters of a
new design, which should be more accurate and be less sensitive to offsets
, bias voltages, and other parasitic problems from the CMOS.

Both of these systems are not aimed at replacing real human parts,
although it is possible spinoffs from them could be.  They are all for
use in AI applications, and the cochlea stuff can also be used for
data compression and wavelet transform signal processing.

-Thomas


Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: jrs2556@zeus.tamu.edu (John Su)
Subject: Re: Jacking In
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:36:00 GMT

In article <ss7XPB1w165w@fennec.sccsi.com>, merlin@fennec.sccsi.com (Lorne Naff) writes...
>tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:

>   Actually, lots of folks are talking about using fiber-optics for 
>transmitting to the jack, but that's just as bad.  Do what a charachter I 
>had in a CP role-game did ( Please, no RPG flames..  It's a fun diversion 
>and a chance to work on some intersting problems), go to the equivilent 
>of Radio Shack, buy a `male' interface plug ( assuming your head-mount is 
>`female', reverse if otherwise), and hook it either up to a xenon strobe, 
>or a flashlight.  Who knows what the effect will be?  
>  All this is assuming we ever get the tech off the ground.  We could do 
>it now, but the risk is a bit big.
>   /// & ///
> 

     In an earlier post, someone wrote about how the most realistic
technologies for direct-brain communications would require a processor
that relays information to the brain centers.
     That being the case, wouldn't a strobe or flashlight create data
that a fiber optic processor would interpret as a uniform stream of
nonsense -- and recognize it as garbage and dismiss it altogether ?
     I understand that pulses of light at certain frequencies will
trigger seizures in people sensititve to that stimulus, but I'd imagine
that a processor in the brain would act as a " filter " for harmful
stimuli.  Not an impervious system, but one that would prevent harm
to its user.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: dave@ainfo.equinox.gen.nz (Dave Hassall)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Biotechnology - Computers
Summary: What is happening to Bio-Computers
Keywords: Biotechnology,Computers,Nanotechnology
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:44:31 +1200
Organization: AmigaINFO BBS,ChCh NZ
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

--
Does anyone know what developments there have been made as far as
the biological computer... I believe that it takes the use of
Biotechnology or Nanotechnology.... 

caio
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hassall     dave@ainfo.equinox.gen.nz      AmigaINFO BBS CHCH NZ
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: mike@highlite.uucp (Mike Wiik)
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology & Cyberpunk
Keywords: Nanotech Cyberpunk
Organization: Gotham Communications Research
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:07:16 GMT

hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:

|Once it becomes possible for Nanotechnology to control the nerve endings of
|the human body, all kinds of interesting nightmare scenarios become possible.
|Person A introduces a set of controlling neural nanorobots into his own body
|and is placed on life support. A packet of overriding neural nanorobots are
|introduced into the body of VIP B. A link is established between the NNRs in
|person A and the NNRs in person B. Thereafter the body of person B is under
|the control of person A. To top it off, the mind of person B can be turned
|into an expert system for person A, given suitable inducement. (Or perhaps
|even without it.)

This seems to me pretty tame for a nightmare scenario.

Besides, look at any political convention coverage or church
gathering and you'll see people under other's control without the
use of nanotechnology.

Think about what memes have control of your own mind before worrying
about mindcontrolling nanobots...

Your post suggests you think you have free will, which means you've
already accepted the first premise I've programmed for you!
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

|Once this technology becomes feasible, would we ever know who was really in
|charge?

If you know who's in charge now please tell us.

IMHO the solution is:

1)	Don't believe in anything. Convictions cause convicts.
2)	When in doubt, throw it out...
3)	Upon awakening, apologize to the entire earth for anything
	you did yesterday that offended anyone, and grant forgiveness
	to anyone who offended you.

	-Mike

-- 
   | o==== . : ... :  :  .     |Mail Me Neat Stuff->POB 3703 Arlington VA 22203
 --@-- . o o o ... O -O- o o : |No disclaimers needed: I actually pay for this.
   |           ... :  :        |-----------------------------------------------
mEssAGE fRoM sPAcE ARt stUdiOs |Man:TheMissingLinkBetweenApes&HigherIntelligence
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Craig Thomas Judd)
Subject: Re: Jacking In
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 08:50:52 GMT

In article <BtoKnB.79M@well.sf.ca.us>, osendai@well.sf.ca.us (Mark Pesce) writes:
>With all of this talk about jacking-in, I think it would be a good
>time to mention something that I've been warned of by Dave Warner,
>a medical neuroscientist at Loma Linda Medical School:\
>
>The brain is READ-ONLY device.
>
>If you attempt to send signals _into_ it, certain cellular
>structures are disrupted (no matter how careful you are) and
>the brain starts decoding oncogenes (cancer-causing genes).
>
>Evidentally some government (I couldn't guess which one) did quite
>a bit of work on this over the last two decades, and found that
>their test subjects got cancer.  Rapidly.
>
>So, not to rain on your parade, but neural input is out.
>For the moment.
>
>Play safe...
>
>Mark Pesce

If it's read-only, then how does it receive signals from the body?! ;-)

If it is the case that certain artificial electrical stimuli are not the way to
go, then we could always consider methods more akin to the body's normal 
signals, or perhaps use electrodes to modify the nerve impulses already on their
way to the brain.

I'm sure some dedicated cybertech will find a way...

Yours hypothetically;

-- 
   \/\ "Turn out the lights! Or do you want everyone for miles around to /\/
====\/\      know about our secret base?!" - Colonel, AKIRA Book 2      /\/====
=====\/\  WANT ANY MANGA ARTWORK DONE? Email me! (NO Anthropomorphs!)  /\/=====
      \/\   cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au      a.k.a. KUROTO Shiro   /\/
From: srcguard@src.dec.com (Lytton (SRC) Guard)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
Subject: Re:  Neuropolis
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:18:18 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center





			I like it.  Keep it up.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: Canary Song (Re: Brain is READ ONLY)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:32:40 GMT

In article <1SEP199200092003@juliet.caltech.edu> tychay@juliet.caltech.edu (Chay, Terrence Y.) writes:
>  Levitan and Kaczarek.  _The Neuron_:Cell and Molecular Biology. c.1991
>  p 319-20
>REGULATION OF NEURONS BY TESTOSTERONE IN SONGBIRDS: [...]
[plastic song/stable song modification]
>  One intersting aspect of the remodeling of neural form and connections in
>song birds is that not only can preexisting connection be modified by hormones,
>but new neurons may be added to a pathway ...

>  Purves & Lichtman.  _Principle of Neural Development_ c. 1985. p338-341.
>  DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDSONG
[case of zebra finches]
>All told, these observation amply confirm that the neonatal [new born] nervous 
>system already contains detailed information about what behaviors to learn and
>when to learn them ...

>i am curious about how any of you feel about the conclusions [...]

Ok, #4 is not surprising, as instinct is a prime force in lower animals.  It
would not be practical, for instance, if the many nesting species had to be
actually taught to make the nest, or the spider to spin its web.

It's not clear if #3 refers to the addition of existing neurons or the growth
of neurons to supplement the pathway.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: Brain is READ ONLY
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:46:36 GMT

In article <0095FC68.3D1E9320@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> gsl2598@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>Well, Plato said (I think it was Plato) that we know everything at birth,
>and we only have to learn to remember.....

Of course, that was his excuse for being able to say at all times:
"I knew that."  :)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk.tech
From: rubout@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Matthew Rubin)
Subject: Re: Brain is READ ONLY
Organization: University of Oregon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:18:05 GMT

In article <csmith-310892103253@cyrano.gmu.edu>, csmith@blackplague.gmu.edu (Blackplague) writes:
> 
> > In article <8H88PB3w165w@angus.mi.org>, thx1138@angus.mi.org (Scott Abfalter) writes:
>  >
>  >RE: Brain is READ-ONLY 
>  >
>  >   What sort of drivel is that?  How do you explain memory?
>  [stuff deleted]
> 
> Absolute drivel.  Not only is the brain writable, but it is REwritable and
> programable.  Take for an example the aquisition of a language.  When a
> person learns a language, a path is created for this language.  If a second
> language is learned later in life, the original path is modified to include
> the new language.  If instead, the person is taught two languages
> simultaniously from childhood, two seperate paths are created, one for each
> language.
> 
> [stuff deleted again] 
> Blackplague
> 
> 

Check out _Snow Crash_ by Neal Stephenson.  He has a cool theory relating the
Babel story in the Bible to a linguistic virus that might have existed in 
Sumer way back when.  Without spoiling the novel (read it, you'll be glad
you did), Stephenson makes the analogy between the Brain and EPROM by
comparing the heirarchy of computer language levels 
(ie. machine->assembly->high level->?) to the development of the brain as it
learns new languages.  

The crux of it is that since we are all human we have
the same hardware (brain) programmable by a universal machine language (PROM). 
This is what was spoke prior to the Babel incident.  After Babel, language 
diverged (ie. was erased) and humans spoke many different languages.  In order
to communicate another level had to be added on top of the machine level.  
This is the "path modification" Blackplague refers to, the reprogrogramming
of an EPROM. In a sense, the new pathways compile the many different high level
languages into the universal machine code of the brain to make it 
understandable.
______________________________________________________________________________
rubout@cs.uoregon.edu |	George Bush == Hose Bugger (Genetic Permutation)
______________________|_______________________________________________________