HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anton@analsyn.gts.org (Anton J Aylward)
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk top-ten
Organization: ASCI: UNIX Database and Communications
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:13:53 GMT

dbongard@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (dbongard@sdcc13.ucsd.edu) writes:
: In article <29CDB356.8857@ics.uci.edu> ddoherty@ics.uci.edu (Donald Doherty) writes:
: >   I completely agree with you.  The writing in "The Difference Engine"
: >is inferior to the Gibson (alone) novels.  The idea of the novel is a good
: >one with a lot of promise (probably Gibson's?) but the execution (i.e.
: >writing and development) is mostly very weak (Sterling?).
: 
: 	If anything, I would put it the other way around because I recognize
: several central ideas as hobbyhorses of Bruce's.  However, Gibson says that
: they both reworked the prose so thoroughly that the result is genuinely
: collaborative.  
: 

As 'alternate time-line' stories go, it was quite rich and deep.
However, I agree the execution lacks.
The deounement requires some knowledge of mathematics, like having read 
Go:edel, Escher, Bach", or some such.

The montage of cahrecters and scenes is interesting, but weak.
The clsoing section, with insights to the society is facinating but
while it enriches the book, fails to do so for the storyline.

Anyway, who can really get that emotive over Church-Turing?

I feel Harry Harrison could have done better.  If you don't think so, 
re-read "The Transatlantic Tunnel Hurrah!"
--
Anton J Aylward
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13608 alt.cyberpunk:1966 misc.legal:8912
From: mehawk@reed.edu (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:03:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr7.020359.14390
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR


I wonder what sort of guidelines we can get out of this discussion.

For example:  While there might be commercially available or even
free access to low resolution simulations of public figures, I think
that whatever the highest resolution available is for a given person
would not be available without their consent.

In simulating a personality you would be able to get a much more sophisticated
generic model than one which imitated a "real" human being.  (The "real"
in quotes because an accurate simulation of Cybil Sheppard wouldn't go
out with you either :*) :*)

You wouldn't be able to get the detail on a random person you would on
a specific holodeck construct.


Hmmm.  Rather than talk about what type of tech might be developed, could
we talk about the Holodeck in Star Trek whose capacity everybody could
actually talk about.  We can extrapolate from there to more and less
sophisticated simulations.


For example:  The Holodeck could accurately simulate people from history,
enabling them to physically interact.  Further, it had access to the
medical and psychological information in the Enterprise database.  It
demonstrated the ability to simulate accurately, (with a crucial detail
left out of course), a human being on fragmentary personal information,
namely the simulation Geordi worked with and fell in love with.

Further, in the Star Trek universe the Holo Deck is not an exorbidant
use of computing time.


What moral rules, and what ship rules would apply to Mr Broccoli, (er. Barclay)
calling up a sim of Deanna Troi and saying, "Ok, but a little more cleavage..."
Or perhaps, Wesley calls up Robin Loeffler..., (or vice versa, ever wonder
how she found out about his birthmark??? ;*)


Suppose several teenagers got together and created a Holo Deck feature
film involving the Captain, a large number of barn fowl, forty-eight
gallons of strawberry sauce, Roxanna Troi and ... and ... and ...

(Deanna Troi, "I sense something ... odd ... from the Holo Deck.")

Would accessing medical information to create an accurate simulation
be ethical?  Fun?  Sex education could be interesting if the kids
could experiment as they wished.  What about all those awkward crushes
which you wouldn't dare tell the object of about?


-- 
mehawk@reed.edu (Michael Sandy)
"Insert witty quote here."
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13766 alt.cyberpunk:2001 misc.legal:9022
From: wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:45:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr8.174510.14444
Organization: Crusaders for Truth

jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:

>wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:
>>minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The Minotaur) writes:
>>>The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?
>
>>Certainly.  "Attempted murder", for example, is a crime.  Someone should not
>>be let go just because (s)he failed in an attempt to perform a crime.  (S)he
>>will probably try again.

>This is confusing the issue in a big way.  In an attempted murder, there is
>more than just intent.  There is also some sort of action.

No kidding.  The action was just something I assumed.  I've thought about
killing lots of people, but I've never tried to.  There's a big difference.

>  The situation
>we have been pondering is whether a crime done in VR (virtual reality) (namely
>child pornography) is illegal.

Hence the altered Subject line, or didn't you notice that?

>You make it sound as though a VR crime IS indeed illegal, from the reasoning 
>that someone doing so would do it again, supposedly possibly in RL.  If this
>were indeed the case, then it would also likely apply to movie-makers, 
>authors, video game players, and a whole bunch of other people who have
>portrayed or acted illegal acts in a virtual or fictional setting.  Next
>you'll probably make thinking of such things a crime.  Bring on the thought
>police.

Whoa, there!  Slow down!  How did you derive this from what I said?

My comment above was aimed at an RL attempted crime.  I never discussed VR.
I meant that if someone tried to rob my house, but fled without any of my
stuff because they discovered that I was home, they should not be let go
entirely free.  If they were let go without any sort of punishment, they
would most likely attempt to rob me again, or perhaps someone else.

>My opinion is that no, it's not illegal to do something in VR which is 
>illegal in RL.  This in the sense of VR situations with just one person.
>In multi-user VR situations, there are some laws such as harrassment and
>the such which should probably still apply.  But let's keep the law in
>RL for the most part.  A crime should involve a victim of some sort, and
>any sort of virtual play-acting of a crime has no victim.

I agree.

>If anything it might just keep some people from commiting RL crimes.

I agree here, too.  This is VERY similar to my stand on pornography vs. rape.
-- 
Greg Wooledge		/..\			Wizard in training.
wooledge@ces.cwru.edu	\--/ Have a day.
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13543 alt.cyberpunk:1953 misc.legal:8868
From: jessec@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Date: 4 Apr 92 18:32:16 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <JFRkiB1w164w@labyrnth.via.mind.org>, minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The Minotaur) writes:
> jessec@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> 
>> 
>>    If it boils down to the question:
>> 
>>    Is one responsible for one's actions within or with respect to virtual 
>> environments/persons/objects with no consequences in the "real world"?
>> 
>> then my answer is probably, no, you're not.  Not in a strict legal sense.
>> And if you take that view, then the possibility opens up of something one 
>> might call virtual amorality.  Say I've been annoyed by this person in my 
>> neighborhood.  I have to live with him, and I have to live with the 
>> consequences of my actions towards him in the real world, but I feel like 
>> some demonstration of anger.  So I pop into a virtual construct, insert 
>> Mr. Neighbor, and enact a gory murder.  Then pop out, catharsis enacted, 
>> and go on with my business, a load lifted from my mind.  Is this okay and 
>> hunky-dory?
> 
> Some religions and moral frameworks consider the _thought_ of a sin or
> amoral act equivalent to the sin or amoral act itself.

   Oh, hell, I don't think *that*!  Didn't mean to imply such, either.  I 
thought I said something in there about considering dreams as a separate 
category, for instance.  I mean, not that there's *no* division between 
thought and action... but it's not always a *long* distance.  Sheesh.  One 
of those fuzzy-boundary things. 

> The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?

   On a legal level, thoughts should be sacrosanct.  My opinion.

> [rest of though-provoking article deleted]

   Thanks.  Yours too.


     --Jesse.
From: wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:51:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.175136.20237
Organization: Crusaders for Truth

kim3@husc10.harvard.edu (Jason Kim) writes:

>>We still have a physical body.  We still have to breed, at some stage 
>>during these wonderful relationships.
>
>Well, I shouldn't be saying this but there is always the possibility of
>artificial insemination...

Why shouldn't you say this?  Your address in in the USA, so there's no
legality problem....

>now wait, come one, if all your carnal desires were
>being fulfilled already, would you *really* care that your physical body
>were missing out on the awkward act of copulatory coitus?

I submit that if one is "missing out on [...] coitus" then one's carnal desires
are likely NOT being fulfilled.

The connection between artificial insemination and fulfillment of carnal
desires usually involves masturbation.  If masturbation is enough to completely
fulfill your body's needs, then you're extremely lucky, or extremely lonely.

"Sex" is a much more inclusive and appropriate word than "coitus", though.
And if you think that either one is "awkward" then I suggest that you need to
read alt.sex more often.

For me at least, sex is much more than a series of activities leading to
ejaculation.  The latter is simply masturbation.  Sex has an emotional
dimension which I do NOT think I can get from any form of VR network.  I
don't care how high the level of technology is.
-- 
Greg Wooledge		/..\			Wizard in training.
wooledge@ces.cwru.edu	\--/ Have a day.
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13672 alt.cyberpunk:1983 misc.legal:8955
From: richhg@hsv3.uucp (Rich Henderson-Gragg)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:47:04 GMT
Organization: Headland Technology

In an article Allen Smith writes:

>	That's an interesting point. Should people have copyrights over 
>their appearance, etc? 

    What about identical twins (by birth and by coincidence(sp))?  What if I 
give my consent to have my likeness used in a VR setting but my identical twin 
(Whos name is David.  Ex girlfriend told me about him.) doesn't.
What if no one asks or even knows of his existance.
    The same question above probably already has precedence (sp) in laws
governing movies and still magazine photography.
       -Rich-
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Gibson's nationality
Date:  8 Apr 92 13:02:30 GMT

From: jwtlai@jeeves.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai)
>In article <702309260.16926@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>>From: farrellj@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Farrell McGovern)
>>>   I know that his cousin lives here in Ottawa...that would indicate at least some Canadian Content...
>>
>>Either that, or a genetic allergy for uniforms...
>
>>cough<  Most Canadians have an allergy to wearing -United States- uniforms.

Just living in Ottawa doesn't prove that the cousin is Canadian, and not just
an American living in Ottawa.  After, Mulroony lives in Ottawa, and ...
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: wallacew@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Dave Tolmie)
Subject: Re: RPG
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:55:05 GMT

arnold@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Jonathan Hefler) writes:

>Hi! I have recently been reading a new manual for a Role Playing Game 
>called "RIFTS" and it mentioned Cyberpunk in it, so I thought I'd call 
>in. Anyway, I am wondering if there is anyone out there who has played or 
>Knows of RIFTS and would like to talk about it. Thanx.

>-----
>Jonathan Hefler, Princeton High School BBS
>DNS: arnold@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us      UUCP: ...!princeton!phsbbs!arnold
>Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for this message.

Rifts is a pretty sweet game.  On my list, it ties with Cyberpunk 2020 for 
the best RPG out there.  GURPS is first.  But, I don't know that this is 
the appropriate newsgroup.  Don't know that it isn't, either.  Hmm.....


Dave

David Tolmie
wallacew@ucsu.colorado.edu
dtolmie@nyx.cs.du.edu
-- 
David Tolmie				| My Tramp & UCSU accounts are history,
Wallacew@UCSU.Colorado.edu   <or>	| send mail to the new addresses 
Dtolmie@Nyx.cs.DU.edu			| instead.

Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
From: dmoskowi@jarthur.claremont.edu (Denis/Tesser Morris Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Virtual food
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:35:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.230100.10978@husc3.harvard.edu> kim3@husc10.harvard.edu (Jason Kim) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.064134.24576@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ahawks@isis.cs.du.edu (andy) writes:
>>Another thought - it is a popular myth (maybe fact, I don't know) that if a
>>person "sees" themself die in their dream, that person suffers some sort of
>>heart attack or other physical trauma or something - so, I wonder what
>>[stuff deleted]
>[more stuff deleted]
>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.
>=============================================================================
>Jason Y. Kim                    |        "To see others suffer does one good,
>                                |           to make others suffer even more."
>kim3@husc9.harvard.edu          |                        --Friedrich Nietzche


-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 08:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.210556.28179@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>From article <RFBEH69@taronga.com>, by peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva):
>> In article <1992Apr6.163148.27349@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:
>>>>The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?
>> 
>>>Certainly.  "Attempted murder", for example, is a crime.
>> 
>> Attempted murder requires an attempt as well as intent.
>>
>
>What about conspiracy?  How does that differ from attempted
>murder (no attempt?)?   What about these cases where someone
>tries to hire someone to kill someone?  'Course that would be an
>attempt.

there seems to be some confusion here.  basically, for a criminal
conviction, the law requires a mens rea (state of mind) and
actus reus (real act).  intent is one kind of mens rea (the highest
one - others are knowledge, recklessness, and negligence).
intent alone is NOT sufficient.

for conspiracy, the defendant must have the intent and have
committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
this is true in all states, as far as i know.

as for your example of murder for hire, it would be punishable by law.
you have committed an overt act by attempting to hire someone.
note that in some states, it may not matter if he agrees or not.
that is, you can still find a conspiracy even if there is only ONE person!

now, there's something that i think may be useful in making this clear.
intent may be inferred from the act.  that is, if you attempt to kill
someone, the jury is allowed to infer that you wanted to kill him from
your actions.  but the requirements are still the same.  you need
the criminal state of mind and the act.

bottom line.  INTENT IS NOT ENOUGH.  period.

-teddy
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Man
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner)
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:09:09 EST

peterco@eff.org (Peter A. Cohen) writes:
: In article  Captain Caveman!!, lemon@unssun.nevada.edu writes:
: 
: 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!"

Stephen King had about this >< much to do with LM. apparently that script had
been around a -long- time before they changed one scene & slapped his name
on it. i don't dislike LM because it didn't make the right statement on VR.
i dislike it because it was poorly directed, cheesy, unbelievable, predictable,
and boring. on top of that the graphics sucked. i've seen tv commericials with
more impressive rendering. the 2 good segments (the opening monkey war & the
video game) didn't make up for the pain of lines like "CyberChrist". i don't
think it was supposed to be a comedy, but how many of you found yourselves
rolling on the floor screaming "PULL THE FUCKING PLUG!" when wassisface started
spewing about a virus?? 

in 3 years it'll be on USA Up All Nite & i'll watch it & laugh some more 'cause
it's so stupid. the only connection it has to VR? use of a buzzword that might
make some $$.
: - Peter

jason
--
     Democrat: 	Give us your money. We'll solve your problems.
   Republican: 	Give us your money. We'll pretend your problems don't exist.
  Libertarian: 	Here's your money. Solve your own shpxvat problems.
  -- Vote Libertarian '92 -- jason steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu --
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14333 alt.cyberpunk:2071 misc.legal:9236
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:07:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <kAl+TH@engin.umich.edu>, by positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas):
> In article <1992Apr8.204032.24041@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:
>>
>> In the earlier part of this century we didn't have airbrushed Playboy models
>

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that they airbrushed out the women's pubic
hair, if it happened to show, until the mid-sixties.
 
> Just an aside here, but I wanted to point out that Playboy does not
> airbrush or otherwise alter their photographs.
>

I think they use lots of body makeup.  I have a feeling that if
the woman is sunburned, for instance, they may do some touchup
work on there pictures.  Is there anyone out there who has any
first hand knowledge about this?  I have seen a Gallery picture
that was on 2 pages and they somehow only retouched one page.
The model was sunburned on one page and "tanned" on the other
;-{).
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
From: cg108fai@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steerpike)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:55:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <mumble> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>From: cg108fai@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steerpike)
>>So what's left -- 0.1% of the adult population?

>Check out the sex-shops sometime.  There are plenty of things on the shelves
>that are expensive, and only "serve the needs" of a small fraction of the
>population. 

Yes, but that stuff doesn't cost (x * $1000) to buy. There are far
cheaper ways to have sex (women, for instance). :) (no offense
intended, ladies).

steerpike@ucsd.edu
From: sandro@asylum.UUCP (Sandro Wallach)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: What's this about John Maxfield?
Summary: What was he arrested for?  Where is he now?
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:08:30 GMT

An article from Phrack, which recently appeared on rec.humor.funny,
about "real cyberpunks" includes this:

>     - Real cyberpunks know why Broadway Hacker invited everyone to his house.
>
>     - Real cyberpunks know just how good friends John Maxfield and Broadway
>       Hacker are.
>
>     - Real cyberpunks know who John Maxfield is and what he was arrested for.

This got my attention.  I haven't heard anything about Maxfield in
maybe four years, but he used to be pretty good friends with my best
friend, so I'm curious.  I could make some good guesses about which
habits of his might have landed him in jail or the morgue, but what's
the story?

Anybody here know?

  -- sandro
Xref: sparky alt.sex:14324 alt.cyberpunk:2070 misc.legal:9232
From: wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:22:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.162217.4686
Organization: Crusaders for Truth

positron@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:

>wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:
>>
>> In the earlier part of this century we didn't have airbrushed Playboy models
>
>Just an aside here, but I wanted to point out that Playboy does not
>airbrush or otherwise alter their photographs.

Sorry to mislead.  I believe the phrase "airbrushed models" or "airbrushed
Playboy models" was part of the message to which I responded, and I simply
wrote what I did in the heat of making a point, without severe analysis.

They certainly use lighting well, however.
-- 
Greg Wooledge		/..\			Wizard in training.
wooledge@ces.cwru.edu	\--/ Have a day.
From: 900377c@aucs.acadiau.ca (Robert Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Virtual Coffins
Summary: What a drag
Keywords: Look Mom, I'm Dead
Date: 12 Apr 92 07:33:27 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

I see virtual food casually segued into something a little more down
to earth. Like virtual death. I dunno; personally, I've died in at
least three dreams (that I can remember) and am none the worse off for
it. One of them I was actually blown to pieces in and woke up
regretting that I was alive because I figured I wouldn't want to live
if I'd been exploded. Fortunately, It wasn't a problem.

The concept of being killed in a virtul world is a real consideration
VR programmers should consider if the technology gets off the ground
floor. Once sensory feedback reaches a stage where VR becomes
essentially "Real", all kinds of dillemmas could result.
Aforementioned psychoses, bad trips, death and possibly even that
gross feeling I've experienced when I've eaten too much at Arby's.

Rob Campbell, the .unsigged
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
From: 900377c@aucs.acadiau.ca (Robert Campbell)
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:00:06 GMT


Just to dad another point, since our legal system is based entirely on
precedent, its unlikely that it will be illegal until the technology
is in place, and someone gets offended by it. That's my run-on
sentence on the matter...

Rob Campbell