Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: They'll Look Like Toys? (Was: The Amiga's Future) Message-ID: <50433@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 13 Jun 91 04:40:37 GMT References: <5068@orbit.cts.com> <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> <50393@ut-emx.uucp> <22379@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 21 In article <22379@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Me too. But for this full fledged virtual reality stuff, you're talking >about a boatload of gear beyond the computer. All kinds of stuff to fool >senses other than your eyes. You aren't going to get the real thing at >the kind of prices most home users can afford. That's why I like the idea >of a neural interface; you don't need fancy magic gloves to make your fingers >feel that hot, somewhat soft and slippery Boing! ball you just caught. The >computer feeds your brain directly. That doesn't have the intrinsic expense >of all the clever mechanics you would need to do it today. I don't need direct neural input for a reasonable virtual reality. With decent sound and a good viewing environment, I'd take the version we are likely to have in reach in a decade or two. Equipment cost isn't that big a deal if things explode the way I think they might if everything came together right. It is easier to project that than the kind of advances we'd need to get neural input to the senses/brain. Besides, even if the input is induced without direct-connect, there would be licensing hassles that would take years to deal with. "A better TV" would zip through, I bet.