CompuServe Thread

CDTV in my Vehicle

17 messages in this thread
#110067From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJun 26, 1990 2:07 AM
Ben, Your analogy is poor. With glasses, the question isn't do you want to read a $2 paperback…it's do you want to be blind or not? Not being able to read..newspapers, books, maps, TV screens, prices on the store shelf, etc….you might as well be blind. Believe me…I know. Having had 'perfect' vision up until I turned about 41, it was a shock to the system when my eyes started losing it. The amount of 'stuff' that goes on in your near vision (which is what I lost…which is typical) is phenomenal. In fact, glasses illustrate the point I was trying to make. There has to be a real or perceived need (to see) The solution has to be cost effective (what are your other options to correct your vision that are cheaper than glasses?) The application has to have wide acceptance (as you stated, millions need to have their vision corrected) I see no proposed CDTV application that meets those 3 criteria at this point in time. I see several that might meet the first 2, but I haven't seen one proposed that meets the 3rd. Don
#110164From: Black Belt SystemsJun 27, 1990 12:40 AM
Actually, if you read my message carefully, you'll see that the analogy is exact – I'm saying that when there are neat things to see, the sense of being blind will be overwhelming. I see guided tours thru natural history mus., encyclopedias (of course, it's tired but it's valid) street maps, BIG database maps, newpaper archives back to day one, entire sections of libraries on a disk… I like this one in particular. Lesse… lemme get out the "A" shelf. THere it is – "Aardvarks, their mating habits and feeding". I _would_ buy (even at a BIG price) a library set of CD roms. So might a library, for that matter. :^) Ok, I have several hundred, maybe even a thousand CDs. so what? I have more books than that, and they take up MORE space! man, just think – I'd have zillions of books. quadzillions. (wiping drool off) Uh, then there's the space applications, the weeding thru data… joe blow might enjoy that – make neat cereal box contests, and "treasure hunts". Witnesseth: headline from paper of 1999: "little Joey BigEyes discovers alien artifact on Titan in 1992 NASA data" The phone book is an _excellent_ application. "All smiths, joe thru john, who live between 42nd and 44th street" Data = power. Gimme! Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#110269From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJun 28, 1990 3:21 AM
Ben, I don't buy that. Sight is necessary to the full enjoyment of everyday life. Ask any person that was once sighted and now is blind. Sure, they have adapted themselves and their lifestyles to match their current condition, but it's not the same. Right now, there is nothing I'm aware of that CDTV can do that can't be done (although perhaps much harder) by some other means. There are lots of things that can't be done without sight. Yes, CDTV (or any of the CD type applications) are "nice to have", but I certainly wouldn't dare to put them in the same category as having full sight. There are weeks that go by where I don't watch TV at all, yet there isn't a waking minute that goes by where I don't use my eyes. Yet CDTV is simply an extension of a TV. It allows you to program what you want, when you want it and how you want to use it. While it may allow you to take a guided tour of a museum, it's not the same as actually visiting the museum. That would be nice for those that can't (for whatever reason) visit the museum in person. Why do you think that hundreds of thousands of folks go to football games in person, when they could simply stay home and watch it on TV. Because it's much better in person. TV is a hollow shell of reality. CDTV will also be a hollow shell. Can I sit and study an object via CDTV….pick it up and feel it? Can I look at the brush strokes on a painting via CDTV, can I see the interaction of the light on the various parts or the translucence in old paintings? Does a 2 dimensional image of anything give you the same feeling as the real 3 dimensional object where you pick the angle(s) of view? Of course not. Don
#110318From: JAMES D. WILLIAMSJun 28, 1990 3:25 PM
Don… they called it CDTV… not 'The Holadeck'. <grin> –Eet– Director of Mayhem Extra Terrestrial Imports, Ltd.
#110356From: C. Davey UtterJun 28, 1990 9:47 PM
Don, It occurs to me as I read this that it might be possible to examine an object in much greater detail than you actually could in a museum. That Grecian urn with all the hot love scenes turned to the back could be examined in pretty nice detail, turned over and around and looked into, etc. THAT would be really nice! …Dave
#110375From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJun 29, 1990 2:51 AM
Dave, Depends on the object. Certainly if it's a fragile object, the museum will have it under wraps…you won't be able to handle it. But by the same token, you can still view it as a whole, or examine small details in juxtaposition with one another. While for a gross examination, a picture wouldn't be too bad, for looking at details it'd be like the old story of the 3 blind men examining an elephant..and each comming up with a different description. Don
#110380From: C. Davey UtterJun 29, 1990 7:24 AM
Don, Seems like you could have the object, say a vase, and examine it from all angles, almost as if you were handling it. …Dave
#110456From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJun 30, 1990 1:14 AM
Dave, Can you roll it back and forth in your hands, and see the pattern change…or do you jump from one view to another? Can you study the glaze, imperfections in the glaze? Can you see the uniformity of the glaze, or any imperfections in it? Etc. Don
#110591From: C. Davey UtterJul 1, 1990 3:48 AM
Don, No, of course not, but can you do that with the Grecian vase in the glass case? I'm not saying that this would do anything but augment viewing of the real object. You will admit that it would be better than nothing. …Dave
#110690From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJul 1, 1990 11:41 PM
Dave, In that respect, yes…it'd be better than nothing, but using that same analogy…a photograph (or series of photos) would be even better. Don
#110709From: C. Davey UtterJul 2, 1990 1:23 AM
Don, A series of digitized photos, from all anglesk, in a computer, that could be animated and manipulated would be better than stills. God, you're a stubborn bugger! …Dave
#110714From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJul 2, 1990 2:07 AM
Dave, I'm stuborn because I believe what I say. I'd rather see the pictures rather than a digitized representation of them. Don
#110713From: Rick StevensJul 2, 1990 2:05 AM
Uh, here in California, you're not allowed to have anything video in the vehicle that the driver can see while operating the vehicle. This precludes a monitor, TV, whatever. Apparently it _is_ OK to have video stuff that acts like a heads-up display — that is, if it projects the display onto the windshield, but doesn't obstruct the view forward. Or, maybe I'm misreading the Vehicle Code. There was a lot of activity in this area back when dressed-up vans were popular. Rick Stevens/MicroBotics
#110717From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJul 2, 1990 2:16 AM
Rick, Our law reads the same…except it specifically says "TV" since when that particular law was written….that was the only video device available. Having one in the back seat, where the driver can't see it is ok. We also outlaw wearing of headphones while driving. Don
#110755From: Tom RobinsonJul 2, 1990 4:03 PM
Hmm — using THAT argument, we might as well use newsprint instead of hypertext. The idea is that if desired, computers can not only enhance the image but present it in ways not even possible in the real world. =Tom=
#110822From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJul 3, 1990 1:18 AM
Tom, I wouldn't buy a hypertext machine, or any other machine, to simply read the morning newspaper. Would you? What I'm saying, and have said all along, is that any machine (and in this particular case…CDTV) MUST have at least one application that justifies it's cost. Part of that justification must include cost effectiveness. Completely off the subject of computers, but perhaps a good example is the simple hammer. Almost every household has a hammer in the house. "Joe Average Homeowner" has an occasional need to nail something together and thus it's cost effective for him (her) to buy a $10 hammer rather than hire a handyman to do the job. But by the same token, Joe doesn't own an air powered nail gun (at $300 or more, plus the cost of an air compressor at another $300 or more) because it's simply not cost effective. But, "Harry House Framer" does own both a compressor and nail gun because for him (her) it is cost effective. He can do his job (make $$$) in about 1/2 the time because of it. Harry can put together a bookcase with the nail gun, and blow up his tires with the compressor also. Nice side benefits of owning them, but Joe, who could also do those same things…doesn't because it's still not cost effective. There's no single application that "Joe" can use to justify that type of purchase. Now, yes, there are always exceptions. There are folks who don't frame homes for a living, or anything even like that…who own nail guns and air compressors. But if the manufacturers depended on those folks only to buy their products…they'd be out of business rather quickly. continued… Don
#110827From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJul 3, 1990 1:30 AM
continuation… So, while yes, all together, all the things that you could do at some time or another with a CDROM type device are 'neat' and useful things, I see no single application yet available that will capture the public's imagination and make those devices a big seller. The applications I've seen suggested so far, are "simple" applications that can be done much cheaper by some other method. Don