From: mklapman@adsl (Matthew Klapman)
Subject: Re: Computerized Reality: Better than VR
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 01:26:05 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, ADSL



In article <1991Jul18.183614.7808@milton.u.washington.edu> harry@harlqn.co.uk 
(Harry Fearnhamm) writes:

>From: sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp):
>
>   I do not see the utility of a VR that is so close to reality that for
>   all practicle purposes it is one. That is, why should I bother using
>   compute time to jot down notes on a virtual piece of paper when I
>   could jot them down on the real thing ? Will I be able to find that
>   little bit of information any easier ? Perhaps, perhaps not. 
>
>And then again the virtual piece of paper will kill no trees...

 (stuff deleted).

Trees may not be killed, but the electricity used for the VR
system is probably generated by a polluting generator such as
a nuclear plant or coal (unless a clean source of power: hydro, 
solar, etc.)... the first rule in environmental study is: 
"There is no such thing as a free lunch," so the "best" solution
is the one which causes the least amount of damage to the environment.


-Matthew Klapman
 mklapman@adsl.ece.uiuc.edu

 Future Vision Technologies