One of the risks of the term "virtual worlds" is that people tend to associate it with the discredited term "virtual reality." Well, maybe that bug will be a feature someday -- our friends at NASA say all that gloves and helmet stuff didn't come to fruition as quickly as we all hoped, but that we shouldn't feel free to write it off completely. Article here. (Caveat: Obligatory Matrix references to be found.)
Update: Maybe the glove isn't needed? (Thx Gonzalo!)
As I've noted previously: Avatar Heal Thy Self (terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/05/avatar_heal_thy.html) there is actually quite a lot of hard core research going on in the medical uses of VR.
So it might not be sexy any more, but it has tured out to be useful.
Posted by: ren | Jun 22, 2004 at 14:19
That's right.
I suppose I shouldn't have used the adjective "discredited." I actually meant something more like "egregiously overhyped by marketers a decade ago," which is the way the article describes VR.
Posted by: greglas | Jun 23, 2004 at 04:50
Another story today on the medical uses of VR.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=9819
Posted by: greglas | Jun 23, 2004 at 05:06
greglas >I suppose I shouldn't have used the adjective "discredited."
I think it was a fine adjective, as both the term and its connotations have been largely discredited in the public sphere. Now that there is real value coming out of all the research, it’s probably time for a re-branding exercise.
Posted by: ren | Jun 23, 2004 at 09:07
From CNN: "Potentially, people paralyzed by disease or accidents could use such [direct-to-brain] devices to work, read, write and even possibly to move around."
Um, duh. And what about the much more likely possibility that hundreds of millions of people will use intense videogame interfaces to get their rocks off in innumerable ways on a 24/7/365 basis??? Amazing how the more obvious implications get overlooked in favor of mundane and less threatening ones.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Jun 23, 2004 at 21:06
I didn't know this technology was bi-directional. That's a whole other story, and exponentially harder.
Or is that not what you meant?
Posted by: Staarkhand | Jun 24, 2004 at 11:19