> Too many museums get caught up in ...
> the newest and best equipment/technology.

I'm wondering, "Is this bad?"  To the extent that any addiction
can be bad, if it is, indeed, an addiction, the pursuit of hyper-tech
can be bad.  But, it certainly can't be as bad as the inverse:
museums/individuals on a constant quest for the dull-edge.  If
museums want to plan pursuit for the newest and best technology,
I can't see is that it would be such a bad thing.  Museums have
a stuffy/old-school/librarian reputation as it is.  Is there some
reason why museums may _not_ be the fore-runners of something?

> This means that you really need to decide what you
> are trying to accomplish before you start buying equipment and putting a
> lot of hours in on new projects.

I think this is a big part of Ian's point.  Rushing into anything
without a plan can cost you, but computers/VR can cost you a bundle :)
What I was trying to say was that there fairly high quality, _cheap_
alternatives to a fully immersive Reality Monster; alternatives that
will allow museums to do more than research while considering
possibilities.

> over here, QTVR and all kinds of fancy stuff in museums, and I have seen a

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but Quick Time VR is
... I'm trying to think of an appropriately degrading word ... it's
just a picture!  It's not VR.  It's nothing ... but, hey it's sexy
for a web page, and it has a lot of hype behind it...

> some real (or imagined?) cutting-edge global museum scene.  I guess they
> think they will lose their audience and their funding.

Well, as you say, there's no threat to the experience of physical
objects in a museum.  I went to the Smithsonian because they had
the actual thing that John Glen sat in while he orbited the Earth,
not because there was a replica of it.  VR often forces people to
define exactly what _something else_ is.  As far as the Global
Museum, yes, there is sort-of-such-a-thing.  On-line museums offer
people who can (or wouldn't otherwise) get to a museum the chance
to view certain things.  O.K. but, there's no difference between
any two on-line museums.  If you're the only museum with the actual
_Nude Descending A Staircase_, and you put an image of it on-line,
what's the difference between that and the image of the same painting
that I have on my page?  Nothing.  If you start to think about it
like that, then maybe what museums really do is offer people a
chance to see the _actual_ ship that John Glenn sat in.



> It really seems like automation happens without a plan far too frequently
> What do you 3-D VR whizzes think?  Is it too "retro" to sit here and issue
> warnings about putting the cart before the horse at this point?

There are two things I want to say to that.  First, (as I think I
said somewhere up there) inexpensive, realistic, high quality
options for VR exist.  The second thing is, the popular distaste
for technology is realy unhealthy.  Movies like Robo Cop, and
The Terminator are two examples of rescent "technology takes
the humanity out of humans" fear stories.  But then, so is
the Tin Woodsman from the Wizard of OZ.  And the movie
Metropolis (1850's), and the book Frankenstein.  I mean, after
a few hundred years, can we get over it?  Yes, it's o.k. to
rush head-long into VR ... you won't accidentally turn into
a cyborg!  You'll just loose some money :)

> My personal thoughts as far as the Internet and VR go:

You'll start to see a lot more of "real" VR once more
people catch on to VRML.  But, the Web will eventually
be 3D...................................Pioneer Joel