What can you do in a virtual world? Quite a bit, although we're still quite far from the answer being, “Anything you can do in the real world.” Here's a baseline list of today's raw capabilities, in the language of virtual worlds. (The higher level activity one does with these capabilities is another story.) [Read More!]

In The Perfect Storm, a fisherman tries to escape his economic burdens by shooting through the convergence of three massive storm systems. If he survives, he comes out a better man. We have a perfect storm of energy and economic problems, but I believe that there is a way to navigate through them by pitting one front against another in a novel way. [Read More!]

There's a lot of interest in voting technology for the expected record numbers of voters in the US presidential election, and voting widgets have become an expected accessory in social Web sites. But the simplest voting technology is no explicit technology. Is there a place for that in virtual worlds? [Read More!]

I wanted to post a quick response to John's link to a new book on IT management. But the site wouldn't let me because my reaction didn't fit in the 5000 character box. So I'll have to do it this way... [Read More!]

The UK's Tech Radar has a preview of a nice piece that will appear in PC Plus. It overviews Intel's Miramar work on 3D and collaboration.

Meanwhile, there's a nice discussion of much more of the history of Miramar on this blog.

I think the two make a nice example of the difference between blogging and first sources on the one hand, and journalism on the other.

Last time I argued that from a technical perspective, the “server”, “client”, and “P2P” labels were complicated. That narrow view deliberately ignored the roles that these technologies have on the user, and on communities and business built around them.

I've been looking back at Paul Graham's 2001 essay on “The Other Road Ahead.” He laid out a bunch of benefits that accrued from his successful company's use of what he called a server-based architecture. While Viaweb originally relied on generic “Web 1.0” clients not distributed by his company, his essay looked ahead to richer clients such as what would come to be known as “Web 2.0.” I think the essay applies just as well today to mixed-technology deployments like Google's current development. And I think it applies to some Croquet deployments, including those by my employer Qwaq. A lot of what Paul describes turns out to be things we're already doing. But by explicitly identifying the benefits and what enables them to be realized, even a peer/client-centric geek like me can appreciate the operational value of the different technologies I'd mentioned last time. From this perspective, I'd say we're “half-server-based.”

Worth a read (as are his other essays). See if you don't agree.

I was taught that science is all about managing complexity by creating abstractions over different domains. A common layman's mistake is to anecdotally observe or hear that something is true at some level, somewhere, and assume that this fact or definition applies throughout every discussion. For example:
One hears that computers are “programmed in binary,” or that they “understand binary,” but in fact, programmers don't write in binary. Programmers work at a higher level of abstraction than binary encoding.
One hears that computers use “digital circuits,” that are simply “on” or “off”, but in fact, the physics of each electronic component is continuously variable. Device physics is at a lower level of abstraction than digital electronics.

So, what's a server and what is peer-to-peer? It depends on what 's being discussed?

[Read More!]

I'm old enough to vaguely remember Walter Cronkite forty years ago showing us hand painted “NASA Simulation” video of the Apollo spacecraft maneuvering in space. There simply was no way to position a news camera outside the Lunar and Command Modules to get the shot.

Now we have computer generated movies and commercials. I've seen computer simulations of plane crashes and of presidential candidates. But yesterday morning was the first time I'd seen computer-generated pictures of human participants in breaking news. I'm not sure I approve of the concept altogether, but given it's existence I do like the editorial decision to render the named humans in untextured solid red.

[Read More!]

We had had our usual weekly Engineering Meeting yesterday. Some slides, a couple of charts, some spreadsheet pages, and a bunch of folks arguing. Nothing exciting, although it was pretty cool for random attendees to change the slides and spreadsheet in real time, and to put post-its on them.

As usual, our weekly meeting was in-world. No one commented about the technology. No one commented about the fact that the meeting was lead by a manager away at MIT, some engineers were in Maryland and Oregon, and some folks were at home saving gas rather than in the office. Boring.

Pretty cool, no?