Archive for the 'Second Life' category

"Whence Supernovae" : online talk on Saturday March 3

At 10AM PST (18:00 UT), I will be giving a talk in Second Life entitled "Whence Supernovae?" This is an update to a talk I gave with the same title back in September 2010. I'll go over some of the same groundwork, but will also share some of the latest results that have only come out in papers in the last couple of months.

The topic is Type Ia supernovae. These are the type of supernovae that were used to discover that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. However, even now, we aren't completely sure just where these supernovae come from. We know a lot, and indeed just within the last half year we've come to know a lot more, but some questions remain.

Remember that a Second Life account is free! For more information about the talk (including the location in Second Life), visit the MICA website, and particularly the Upcoming Public Events page.

Share

No responses yet

Online Talk Tomorrow (12-03) About FTL Neutrinos

Tomorrow morning, December 3, at 10:00AM pacific time (18:00 UT), I'll be giving the MICA public outreach talk about the faster-than-light neutrino results from CERN and Grand Sasso. The talk will include an overview of the OPERA experiment that has led to the result, a summary of the result, my own headscratching about whether or not it's real, and some notes about what this does (and, more importantly, does not) imply about our confidence in the theory of Relativity.

The talk will be at the MICA Large Ampitheater, and all are welcome. Remember, a Second Life account is free!

Share

No responses yet

Online Talk, 10AM Pacific Time : SpaceTime Diagrams

As a part of MICA, the Meta-Institute of Computational Astrophysics, I will be giving a public talk tomorrow morning entitled "Understanding Relativity with SpaceTime Diagrams".

Einstein's theory of Relativity completely changed our notions of reality in the early 20th century. Time, it turns out, is not absolute, but rather mixes with space in a particular way that depends on how fast a clock (or other time measuring device) is moving relative to whoever is asking questions about it. Spacetime diagrams are a great tool for understanding Special Relativity. In this talk I'll introduce a few of the startling results of Special Relativity, and show how they can be described using spacetime diagrams. In next week's talk (September 17), we'll use SpaceTime diagrams as a tool to help us describe the geometry near black holes.

The talk will be at the MICA Large Ampitheater in Second Life. Remember that Second Life accounts are free, so register today!

Share

One response so far

Virtual World enthusiasts should boycott SpotOn3D

There was some buzz in the OpenSim arena recently because SpotOn3D released a browser plugin client for their customized OpenSim-based virtual world.

Why is this significant? Truthfully, the reason it's significant is because people have very messed-up perceptions about computer software. For years, I've heard people say that Second Life and other virtual worlds would be easier to use if you could "just run it inside a browser" rather than having to download a whole separate client program. The problem with this is that browsers don't support the entire client rendering engine and protocol layer that Second Life or OpenSim needs. That means that you do in fact have to download a plugin, and the plugin that you download has to do basically everything that the software package you would have downloaded will do. In other words, you're just doing exactly the same thing, downloading a fairly substantial piece of software. The only difference is perception; people seem to perceive, somehow, that if it's inside their browser, it's easier to use than if it's a separate program. (And, from my point of view, just like everything else that's run "inside a browser", it will tend not to be as smooth or as good as when you have a dedicated program for it. That's changing, as browsers are converging towards operating systems, but they're not there yet.)

Ah well. The truth is, though, that browsers have plugin managers that make it marginally easier to download and run plugins than it is to download a separate software package... and for many users, that margin of difference matters. (For people like me, it's a negative; browser plugin installation, because it's designed to be easy, is opaque. I like to know where software being installed on my system is going!) What's more, plugin download lets you do an end-run around institutional IT molasses, where you can't get software regularly installed and updated on systems you need. This matters in particular for education, where IT is used to installing things before a semester or a school year... but virtual worlds, being alpha in nature, have necessary updates on a much shorter timescale. Plugins, however, often get installed in your own user account (which from my point of view is horribly inefficient), and so you can install them without having to wait for IT to approve and do it. So, perhaps browser plugins are important.

The real problem with SpotOn3D, though, isn't that they've created a browser plugin. Indeed, although I think it's more smoke and mirrors than real innovation, they would deserve some approval for doing this. No, what we should boycott them for is patenting the idea of a browser plugin. (Edit: the patent isn't approved, however; they've just applied for it. It's possible the patent will get turned down, although the USPTO has granted a lot of patents that should have been turned down. Nonetheless, SpotOn3D has already done the foul deed by applying for the patent.)

Software patents are bullshit. Indeed, increasingly, patents in general are. If you read the US constitution, nominally they are there to foster progress in the useful sciences and arts. In practice, today, however, they hamper innovation. One person or company pisses all over a general area of doing something with software, and now nobody else can do anything with it for two decades unless they pay protection money. Supposedly, this is to protect people from having their inventions stolen. But, again, in practice, the vast majority of software patents aren't a surprising new innovation; they're things that many programmers can (and have) come up with, things that developers have already come up with, or an obvious extension. Patents are supposed to be a way of making surprising new innovations public so that everybody can benefit from them; they are there to provide an incentive to make things public. However, they way they're working in today's economy, especially with regard to software and "business methods", is that they turn first-to-market (or "first to claim to want to get to market") with a straightforward idea into a government-protected monopoly that lasts two decades. And, indeed, there exist parasite companies out there that do nothing but acquire patents and sue other companies and people for violating those patents. In other words, they exist only to stop people from doing things. That's completely absurd.

And, even if the patent is bullshit and would eventually be overturned if somebody fought it, just going to court to fight it is expensive, often prohbitively so. The result is that a lot of people settle for patents they shouldn't have. It's bullies on the school yard. If you actually went to the teacher and told them the bullies were trying to take your lunch money, you wouldn't lose your lunch money. But on many school yards, the cost of doing that is frightening enough that you just give in to the bullies. This is not fostering innovation.

A company that gets patents in good faith— for instance, only to use defensively against other patent assaults (which doesn't work against trolls, by the way)— is marginally better. But only marginally. Unless that company is huge enough that we can count on it not going away, like PanAm or Borders, there's always the possibility that a few years (or even a decade) down the line they (or their assets) will be bought by another company who has no qualms against using "defensive" patents to get undeserved income from other people who are actually doing anything.

Open Source is particularly vulnerable to patents. The nature of open source is that you distribute what you've done and let other people use it. However, if your code is patent encumbered, it may not matter that you've open sourced it; anybody else who wants to use it may face the threat of attacks from patent trolls. So, it's particularly galling that SpotOn3D, which is built on top of open source— the OpenSim server code and the Second Life client code— would enter the software patent arena.

So, amidst all this excitement about SpotOn3D providing a browser plugin, we need to remember that they are acting in extremely bad faith, and that they are participating in a legal activity that can only harm virtual worlds, and is especially a threat to the open source virtual world effort. For this reason, I strongly urge any virtual world enthusiast to boycott SpotOn3D. Do not reward companies that behave in such bad faith.

Share

18 responses so far

"Galaxies in Collision" : public online talk today at 10:00AM PDT

As of this writing, in just over an hour I'll be giving a talk in Second Life on the topic "Galaxies in Collision".

Second Life is an online virtual world. Basic accounts in Second Life are free. I regularly give these talks as a part of MICA, the Meta-Institution of Computational Astronomy. Most Saturday mornings at 10AM pacific time (17:00 UT if we're during Daylight Savings), MICA has a public outreach astronomy talk. (However, like many academic institutions, we tend to slow down and get spotty over the summer.)

This talk will be at the MICA Large Amphitheater.

Share

No responses yet

Online talk tomorrow morning : "Neutrino: Placeholder Particle"

I'll be giving a talk in Second Life tomorrow morning at 10AM pacific time. (That's Saturday, Feb 5, at 18:00 UT.) This is part of a regular talk series; follow that link to find the slides and audio recordings from most of the previous talks I've given in the series. Remember that a Second Life account is free! Come and hear the talk. You can also ask questions in text chat, which I generally try to respond to as the talk is ongoing.

Tomorrow's talk is entitled "Neutrino: Placeholder Particle". I'll talk about the history of the discovery of the neutrino. Even Pauli, the guy who proposed the neutrino, was uncomfortable with making up a new particle that nobody had seen to explain things that seemed to be missing from other observations. There are clear parallels to Dark Matter today, with many being uncomfortable that we've got most of the Universe made out of stuff that we can't identify. I'll also talk about our current state of knowledge of the neutrino, and I hope to get into the issue of how the "mass neutrinos" are not the same as the "flavor neutrinos", and even though there are three of each, there are still only three total neutrinos. (It's a Schrödingers Cat sort of thing.)

Here's the abstract I sent to Paradox Olbers, the organizer of the MICA talks:

Sometimes critics of nonbaryonic dark matter will characterize it as a "placeholder particle"-- the name we give to the fact that we can't find particles doing the things that we see happening gravitationally. Of course, dark matter is not new in astronomy; Uranus, for instance, was originally detected indirectly. Nor are palceholder particles new in particle physics. The neutrino was originally proposed more than 20 years before it was first observed. In this talk, I'll go over the history of our discovery of the neutrino, and how it was in fact astronomy that led to some relatively recent important discoveries about these elusive little particles.

Share

No responses yet

One-Slide Explanation of Tides

I realize that this Bill O'Reilly quote is two weeks old, which in Internet time is a substantial fraction of the age of the Universe. And, the Internet being what it is, a top conservative commentator can't say something this butt-ignorant without having bloggers jump all over him within seconds. So, yes, I realize that I'm way, way behind the times, sort of like somebody getting all snarky to the dinosaurs because they didn't invest in programs tracking near-Earth asteroids. But, still, I think it bears repeating, to remind ourselves collectively the kind of people who are shaping the agenda of an entire political party in the USA right now.

Here's my one-slide explanation of how the tides work:


Click image for larger version

This slide does go along with some speaking, normally. Indeed, it is one (of 28) slides that I'll be using in the talk I'm giving in Second Life in about half an hour, all about interacting galaxies and whether or not they're connected to the phenomenon of active galactic nuclei. (Really, tides are relevant to this story!)

Share

17 responses so far

Online talk tomorrow morning: "Observational Evidence for Black Holes"

Tomorrow morning, I'll be giving a public lecture entitled Observational Evidence for Black Holes. This is part of a regular series of talks sponsored by MICA, Saturday mornings at 10:00 AM pacific time (1:00 PM Eastern, 18:00 UT). They're open to anybody.

These talks are in Second Life. A basic Second Life account— everything you need to attend the talk— is free. Go to the Second Life page I just linked in order to sign up. Once you've downloaded the Second Life viewer, and have created an account and logged in to Second Life, you can follow the link on our Upcoming Public Events page to find the talk.

Here's my blurb for tomorrow's talk:

Black holes are a theoretical prediction of Einstein's Relativity. But do they really exist? The answer is a nuanced "yes." We have observational evidence for two sorts of black holes. In our Galaxy, we observe black holes that are several times the mass of the Sun. At the core of almost every big Galaxy, we find a supermassive black hole that's a million or more times the mass of the Sun. In this talk, I'll give an overview of the evidence that these objects are in fact black holes. I'll also point out that the observational definition of "black hole", meaning those things that we know exist, isn't exactly the same as the definition of the objects predicted by Relativity, although most astronomers suspect and assume that what we observe are in fact the things that Relativity predicts.

Share

No responses yet

"Whence Supernovae?" : Online public astronomy talk Saturday Sep. 11

Sep 10 2010 Published by under Astronomy & Physics, Second Life, [PhysicalScience]

The summer is over, and that means that MICA is resuming its activities. MICA is currently undergoing internal evaluation and evolution, but one thing that we're going to keep doing is our regular public astronomy outreach talks. This Saturday, I'll be talking about where supernovae come from:

There are two types of supernovae: thermonuclear and core-collapse supernovae. Both signal the deaths of stars as best we understand them. Thermonuclear supernovae in particular have been important as tools to tell us about the Universe. It was observations of such events out to great distances that told us the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Yet, supernova science has a dirty secret: our model for how these events occur hasn't been observationally confirmed. In the last year, X-ray observations have called into question what many of us believed to be the primary mechanism for the production of such stellar explosions. In this talk, I'll give an overview of what we do know about these thermonuclear supernovae, and what the current state of knowledge is in figuring out just where they came from.

The talk is at 10AM pacific time in Second Life. Remember that Second Life accounts are free! Follow the link to sign up. Once you're in Second Life, follow this link to find the MICA Public Amphitheater, which is where the talk will be.

For more information, look at the MICA Events web page, and follow the links to see slides from previous talks, and announcements of upcoming talks.

(As for why I've been so quiet in the last couple of weeks: soon I will make a post about what it's like to teach on the block plan!)

Share

No responses yet

Second Life's greatest asset, and how it was squandered

Jun 13 2010 Published by under Linden Lab, Second Life, Second Life Technology

Before I start, I should note that I haven't worked for Linden Lab for more than a year now, so I'm not giving away any inside information, nor do I have any inside information. Yes, my opinions are formed partially by what I learned while I was inside Linden, but I'm writing this based on my observation as an interested outsider.

I think often the way to kill a business is to over-monetize it. I remember the 1990's, and Web search engines. The pattern was repeated over and over again. There'd be one that was the best. They'd realize they were the best, and they'd either get sold or they'd try to monetize their business. The page would go from being relatively clean, to being a cluttered mess of ads... and the search results, being increasingly paid, would become less and less useful. So we'd all move on to another engine. That ended with Google, who had the vision not to try too soon to over-monetize their search, and who recognized when they did monetize it that they had to do it in a way that didn't completely undermine what brought people there in the first place. If you're doing something new and cool, you're better off focusing on how to make it cooler than you are focusing on how to squeeze a buck out of it.

How does this apply to Linden? Many think that Linden's best asset is their technology. It's not. Don't get me wrong, the technology is good; but it can be replicated. Server side, OpenSim is already well on its way to replicating (and in some ways exceeding) the server side technology of Second Life. Client side, the Second Life client is still way ahead of anything out there that's not based on the GPL Second Life client source, but that won't last forever; after all, there are lots of MMO clients out there, so it can be done! No, Linden's greatest asset is its audience.

I know Philip got this. Talking to the company while I was still there (a year before I left? I don't remember) about OpenSim and competition in general, he said that OpenSim and interoperability would only be positive for Second Life. After all, Second Life had the greatest number of residents. Even if that didn't stay, a growing interest in and a growing usefulness of virtual worlds would only help Second Life. Alas, the company as a whole didn't realize this. What they should have been focusing on was promoting virtual worlds. Instead, they... well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what they were focusing on, but they didn't direct substantial effort towards promoting virtual worlds in general. And that was the mistake that, I believe, led to the massive June 9 layoffs, or what I call "Lindenmageddon".

In 2008, a team of engineers from Second Life working together with a team from OpenSim premiered a bold and exciting experiment. From the beta grid (Aditi), users were able to take their Second Life accounts and teleport to regions running the OpenSim server. The functionality was extremely basic, but it was a concept demonstration. This was the first step to interoperability. I was only peripherally involved in this myself. As a member of the server release team (perhaps server release manager by then?), I helped the engineers working on this get some regions set up, and would warn Whump whenever we were going to do things to aditi that might interupt his operations. (I also annoyed Whump a few times when doing things on the beta grid without giving him enough warning....) But, when the experiments were happening, I joined in with other Lindens and residents to see what all the fuss was. I felt like I was walking on the moon. I remember commenting to others that we were exploring grand new worlds, taking the first (and very limited) step in what was going to be a gigantic new thing. People outside the lab were talking about the possibility of true interoperability in the main grid (the production Second Life environment) during 2009. It was all very exciting. Second Life was bursting out of its shell, and was finally providing the seed for the true global metaverse that it had always promised that it could turn into.

Alas, after that, the interoperability work coming out of Linden Lab slowed to a trickle. It didn't stop, but outside nobody else saw anything new. Many of the engineers working on it were redirected to work on the (now defunct) "Second Life Enterprise" product. (I always personally thought that was a dead-end, but I was careful who I said that too. I was annoyed that some release people we needed for other things had time taken away working on it, and I was sad that the manager whom I loved, Josh Linden, got pulled over to it. But I was also sad to see the company working on the 3D version of Novell Networks instead of the 3D version of the Internet.) Yes, Linden still did things; Enus, at least, was working on the PyOGP stack, and Zero and Infinity were involved in standards meeting and developing the WVRAP protocol. (Incidentally, Infinity left Linden Lab a month ago, and Zero was part of the June 9 Lindenmageddon layoffs.) But there was no big effort. Out of this lack of more public progress from Linden was born Hypergrid, Crista Lopes' working interoperability protocol between separate OpenSim grids. Hypergrid still has some things it's lacking, but it got much farther than any implementation out of Linden.

And now concurrency (number of people online at one time) in Second Life has been sagging, and the lack of growth has caused financial distress for the lab. (I don't have inside figures, but Tateru Nino figured out at least this much from looking at the public figures.) Yes, it's a recession. But Linden made the mistake of having people in control who were business types, who think in terms of consumers and monetization. They didn't get Second Life. (Truthfully, nobody does, and the first step to understanding virtual worlds is recognizing that you don't get it. It's a tremendously flexible potential platform. Like the Web, if you try to put it in a conceptual silo and productize it, you're going to be making something like early 1990's walled-garden AOL, which will fail in the face of the true Web.)

I work with MICA, the Meta-Institute of Computational Astronomy. We maintain a presence in Second Life, even though really we'd rather be working on open source servers that we control ourselves-- i.e. OpenSim. There are two main reasons why we stay with Second Life. The first is that OpenSim doesn't yet have a good Voice solution... but that will change. The second is that Second Life is where everybody is. The popular talks that I and some others give wouldn't make sense anywhere else, because the audience isn't there. And this is what Second Life's greatest asset is.

If Linden Lab had focused on helping make virtual worlds take off-- make them more useful by providing functionality people wanted and needed, working on interoperability so that people could take their Second Life accounts to and from software that was developed not only by Linden engineers, but by everybody-- I predict they would have done a whole lot better. Their already existing audience would have given them a leg up, and would have kept them a leader or at least a major player. Yes, they would have been helping "competitors", but by raising the profile, utility, and popularity of virtual worlds in general, they would have helped themselves.

I predict that the decline of Linden will set back the adoption of virtual worlds several years. And that may not be so bad. After all, before the Web, there was Gopher, which was never all that big. Before that, there was CompuServe, a walled garden that a lot of people used, but which became increasingly irrelevant as there was the Web. Second Life had the opportunity to be the seed for the 3D web, but instead they chose to focus on being the 3D CompuServe. As we go into the future, OpenSim, or another platform that defines its protocols, provides a working reference implementation, and supports true interoperability will form the basis of the true global metaverse. And, once we have that, and once people are able to develop cool things to run on top of it as flexibly as possible (i.e. not limited to just LSL and renting space on Linden's servers), we'll see the metaverse take off. As to whether or not Second Life is part of that, we can only wait and watch. It will take more vision than trying to somehow connect to current hot buzzwords ("social media") if they really want to be a part of this. And even if they are, they may not be a meaningful part. (After all, AOL is still a part of the Internet, is it not? But with the possible exception of the AIM protocol, they aren't a meaningful part.)

Share

31 responses so far

Older posts »

Bad Behavior has blocked 45 access attempts in the last 7 days.