Second Life is where our real life takes backstage, and a new and vibrant life of us takes over. But apparently, it is not as easy to escape reality as it seems to be. A recent controversy over child pornography on Wonderland (a Second Life region) shows how second life may not be too different from first life. The key question to that controversy is whether what is considered wrong/inappropriate should be allowed to exist in fantasy (a part of what second life is based on). No matter the answer to this question is yes or no, this debate shows that, as long as there are real human beings behind the avatars, we are subject to the same moral standards and ethical constraints in second life as we are in real life.
Category: Reality Check
Brain/Computer Merge
USA Today ran a short story on the integration of brain signals into video games. The featured company, Emotiv Systems, is about to start selling a neuro-headset that will be able to sense and transmit your brain signals into computerized video games. Video games will then integrate those signals into the play. While I don’t have the luxury of time to play much video game, I am fascinated by what this technology could mean to our virtual experiences. Take the example of a virtual world like Second Life (SL). While its 3D environment offers users a much more realistic experience, the ability of users to express, experience, and exchange emotions are still limited. If we were to add a neuro-headset, however, the opportunity for emotional exchange would become much greater. Musicians giving live in-world concerts will be able to feel the vibe of the crowd, and SL couples will be able to feel each other’s rush when they “kiss”. Does that mean a second life will be more addictive because it will be so real? Or does it mean that it will be less possible to separate a real self from a second-life avatar?
Microsoft’s Irrational Obsession with Google (Part II)
In Part I of this two-part series, I discussed the irrationality in Microsoft’s obsessive pursuit of Google. In this part, I suggest some of the opportunities that Microsoft may want to pursue instead:
-
The mobile market: The mobile market is still in its infancy. This is an area that Microsoft did make some early headways through its Windows Mobile platform. Google is quickly catching up by developing its own mobile applications. But jury is still out on who is going to win the mobile market. Microsoft needs to think much harder about what it can do in this market.
-
Instant messaging: Despite the launch of Google Talk and Gmail chat functionality, Microsoft’s Windows Live Messenger (formerly MSN Messenger) still has a much larger share of the instant messaging (IM) market. As IM technology is closely tied in with social networking and the mobile market, Microsoft can leverage its position in the IM market into these other fast-growing areas.
-
Platform-free internet-based applications. Google’s array of innovative software and online service solutions are moving computing toward a platform-less environment. This can significantly undermine the foundation of Microsoft’s business. In my opinion, this is a much bigger threat than the search market. To adapt to this change, Microsoft should work on moving its products to a common Internet platform. Rather than spending all the energy on preventing illegal use of its software, Microsoft will be better off taking a stronger lead into developing Internet applications that are not tied in to its Windows platform.
No matter how bad of an image Microsoft may have had in the last few years, we have to acknowledge that the company did play a significant role in computing history. It may still be able to continue its legacy if it could un-blind itself from Google.