Whatever happened to Second Life?

I've just read Snow Crash, which features a virtual environment, the Metaverse, so like a super-version of Second Life that I'm almost certain the designers of SL must have been inspired by the book. And reading about it reminded me just how seriously people were taking this online virtual reality environment a few years ago - yet now Second Life appears to have dropped off the radar.

When I first started blogging in the Nature Network, that august publication was arranging seminars in Second Life, companies were holding meetings in it, and people were making fortunes selling Second Life wares. I thought the whole concept of meeting up in a tacky virtual environment was crazy - surely video was far better - yet the media and many big companies were convinced that the hip audience would flock to this kind of thing. But now it's all gone rather quiet.

I've never bothered with Second Life myself, and a straw poll on Facebook got me no response from anyone who uses it seriously, but from what I've read by those who do still frequent it, the main section of the Second Life world has become like a ghost-town after the makers set up an adults only continent - apparently that's still very lively, but obviously its dubious attractions are not why all those big names of science, technology and business were setting up SL presences - and their idea clearly has fallen apart.

I can't say I'm sad - it always seemed more a collective delusion than a sensible way forward. I'd love to hear from anyone who was an SL fan or involved in corporate use of it, like that at Nature. Do let us know the whys and wherefores - and whether you still think it was a good idea.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog