Teancum writes "By now, most people are aware of the U.S. Army's video game, America's Army. It turns out that NASA has submitted a Request for Information for what would be a NASA-themed MMORPG of its own. The deadline for the proposals is February 15th. NASA's plans focus on education. 'A NASA-based MMO built on a game engine that includes powerful physics capabilities could support accurate in-game experimentation and research. It should simulate real NASA engineering and science missions in a medium that is comfortable and familiar to the majority of students in the United States today.' This certainly doesn't deserve to get thrown onto the traditional dust heap of educational proposals for a half-baked game that nobody will actually play."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Many supporters of AT&T's plans to double dip in internet charges by ending neutrality claim that the internet has never been neutral, and point to systems like Akamai as an example of this. However, as we've explained in the past, this is simply untrue. It's purposely stretching the definition of network neutrality to make a point that isn't supported by the facts. Services like Akamai help make the internet faster for everyone. It doesn't discriminate. It holds to the "end-to-end" principle that a connection you buy to the internet entitles you to reach any content across that entire network. That's not what AT&T is looking to do. It's claiming that you really only have access to the cloud in the middle, and someone needs to pay for the second half of that connection from the middle out to the server you're accessing.

Tim Lee (who, like me, does not support net neutrality legislation) has ripped apart a paper that claims that Akamai is an example of why the internet is not neutral. Lee notes that the author of the paper doesn't even seem to understand how Akamai works, and provides a nice (more technology focused) explanation for why content caching systems have little to do with the network neutrality discussion: "A network is neutral if it faithfully transmits information from one end of the network to the other and doesn't discriminate among packets based on their contents. Neutrality is, in other words, about the behavior of the routers that move packets around the network. It has nothing to do with the behavior of servers at the edges of the network because they don't route anyone's packets."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Doc Searls: "My main long-term concern is with The Environment."

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm. They used it to launch bowling balls, fireballs, and cans of beer toward a stationary target, and they controlled the catapult's aim with a graphical UI on a laptop. "I wanted to be able to control the rotation of the robot so we could aim the robot from the laptop, but I quickly realized that since the desert is so flat, we could do some basic ranging on the target too. I also wanted the targeting to be overlaid in 3d over a photograph of the target area. The software needed to control the robot like an MMO or RTS game. I suspect that video games, in general, have some of the most optimal control interfaces. I wanted to try a control scheme similar to the area effect spell targeting in World of Warcraft."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Last fall, we mentioned that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear yet another interesting patent case, looking at whether companies could sue up and down the supply chain for patent infringement. If you're familiar with the concept of the "first sale doctrine" in copyright law, this case looks at whether or not the same concept applies to patents as well. Basically, if Company A legitimately licenses a patent from Company B and then sells a product based on that product to Company C, who turns around and resells it (perhaps as a component of a larger product), can Company B sue Company C for patent infringement? Or, did Company B "exhaust" the right to control Company A's products once it licensed the patent? That's what happened in the case. LG licensed a patent to Intel, who used the patent to make some chips. Intel turned around and sold those chips to computer makers, such as Quanta, who put them in laptops, which they then sold. LG claims that all those laptop makers also need to license the patents, even though they bought the chips from someone who had already licensed them. Basically, it's LG trying to get paid multiple times for the same patent.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court actually heard the case, and most of the mainstream press coverage suggests that the Justices were extremely skeptical of LG's position, though others note that Supreme Court Justice tea leaves aren't so easy to read. It does sound like the Justices did focus in on the key issues, though, and were concerned about the absurdity of a situation where a company is still controlling the sale of a product after it's been sold. While we wait for a decision, expect to see a few more patent hoarders try to rush through infringement lawsuits where they sue up and down the supply chain. In the meantime, we're still curious to know why Yahoo sided with LG, while most tech firms sided with Quanta on the other side.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Ian Lamont writes "Nick Carr has generated a lot of discussion following his recent comments about the IT department fading away, but there are several other points he is trying to make about the rise of utility computing. He believes that the Web has evolved into a massive, programmable computer (the "World Wide Computer") that essentially lets any person or organization customize it to meet their needs. This relates to another trend he sees — a shift toward centralization. Carr draws interesting parallels to the rise of electricity suppliers during the Industrial Revolution. He says in a book excerpt printed on his blog that while decentralized technologies — the PC, Internet, etc. — can empower individuals, institutions have proven to be quite skilled at reestablishing control. 'Even though the Internet still has no center, technically speaking, control can now be wielded, through software code, from anywhere. What's different, in comparison to the physical world, is that acts of control become harder to detect and those wielding control more difficult to discern.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

holy_calamity writes "A Canadian chemical engineer has a novel solution to containing liquids in space. He has been experimenting with corkscrews of ribbon-like material that keep liquids suspended in their center while in microgravity. This effect is caused by the surface tension of the liquids. The helical containers allow the fluid to be sucked out of the coil in one go. In more conventional shapes, such as coffee cups, interaction between the container and the liquid's internal pressure makes the beverage break into annoying globules you have to chase with a straw."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

ESPN has entered into a multiyear agreement with Major League Gaming to provide exclusive online coverage of MLG's upcoming video game competitions. The online coverage is a natural fit for gaming, however, this relationship could segue into more regular coverage on ESPN's television channels. ESPN already regularly covers non-traditional "sports" on its television channels now, from poker to the national spelling bee, so seeing coverage of video game tournaments is not a huge stretch. Video gaming is one of the most popular activities for the young male set, and ESPN is responding to the changing interests of its key demographic. Last year, the USA network aired the MLG finals, and more recently, MLG gamers are starting to appear regularly on ESPN's "Cold Pizza" morning show. The allure of professional gaming has been around since the dawn of video games (remember The Wizard?). Korea (the site of the first world cyber games) leads the charge, with its professional video gamers making good money as early as 2003. That said, professional video gaming is still dwarfed by professional sports (and even professional poker), so it still remains uncertain whether or not it will ever grow to have wide appeal, or if it will remain a relative niche spectator interest.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET.co.uk, certain new Dell laptops with a brushed-aluminum finish are giving users more than they bargained for. 'We know this because several CNET staff were hit with an electrical charge while using Dell's new XPS M1530 — and we're not the only ones. Dell's forums are littered with user complaints about the shocking experiences they've had with some systems. The problem only seems to occur in Dell laptops that have a brushed-aluminum finish. These include the XPS M1330 and XPS M1530. It's caused by the two-pronged connection between the mains lead and the power adapter, which isn't earthed properly because of its lack of a third pin. The laptop therefore exhibits an electrical potential (voltage) between its exposed metal parts (the brushed aluminum wrist pad) and earth ground. Since there is no earth, the human body basically acts as a wire that can conduct electric current, hence the tingling, jolting sensation.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

contraba55 wrote with a link to an Engadget story on a sign of the postmodern times. Oscar Pistorius, a world-class sprinter, has been denied a shot at participating in the Olympics this year. He's a double-amputee, but he's not out because of his handicap; he's disqualified because he's faster than most sprinters. "The runner — who uses carbon-fiber, prosthetic feet — was reviewed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (or IAAF), a review which found the combination of man and machine to be too much for its purely human competitors. According to the IAAF report, the 'mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30-percent.' Additionally, Pistorius uses 25-percent less energy than average runners due to the artificial limbs, therefore giving him an unfair advantage on the track."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

I whipped up some easy icons for all three Boing Boing sites just in case anyone wants to save a page to the menu screen of their iPhone or iPod Touch with a spiffy custom button. (You have to be on the latest firmware to do this. And own an iPhone or iPod Touch. And have the desire to visit us on a regular basis.) In my infinite wisdom, I took Kevin Worthington's advice and made them twice as large as Apple advises, the better to be scaled down for "crispness"—except I think I made them 157 pixels square instead of 158, which I believe means they're not going to be any more crisp than anything else. But still, they look okay!

Earlier this week, some readers sent in the utterly ridiculous article from the Guardian in the UK working out all sorts of laughable conspiracy theories behind Facebook. It seemed rather strange that a publication like the Guardian would publish such a shoddy column. It bizarrely suggests that libertarians and neoconservatives are the same thing, when they're practically opposites on the political spectrum. Then it tries to link Facebook to the CIA via one of the more tenuous links out there. The idea that the CIA ran Facebook got some buzz on conspiracy sites a year or so ago, but to see it in a respected publication is really surprising. The connection discussed (the same one from the conspiracy sites) isn't just weak, it's wrong.

It tries to connect In-Q-Tel, the well-known venture capital arm of the CIA to Facebook. There are just a few problems with this. First, In-Q-Tel is run quite separately from the CIA. It is true that the CIA provides the money and In-Q-Tel looks for investments that in some way could help the CIA (though, often that's a very loose connection), but it's not like it's a bunch of spies running around and investing. It's basically a separate organization, run by experienced industry folks, not CIA agents. Then, the article claims that In-Q-Tel was formed in response to the events of 9/11, even though In-Q-Tel was formed in 1999 (which is noted in the article). It's difficult to see how it could have been formed in '99 as a result of an event two years in the future (I see now that the Guardian has issued a correction on that point). The fact is that 9/11 had no bearing on the creation of In-Q-Tel. Even more to the point: In-Q-Tel has no investment in Facebook. The actual connection is that some of Facebook's investors sat on the board of the National Venture Capital Association, with Gilman Louie, who originally ran In-Q-Tel (which he came to from a toy company, not from being a spy). That's like saying Warren Buffet really controls Microsoft, because he plays bridge with Bill Gates every once in a while. Just because the two are on the same board of a well-known group for venture capitalists, doesn't mean there's even the slightest connection between Facebook and the CIA.

And it's not just Facebook that's apparently got scary CIA connections. A video making its way around Digg is claiming "The Shocking Truth Behind Google's Ideology." It's not entirely clear what the origin of the video is, but the supervisor credited at the end is a professor in Germany. The video has scary music and frightening language. "The former students' project now rules the World Wide Web." And "the so-called PageRank." Oooh, scary. It also refers in ominous tones to "The Google Master Plan" which is a well-known (well, at least to some folks) joke.

It also throws in something about how Google wants to control all the world's information, rather than just organize it, which is a misleading addition to Google's actual mission. It tosses in some nice scare-mongering about how Google is doing this "all for free." It incorrectly states (with a very ominous image) that Google "stores the entire known web." Google does cache a portion of the public web, but that's quite different. Then it brings up the old claim about Google "scanning all your emails," implying that it's not just matching context for ads, but building a database of info about you based on your emails -- which is simply not true. It also falsely implies that Google is conducting research into genetics. It is true that Google invested in Sergey Brin's wife's company, which does genetics-related research, but that's not the same as saying that Google is doing that research. The video also takes the wild leap to somehow claim that Google will somehow get access to everyone's genetic info. And, then, of course, there's the CIA connection. The video claims that Google is actually creating "dossiers" on everyone and "working undercover with the CIA," according to the claims of a "former CIA agent," which involves a report on a well-known conspiracy theory radio show without any proof, that Google took some money from the CIA and now does things for the CIA.

The video doesn't ever get around to revealing any "shocking truth." It merely makes a bunch of ominous sounding, but either incorrect, or at least questionable, statements, and piles them together to say that something bad must be going on. Between these two things, coming out at about the same time, is there just some bizarre desire by some folks in Europe to accuse successful American internet firms of having some dark connection to the CIA?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lucas123 writes "Computerworld has a story on how bloggers, rumormongers and Web sleuths pulled together the story of the MacBook Air several days before Steve Jobs unveiled the laptop on stage on Tuesday, something that is nearly unprecedented in the annals of Apple announcements. 'Remember the sturm und drang that erupted after Think Secret revealed the coming of the Mac Mini, prompting Apple to take legal action to silence Think Secret? Is Apple off its game on keeping secrets now? Why was this year's secret leak different? In a word: teamwork.' This seems to be good case study on how to use information from sites like AppleInsider, 9to5mac.com and Ars Technica get a peek under the covers on future talks."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

There once was a time when the release date of an album was exciting. For our favorite artists we knew when the last album came out and when the next album was do. If you loved the artist you bought it. If you didn't you either bought the single or you listened to the album with your friends and then decided.

As the price of records and then CDs increased year by year, spending 20 bucks for a CD became a purchase you needed to be sure of rather than a no brainer or impulse buy.

Then free became an option.
Then aggregating almost unlimited free music on a PC and then an IPOD became easy.

So here we are in 2008 and the only given in the music industry is that CD sales have and will fall. And fall. And fall.

Reading last weeks billboard, something interesting popped out at me. The song Low Rider by Flo Rida sold 467,000 units in a single week. There were 27 digital singles that sold more than 100k units in that week. The obvious trend continues that people are ready, willing and able to buy singles of songs they like.

So the question arises, why don't artists serialize the release of songs ? Why not create a "season" of release of songs, much like the fall TV season and promise fans that Flo Rida is going to release a new single every week or 2 weeks for the next 10 weeks ?

Sure, its not easy to come up with a great song every 2 weeks. But isnt that exactly the same problem you have with an album ? Maybe thats not the "creative process" for certain artists. That's a problem for them.

What we do know is that music fans will spend 99c and that its easier to ask them for 99c a week than it is to get 9.99 at one time from them for 10 songs.

Serializing the release of music also allows for the marketing arms to be in constant touch with sales and radio outlets. Rather than having to initiate marketing plans and hope to reinvigorate the interest in an artist, it becomes a digital tour that never ends.

If an artist commits to release music on a weekly or bi weekly basis, then consumers can make a commitment knowing they are going to get something new and hopefully exciting for their 99c. If the commitment is strong enough its feasible that artists could sell subscriptions to their serialized releases. My guess is that consumers will feel better about subscribing to an artist and getting a song a week or every 2 than dropping 10 dollars at a time for an album.

In reality thats exactly how I buy my music right now. I dont do it by artist. I go to ITunes and I go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and thats how I determine what music im going to buy.

If there was an option when I bought a single to subscribe to an RSS feed that would send me a sample of that artists song when they released a single, I would add that RSS feed to my browser. Add a 1 click to buy, and chances are Im going to buy a lot more music.


Is this idea so great Im going to start a music label ? No chance. I wouldnt get in the music industry if you paid me. However, as a customer and a buyer of music , if I knew that my favorite artists were releasing music weekly, i would certainly check by every week or listen to what was in my RSS aggregator to see what new stuff they had for me.

Consumser are buying music 1 track at a time. I think people will pay 99c to get a single rather than steal it. I think people would rather steal a full album rather than pay 10 dollars or more for it.

Labels need to make the effort to get artists to deliver in a manner that realizes these perspectives.

The album is dead

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Interesting comments continue to appear in the thread we started yesterday.

Two things to like about this 1938 Merrie Melodies cartoon, "Katnip Kollege": 1) The music and animation are of the first water, and 2) the quality of the video is remarkably good for a YouTube video. Kudos to the uploader. (Via Ursi's Blog)

Ant writes "CNET News.com reports on the reasons behind the unpopularity of DVD recorders in the US. The devices, which have seen heavy support in Europe and Asia, fall flat in the United States. The biggest reason is the penetration of Cable television. With cable, the same show can appear on a channel several times. In Europe and Japan, viewers need to grab copies of shows when they can, as it could be some time before the episode is broadcast again. TiVo also took off more rapidly in the States and elsewhere. TiVo is also one of the reasons selling TVs with embedded hard drives in the States remains a challenge."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Longoland's Monster Skin Rug comes in three sizes and is made from cashmere, wool and polymer clay. No prices on the site ("Price available on request") which makes me think, yikes, I probably can't afford this. The same designers do a line of twisted stuffed animals that make me incredibly happy. Link (Thanks, Fipi Lele!)