dogwonder.co.uk

Step 1 - Try and stop plans to allow bars to open later.

I agree the plans are controversial but trying to stop them one week before the law comes into force could be a bit of a vote loser. Anyone under 30 and anyone owning a pub/bar/shop might be a little annoyed. Ofcourse all those living near a pub/bar/shop might be fairly happy.

Gah, Postmodernism overload….

A virtual island was bought over a year ago in the MMORPGs game Project Entropia for £13,700. Even stranger, the geezer has recently claimed that he’s made all his money back plus profit by:

selling land to build virtual homes as well as taxing other gamers to hunt or mine on the island

Aright, but it doesn’t exist! Its virtual, and run by a company that could turn off the servers any day. My worry for such ventures is probably in equal measure to my lack of understanding of this virtual world. However it does make me nervous, I mean lets face it there are a few things in this world that could do with developing, let alone the virtual. But although that’s a fairly valid point, the wheels of commerce care little for those issues if money can be made, virtual or real world.

I guess its a fairly natural progression for MMORPGs. They attempt to mimic the real world - so why shouldn’t every facet, including commerce and trade be part of it. But the trust network intrinsic in the game (which appears to be mostly about killing ones online opponents) must be immense for this to work.

Firstly the games people must be trusted with creating a fair and just world (which it probably must to ensure the gamers stay).

Secondly, that it does not constantly create islands and other such artefacts so saturating the market, thus unbalancing the online economy (although it does not profit directly from the acquisitions, a higher GDP of the game world the money and time invested is invested back into the world).

Thirdly, the users selling the artefacts to one another. Even with the use of mechanisms such as ebay (the online insurer/financial regulator?) there must be a huge risk in buying a virtual island.

Last month, another of Entropia’s virtual properties - a virtual space station - sold at auction for £57,000.

Where will this take us, poorly managed games ravaged by viruses are sent electronic aid packages from more successful online worlds. Worlds sick on power and success invading over online worlds. Virtual dictators, virtual capitalist giants, virtual philanthropists?

As our old friend Baudrillard once said

Virtuality, being itself virtual, does not really happen. One lives in the very Rousseauistic idea that there is in nature a good use for things that can and must be tried. I don’t think that it is possible to find a politics of virtuality, a code of ethics of virtuality because virtuality virtualizes politics as well: there will be no politics of virtuality, because politics has become virtual; there will be no code of ethics of virtuality, because the code of ethics has become virtual, that is, there are no more references to a value system

Indeed, but does he mean that there are no online politics in their own right as they have become virtual or that they simply mimic real politics? Whatever his exact point (which often escapes me with the big B) there probably is little point in arguing the toss over what should and shouldn’t happen in these worlds. Simply put - what will be will be.

Damn, it still bugs me though - 57000 Benjamins!

I have been following the recent debate on Google print from both inside and outside the bubble. You see I work for a publisher, and although this naturally biases me towards one side, I feel I am rational enough to be able to look at the argument….well, rationally.

Some of the vitriol that is coming from both sides of the electronic fence is frankly harsh. In an almost teenager-ish paddy the nerds are claiming that Google is lovely and they just want to put all print works online for everyone’s benefit including the authors and publishers.

On Forbes, Nick Schulz responds with an op-ed of his own, “Don’t Fear Google,” in which he masterfully deconstructs Schoeder and Barr’s crazy-talk

Crazy-talk? I though this was meant to be a debate? Yes Google, so far, are lovely and they genuinely want to do good. However they are also now a public company and those shareholders have to be kept happy. What if Google one day decides to do something a little more with that material.

Indeed it ain’t all fluffy bunnies on the other side:

And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion company bent on unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit and in turn denying publishers and authors the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. - Source

Indeed offering snippets isn’t really changing copyright at all.

It seems to me, that like in many arguments, the real issues aren’t being addressed. Instead nasty insults and insinuations are thrown about trying to make the other side cry.

I think the main problem has been that Google just announced they were going to start up this project with the disclaimer that if you tell us exactly which books you don’t want published then we won’t do it. The publishers and authors were probably more miffed that they weren’t consulted on Google’s new venture. Now ofcourse the Nerds are saying that the publishers and authors are just looking to make money out of this whereas lovely Google simply wants to teach the world how to sing.

I see the arguments on both sides and genuinely feel that if Google works with the publishers and listens to the authors then everyone will probably be happy. Google will provide more eyeballs for titles, thus increasing sales for Publishers and thus author royalties and Google will make a stack of cash from the ads placed next to them.

All of this rather nasty speak is really just clouding the issue.

Dear god it’s true.

My brain is having difficulty dealing with the ironies. Has a solar flare gone off or something?

Are the Beeb having a laugh?

Seems as though Grant and Phil have been beaten up on the same day by different women. Brilliant coudn’t make it up - well unless the BBC have ofcourse?