Bad Idea!

February 5th, 2010

So Microsoft announced yet another critical IE security vulnerability (shocker, I know…) that enables an attacker to access and view your computer’s entire filesystem. While the vulnerability is mitigated by IE’s Protected Mode in Vista and Win7, 66% of the Internet is still using Windows XP, and 20% of those people are still running IE6. That’s a huge attack surface.

While this once again provides an excellent argument against tying your HTML rendering engine so deeply into the operating system that such attacks are even possible in the first place, Microsoft’s proposed workaround illustrates an even WORSE idea (from the Ars piece):

… enable Internet Explorer Network Protocol Lockdown for Windows XP. It requires editing the Windows registry, but thankfully Microsoft has created a “Fix it for me” for this workaround, available at KB 980088. Just click the “Fix this problem” link and you’re good to go. The Fix It automates Network Protocol Lockdown and can be run on individual systems and deployed by enterprises through their automated systems.

Really, you’re going to let an application with open access to the Internet modify the registry because a very possibly untrusted web page told it to?! What the hell, MS?!

Also, anyone who says “well if the link triggers a security warning that’s okay then” is an idiot. The users who would most benefit from this automated resolution method are the ones least likely to either understand or care about the security implications of such an action, and because of Windows’ tedious tendency to ask the user to approve damn near everything they do, those users are going to be trained to click “OK” just to make the dialog go away. It boggles my mind that such low-level OS-impacting capabilities are exposed to such completely un-trustable resources like remote web content.

It seems like IE6 (and Windows XP in general) is becoming an ever-increasing risk to individual and corporate data security on an almost weekly basis now. I wonder how much longer it will take companies to realize that the cost of overhauling their IE6-only internal web applications is far cheaper than the cost of losing enormous piles of sensitive or even classified information to a hacker in China…

The Mobile Market

February 4th, 2010

I’ve been ruminating a lot on the approach that various companies, like Microsoft and Apple, have taken to the mobile computing space, and have a few random thoughts that are way too long for Twitter, but not exactly coherent enough to be considered an article or anything, since I don’t really have an ultimate point here. Anyway, I’ll just ramble endlessly as usual and see if anyone cares ;) .

Microsoft’s approach has been very similar to their hugely successful approach to the desktop (and laptop) computer market: provide a powerful, extensible operating system that can run on damn near anything, and set few or no minimum requirements for hardware. This gives hardware partners an enormous amount of flexibility in how they design their phones and other devices, which they love, and it gives the market considerable differentiation between products, which both consumers and manufacturers love.

On the desktop, this approach’s greatest strength is a developer’s ability to write an application and be assured that it will, generally speaking, work everywhere (or at least, on every machine that meets the minimum requirements). In the mobile space, this is perhaps its greatest weakness instead. Because phone manufacturers are very closeted when it comes to hardware specifications, it’s much more difficult to tell if you’ll be able to run a given application. The smaller display space and variable dimensions of the screen make it difficult for developers to build truly effective and intuitive interfaces for their applications, because unlike the desktop’s relatively spacious screen real estate, a phone has very little, and building to the wrong display size can make your app feel either over-crowded on smaller screens or vacant and featureless on larger ones.

Further frustrating Microsoft’s approach has been the reluctance from carriers and/or hardware manufacturers to allow users to upgrade the OS when new releases become available (I’m also aware of tech-oriented work-arounds to this problem, but the average user isn’t going to want to futz with custom boot ROMs). Often the only way to get the new OS is to buy a new phone, and this often comes with a re-extension of the carrier’s contract, which is an unpalatable option for many people. This makes it much more difficult to ensure that users are on a new version of your OS, so developers are hesitant to start using any new features that these new OS releases make available to them. As a result, those users who do manage to upgrade or get a new device see very little difference in the user experience, and this further demotivates people from getting new devices.

Google’s Andriod platform seems to be succumbing to the same pitfall, in that there are no clear rules to manufactureres for implementation or hardware usage, the application market is already starting to fragment because not every app will run on every device, and once again carriers and/or hardware manufacturers are reluctant to offer the latest version of the OS to existing customers. It will be interesting to see if Google’s Nexus One phone can serve as a good example to other manufacturers on how to build a first-class Andriod device, and if the platform can resist or overcome the fragmentation and poor application device compatibility issues that Windows Mobile has presently.

By contrast, Apple’s approach, while also very similar to their own desktop strategy, has been far more effective in gaining market share and mind share. Apple treats their desktop line-up like a consumer electronics line-up rather than an a-la carte buffet as most computer manufacturers do. As a result, they have easy-to-understand delineations between each product category, and it’s fairly easy to chart their machines in a straight line from least to most capable all the way up the price range. While this does make buying a new Mac easier for first-time buyers than staring at the (admittedly improved of late) sea of complementary options on a site like Dell’s, the lack of cheap, low-end computing devices does limit the reach of this strategy for many consumers.

Apple extended this approach into the mobile space with the iPhone, creating a single, simple product line-up of identical devices differentiated only by storage capacity, and varying in price along a single axis. The hardware line-up has fragmented slightly with the latest iPhone 3GS and iPod Touch devices because of the improved graphics performance, but generally speaking, the target market for an application built on the iPhone OS is “every iPhone OS device ever sold”. This makes things much easier for developers, because they don’t have to worry about market fragmentation and reduced sales as a result. It also makes things much simpler for consumers, because they can buy applications with considerably more confidence, and know that their device will be able to run them. The fact that the iPhone platform provides a built-in place for users to look for 3rd-party applications also simplifies the purchasing process and undoubtedly increases sales, which may explain why Apple’s app store model is being replicated on every other platform under the sun.

A lot of what this boils down to, I think, is the simple fact that people want different things from a mobile device than they do from a desktop or desktop-class computer. With the iPhone, iPod Touch, and now the iPad, Apple seems to understand this difference in usage. On the other hand, Microsoft and – to a much lesser extent – Google seem to be pressing onward with their “desktop in your pocket” usage model, which fits awkwardly into such small devices and creates considerable usability issues. A phone is – first and foremost – a phone, not something to write Word documents or build 3D models with. By and large it’s something that people use incidentally for short periods of time, as opposed to the desktop’s “sit down and stay a while” usage model. The iPhone OS seems much more suited to this sort of interaction than Windows Mobile, though with WM finally getting support for capacitive touch-screens, Microsoft is at least trying to move to a more incidental use-friendly input model.

I will be interested to see whether Windows Mobile 7 turns the ship around and starts pushing into more user-friendly waters, but I think that despite the comparatively paltry collection of offerings in Apple’s mobile product line-up, they are better served by their sales approach when it comes to the average user who just wants something with which they can make phone calls, check the weather, and play a game of checkers. Choice is good (as is competition, which is why I’d rather see MS get their mobile OS into the current millennium than tell them to quit while they’re still [slightly] ahead), but sometimes giving people choices they don’t need to make within a platform just creates problems.

(As an aside, I think it’s interesting that it wasn’t until the iPhone SDK was released that gaming on mobile phones really became a big, profitable deal… Nokia tried entering that market at least twice but their devices never seemed to get any traction, and I could probably count on one hand the number of games that exist on Windows Mobile.)

TV Guide

February 3rd, 2010

I think it’s time to turn to the interwebz for help with this one… I’m looking for a simple, snappy TV listings app for the iPhone. I’ve tried several, and while they tended to start out decent, they’ve all suffered from bloat and feature creep in successive releases.

I’ve tried i.TV, the comcast listings app, and What’s On. i.TV ultimately got so bloated and unstable on my iPod that I just gave up on it. Comcast’s app had annoying full-screen ads that showed up on every launch of the app, and had a generally lackluster interface IMO. What’s On was good for a while, but it’s starting to get bloated now too, and is also starting to use more and more ads throughout the UI, including the annoying full-screen ads on launch.

Does anyone have suggestions? I’d even be willing to shell out a couple of bucks for an ad-free app, so paid apps are by no means off the table here.

iPad

January 29th, 2010

So it’s been more than a day since Apple’s big announcement, and I thought I’d weigh in on it with my own thoughts, for whatever they may be worth.

First off, I’m not sure if this will be the game changer Apple thinks it will be. I can see potential in it, but I don’t think it will change the computing landscape outside of the portable realm… The desktop and even the pro laptop have too many things that they’re better at than what can be accomplished on a mobile device, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. I also don’t see this replacing PMPs and smartphones entirely, since it’s just too big to be practical in those terms.

That said, I can see what sort of market Apple is targeting with this device, and it’s not the computer whiz population. Those of us willing to put up with poor performance and shoddy build quality in exchange for a mini laptop that can run a browser and an email client at the same time, and theoretically run the same applications as a desktop machine, are probably going to be ill-served by the iPad, and that’s fine. I think there is still plenty of space in the market for things like the Eee PC and the MSI Wind for those who want a familiar desktop operating system and the capabilities that go along with it. However, the poor market performance of tablet devices thus far seems to indicate that for the average consumer, the existing products are not the sort of experience they’re looking for.

I think Apple’s take on the mobile space has been vert refreshing compared to the offerings from Redmond. Microsoft wants to put Windows on everything, even when its user interface and complexity get in the way of accomplishing everyday tasks. Apple on the other hand has built an entirely new interface for their mobile platform from the ground up, with the explicit goal of making it user-friendly, touch-oriented (rather than simply touch-capable), and intensely intuitive to use. The key factor to their success with this platform, I think, is how spatially-oriented it is. The interface behaves like a physical object and responds naturally and intuitively to user input. It also provides considerable visual feedback when changing screens, so users have an easy time understanding how they got where they are, and how to get back to where they were. Apple has also done a great job of building an entire interaction system on 3 basic gestures: tap, swipe, and pinch. Without expanding their gesture library, Apple has built much more advanced functionality into the iPad OS, which is both incredible and praise-worthy. It would be easier to create all manner of new gestures for more complex tasks, but Apple has resisted this impulse and built on a simple interface language that their users are already familiar with.

Apple seems poised to capitalize on the ultra-portable tablet computing market by taking what they learned from the iPhone and scaling it up, rather than trying to pare down Mac OS X to fit in the confines of a tablet space. Again, this is a clearly different strategy from that of the rest of the industry, which seems intent on trying to put the familiar Windows desktop on even the lowliest and least-capable portable devices possible. I think Apple has the right idea, though. Desktop operating systems are needlessly complicated for everyday one-off tasks like checking email or browsing the web. The iPhone OS, on the other hand, is built to be always-on, highly responsive, and easy to directly manipulate with your fingers. For a device intended to be used for quick, light computing, that sort of OS makes much more sense than Mac OS X or Windows.

I’ve seen a lot of people decry the iPad as a giant iPod Touch, and while this is true on it’s face, it ignores the depth and richness of the iPhone OS app space, and what additional capabilities a large-format display like the iPad’s can afford developers in the future. In this way, the iPad isn’t really aiming to solve any specific problem; instead, it’s a vessel into which people can put their own problems to be solved.

I’ve also seen a lot of complaints about the lack of multitasking on the iPad, and to a certain extent, I can agree with this as being something that Apple will eventually need to address as the platform matures, especially on the larger-screen devices. Being able to run apps in the background like Pandora or Skype would be a huge boon to the device’s capabilities, and I think it will get here eventually. For now, though, Apple is focusing on making the OS do one thing at a time very, very well, and maturing the OS before wildly expanding what can be done via background processes. In terms of productivity though, a singletasking OS like the iPhone’s isn’t that much farther behind an underpowered multitasking OS on smaller netbook devices. iPhone apps remember their state far better than desktop apps, and in general they launch much more quickly than their desktop brethren too, so little time is lost swapping between apps.

People have also, bizarrely, been lampooning Apple’s decision to develop a version of iWork for the iPad. I think it’s a wonderful idea, and I think charging $10 per app is beyond reasonable considering how much power there is in the apps, and that the desktop suite sells for $80. I can’t help but wonder what Microsoft would charge for an Office suite on this device… (incidentally, I’d love to see Office on the iPad; competition is good!). I think folks who wanted to see iWork on the iPhone are reaching; it’s just not something that translates down to a screen of that size without becoming practically useless. The iPad screen, however, is much larger and the interface far more capable than the iPhone’s, and I think a productivity suite makes sense on such a device for light work that can be transferred to and completed on a primary work machine.

I want to close by presenting a theoretical use case for the iPad, since so many people seem utterly perplexed by who could possibly use it. I will be taking a few liberties by assuming the iPad-specific development of a few apps that already exist on the iPhone, and treating the iBookstore as a mature product, but I hope you’ll agree that none of the assumptions I make are out of the realm of possibility.

Assume, if you will, that I’m a college student with an iMac at home. I also have a 16GB iPad that I got for an educational discount at $479, and have been able to buy most of my textbooks on the iBookstore for a fair amount less than it would have cost at the college bookstore. I have a reasonably sizeable iTunes library, a handful of games, the iPad-optimized version of Notebooks from the App Store for taking notes in class, and the iPad and desktop versions of the iWork suite. While other students are lugging around 10 to 20 pounds of textbooks, an iPod, and a notebook full of paper (and possibly a laptop as well), I can grab my iPad and take off to class with nothing else. After class, I can go to the library to research a paper, taking notes and working on a preliminary outline in Pages while roaming the aisles. On my way home, I plug my iPad into my FM transmitter and listen to some tunes while I drive. Once I’m home, I sync my iPad and keep working on my paper on my iMac. The next morning, I sync it back to the iPad along with a Keynote presentation that’s due today and head back to class. To present, I just plug my iPad into the projector with the docking cable and get started immediately. Between classes, I can hop on the college wifi network to browse the web, or play a quick game of Star Defense while I wait for the teacher to arrive. For the sake of brevity, I will leave out the scene where I get mugged for my iPad in the parking garage.

I think this device will be most popular in the educational market, especially higher education, but its usefulness as a teaching and learning aid can be seen at almost every grade level. If Apple scores big anywhere, it will probably be there, especially with their aggressive pricing and educational discounts.

The iPad may essentially be a giant iPod Touch, but there is a ton of potential in such a device for people who want an appliance-like computer, not a car-like one. Apple is going after the 10,000-miles-without-an-oil-change “it should work like my microwave” crowd with this, not the gearhead crowd that replaces their car’s computer ROM or changes their own transmission fluid, and I know for a fact that there are more of the former than the latter in the consumer marketplace.

I have some more thoughts to expound upon, but it’s late and this post is already beyond long enough as it is.

I am a huge nerd

January 25th, 2010

So as those following me on Twitter already know, I went to see Avatar yesterday. Overall I was very impressed, and while I can see the similarities, I think the “Avatar = Pocahantas” meme is reaching a bit. You could similarly argue that The Lion King = Hamlet; despite their common theme, both films have unique plots, characters, and details. I also get the criticism of it as an environmentalist film, because it is yet another “seriously, live responsibly and respect native peoples” film but really, you could do much worse with the preachiness (think Fern Gully). Considering that you can make an attack on pretty much any film’s message for being political or offensive or whatnot (like Wall-E’s “jesus people, stop throwing away so much shit and acting like fat-ass slobs” message), I think protesting Avatar on those grounds is kind of silly. After all, science fiction is largely allegorical in nature, and in growing up as a genre it’s also tackling much more complex themes like war, terrorism, leadership, and environmental stewardship.

Anyway, on to the main point of this ramble.

I’ve spent the better part of an hour today trying to work out why exactly Pandora’s atmosphere is so deadly to humans. I first wondered what the composition of the atmosphere was like, and whether it could differ substantially from Earth’s considering that it seems to have a similar ambient temperature, pressure, green plant-life (and thus chlorophyll, photosynthesis, and oxygen), and isn’t immediately fatal except when inhaled (since walking around in a t-shirt is fine). It also looks similar to Earth’s (in that it’s blue during the day and shows no additional signs of coloration), and chemical reactions like fire are similar to those on Earth as well in terms of color and behavior.

Based on this information, I rejected the notion that the air had to be composed of substantially different compounds and instead went looking for something that could occur naturally in relatively small quantities, not change the appearance or behavior of the atmosphere, and cause serious respiratory problems in human beings without being damaging to the rest of the body.

My first thought, after Googling for “deadly gases” (I am so going on a terrorist watch list one of these days) was that it could be phosgene, since the Wikipedia description only referenced respiratory symptoms, Other websites such as the CDC, though, indicate that it can also cause burns and legions on the skin, in addition to blurry vision. Phosgene could be produced in significant quantities on Pandora by combining a chloride byproduct of some biological process with the naturally abundant oxygen and bombarding it with UV light, which would be plentiful in such close proximity to a gas giant planet’s radiation belts (and the gas giant itself seems to be nearer to Earth’s orbit than Jupiter or Saturn’s, increasing the amount of solar UV radiation as well). Despite the plausibility of this process, the additional physical side effects of phosgene make it seem like an unlikely candidate, as human characters are often seen walking around without protective clothing on, just breathing masks.

Other possibilities include relatively more common gases such as sulfur dioxide, which can cause respiratory problems in humans at concentrations as low as 8 ppm. Given the likelihood of tidal stresses on Pandora due to its parent planet’s gravitational influence, it’s possible that a chain of active volcanoes exist somewhere on the moon which outgas significant quantities of SO2. I’m not sure how likely this is as a scenario, given that SO2 is water-soluble and produces acid rain, and the choking smell of sulfur isn’t mentioned at any time in the film by either the humans, the human Na’vi avatars, or the Na’vi themselves, but it’s another possibility.

Also, in addition to the atmosphere question, one of the friends I saw the film with brought up another interesting biology point. Terrestrial creatures such as mammals and lizards generally as a rule have 5 appendages (2 arms, 2 legs, and a tail, or 4 legs and a tail) and a head. While humans don’t have tails due to evolutionary changes, we do still at least have a vestigial tailbone. On Pandora, lizards and mammals seem to have, as a rule, 7 appendages (4 arms, 2 legs, and a tail, or 6 legs and a tail), yet the Na’vi have the more familiar (to us) count of 5. I’m not sure why evolution would have given rise to the kind of 6-legged creatures we saw in the movie to begin with (I’m willing to just go with that), but it seems odd that the Na’vi would have evolved away from such a common and seemingly important appendage as an extra set of arms the way humans have grown out of their tails. I’m not saying it’s impossible, it just seems unlikely, especially since even the relatively closely-related lemur things have 4 arms and 2 legs.

I could be shooting blindly here, since trying to predict natural evolution is always going to be a shot in the dark, but it’s something that struck me as somewhat odd and perplexing, like someone at Weta decided the alien fauna needed to look more alien-ish, and stuck an extra set of limbs on without focusing on the implications it would have for the Na’vi, evolutionarily speaking. However, given how well the entire biosphere seems to work together in the film (implying a considerable amount of thought went into it), I somehow doubt that such a simplistic decision could have passed muster during the design process. It could also just be a case of there being a directorial commandment that the Na’vi only have 5 limbs instead of 7 to make them more relatable, in which case I give a big wet raspberry to James Cameron for that decision.

So yeah, I’m a HUGE nerd. Anyone have any other insights for me to mull over on these or other topics? ;)

This is Why You Fail

January 22nd, 2010

From an Ars Technica piece that has the recording industry comparing music piracy to global warming (I wish I were joking):

… the music business has now tried its hand at being “innovative” and “customer focused.” It disaggregated albums, it allowed music to go up on everything from Amazon to iTunes to Spotify to Last.fm. It sued users, it launched education campaigns.

Because suing users is totally innovative and customer-focused… what planet are these people from?! (Also, I’m surprised that none of the commenters on the Ars piece have picked up on this little nugget of stupid.)

The RIAA, the MPAA, and the rest of the audio/visual media industry (TV studios, film companies, etc.) need to get it into their heads that the world today is not the same as it was in 1990. 20 years ago, it was perhaps maybe somehow acceptable (or at least, possible) to release a movie or TV show in Australia 6-12 months later than in the United States without negatively impacting the product’s performance, because the ability to openly connect Australia to the US was largely limited to phones, post, airplanes, and boats. Now, with the internet and high-speed connections to it, films can be read about, reviewed, and even posted online (albeit illegally) for advance consumption by people who haven’t been deemed worthy enough to get the product locally. The industries’ own refusal to accept that the world is more connected, and that staggering releases internationally is likely having a huge impact on their revenue in those countries because rather than wait for the studio to get around to releasing content in their area, people will go and get it wherever it’s available, and in most cases, it’s illegally obtained on the internet in a matter of hours (or even minutes, if you’re in a country that actually values its communications infrastructure, unlike the US).

The music industry can hardly be said to be behaving in an innovative manner by any stretch of the imagination. They’re reacting defensively to the encroachment of a new content distribution platform and its resulting global connectivity, doing only the bare minimum of what is necessary to appease the demands of their customers. It’s hardly surprising that their revenues and profits have shrunk in the past 10 years. When given the choice between buying a CD for $18.99 at Barnes & Noble and buying the same album on iTunes for $9.99, or even just buying the tracks I really want for 99¢ (which may be only one or two songs), I’m going to go with the cheaper option, especially now that music from the iTunes store is DRM free.

Further, the industry seems to be doing a pretty good job of colluding with one another to set prices at different levels for different online distributors (iTunes: 99¢/song, Amazon MP3: 79¢/song. Um, what?) in an attempt to try and force the market into the shape it prefers, rather than going where their customers are and catering to them there. They also fought with every fiber of their being against internet radio stations like Pandora by trying to bury them with drastically more expensive licensing fees than what they require of broadcast radio. These are hardly innovative behaviors, unless you define “innovative” as “acting like an asshole”…

Similarly, the TV and film industries are also failing to get out ahead of the needs of their customers, instead only choosing to do the least amount possible to not lose a portion of their revenue stream (which is selling viewers to advertisers). Efforts like Hulu are interesting, but ultimately disappointing, because while the Hulu team seems to understand the importance of their service to viewers, industry execs who are still fearful of time-shifted content distribution are stifling its ability to really flourish in a way that would please the people who are most willing to use the service and thus generate additional revenue for the industry.

Case in point: both the Hulu website and the Hulu Desktop application prohibit users from interacting with the service or installing the software on a device that is connected to your television, and Hulu has gone out of their way, at the request of the industry, to block applications like Boxee from accessing the service. The problem is, most people don’t want to watch time-shifted television on their computer. They want to watch it on their television, where they have a big screen, a really nice sound system, and a comfortable couch to sit on. Despite the sometimes horrific performance of Hulu’s Flash player in the Boxee builds for the Apple TV, I watched a considerable amount of content on Hulu, and sat patiently and understandingly through the 2-3 minutes of ads inserted into each show (though like many of the ads on TV, I ignored them as much as possible because they’re annoying). Since they blocked Boxee, I’ve watched two things on Hulu: an episode of Family Guy, and the Cosmos series from PBS. By trying to artificially restrict their content to specific platforms, the industry has lost revenue from ads it would have gained by showing them to me. Since often I watch time-shifted content because I missed watching it on the air, they’re also already not getting ad revenue from me looking at the TV when their show is on, so it’s a double loss on their part.

I also continue to be annoyed at the fact that I can’t rent a movie through iTunes on the day and date of the DVD release. I can go to Blockbuster, sure, but that’s often more expensive, and even has additional costs associated with it (gas, time, uncertainty about whether the movie is even available [which results in wasted gas and time], dealing with people [you'd be surprised how much this factors into my decision-making sometimes...], etc.). Warner Brothers has even successfully convinced Netflix not to allow the rental of WB films through their mail-order service for a month after the DVD release, so as to not negatively impact retail sales. That’s bullshit, plain and simple.

As an example, I’ve seen @ddfreyne post several times on Twitter about Moon, and decided that I should probably look into watching it since it sounded interesting, and the trailer piqued my interest. Lo and behold, it came out on DVD recently and is even available for purchase in iTunes for $14.99. However, not knowing if I’ll actually like the movie, dropping $14.99 on it seems like a bit of an outlay for me. I’d much rather rent it for $3.99 (or hey, $4.99 in HD! You hear me movie industry?) and see if it’s something I like, and then spend $14.99 on it (and yes, ultimately, I’ve spent more on it if I end up liking it, but I’ve saved money if I don’t). But I can’t rent the movie until some time in February (I forget when), and knowing me, I’ll have forgotten about it by then, which means the movie industry gets nothing from me.

The internet is a serious came-changer, and as it matures, it continues to impact industries in ways that seemed impossible (or at least, unlikely to happen outside of Star Trek) just a few years before. Music, TV, film, and even print media are all struggling to compete with each other and themselves in this space, but are hampered by obligations to older content distribution channels and an apparent desire to legislate the future away rather than embrace it. The media landscape is evolving at an astonishing pace these days, and the major stakeholders are doing a pretty poor job of keeping up. Maybe they’ll catch on, or maybe not. All I know for sure is that the one thing that isn’t going to work is shouting at the ocean as the time comes in. Standing still is irresponsible simply from a business standpoint, and it amazes me that the shareholders of these companies aren’t boggling at how ineptly their interests are being handled by those in charge as we march (or, in the media’s case, are dragged kicking and screaming) into the future.

Global Terraforming

December 18th, 2009

The thought has recently occurred to me that there seems to be a rather considerable logical disconnect in the thought processes of deniers of global climate change (i.e. global warming), especially the anthropogenic (“man-made”) variety.

It has long been a pretty mainstream idea that the easiest way to terraform a planet like Mars into one which is habitable by humans is to set up a bunch of carbon-belching factories all across the planet’s surface and run them 24/7 for a couple of centuries to increase the density of the atmosphere and trap more solar radiation, warming the planet in the process.

So why is the idea that doing the same thing on Earth for over 400 years will cause a similar effect so unfathomably controversial? Science and reality rarely deal in special cases. If dumping mountains of CO2 into the atmosphere of Mars would make it habitable by warming the planet and increasing the density of the atmosphere, doing the same thing on a planet like Earth would logically cause the already habitable temperature to increase, perhaps to a point where the planet is no longer habitable.

People are constantly arguing that the Earth is too massive and too self-correcting to be affected by anything that we comparatively tiny human beings are doing. However, these same people seem to have no issues with the thought that mankind could terraform other worlds equally as massive as Earth by doing to them exactly what we are already doing here. Either terraforming a planet is impossible for mankind, or our ability to impact the environment of our home planet is far more substantial than people seem to commonly accept. We can’t have it both ways.

There are over 6 billion people on this planet. We are producing 29 billion of tons of carbon dioxide exhaust every year… even considering that the Earth’s atmosphere has a total mass of over 5 quadrillion tons, and that plant life on the planet can parse at least a portion of the CO2 we dump into the air back into oxygen, over the 400 years since the Renaissance and the ensuing industrial revolution, that’s a lot of CO2 to be dumping into a finite amount of space. It’s a proven scientific fact (the Mythbusters even tested it!) that CO2 traps radiant heat in a given space, and we only have to look next door at Venus to see just how far from habitable a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect can push a planet’s environment (for those unaware, Venus’s atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than Earth’s, and the surface temperature is over 900ºF). Realistically, Venus is an extreme example, but the extreme outcome is nowhere near what it would take to turn the Earth into a lifeless cinder as well.

People argue against the science of global climate change because 20 years ago there was a concern among scientists that the planet might be cooling off. Scientifically, there was a good reason to suspect this may happen: on a global scale, destroying things like forests to build roads, cities, and fields creates a brighter overall surface reflectivity for the Earth. More reflectivity means less light is absorbed by the planet as radiant heat, and thus the planet would cool. However, it just so happens that the result of burning millions of years worth of trapped carbon, releasing it as CO2, over the course of only a few centuries has greatly offset any change in reflectivity, creating a larger greenhouse effect and ultimately warming the planet at a considerably faster rate than is scientifically considered to be “normal” for this planet, based on the analysis of tens of thousands of years worth of geological data.

Say what you will about science sometimes being wrong, but science, like nature, is self-correcting; if evidence changes, so does the scientific consensus. If it weren’t for the self-corrective nature of science and its encouragement of free and open inquiry, we would never have landed on the Moon, or flown space probes to Jupiter and Saturn, or defeated countless ravaging diseases, or even have developed the technology with which I am writing this perhaps somewhat irksome treatise. Science, like life, must be taken as a whole, and as a whole science is right (or at least on the right track) far more often than it is wrong. You can’t pick and choose which scientific facts or evidence you want to adhere to, and ignore what doesn’t fit your preconceived worldview. Well, I guess you can, but you probably won’t get very far in the real world, which really doesn’t give a damn about your preconceived worldview. The Earth doesn’t stop being 4.6 billion years old just because you say it’s not, any more than saying that it’s flat, or at the center of the solar system, or the center of the universe make such things true (which they demonstrably aren’t).

Conservative “Logic”

December 6th, 2009

I really don’t get how much cognitive dissonance there is in conservative ideology (and, by extension, policy). Here’s a few examples with obvious counterpoints, both taken straight from conservative talking points:

  1. “Government should stay out of people’s personal lives!” / “Government should ban gay people from getting married!”
  2. “Government should have no say in your medical treatment!” / “Government should ban abortion!”
  3. “Everyone has a right to privacy!” / “Why be upset about warrantless wiretapping unless you have something to hide?”
  4. “Taxpayer money shouldn’t go to pay for abortions, which is murder!” / “OMFG MILITARY SPENDING ORGY!!!!” (I may be slightly exaggerating the counterpoint, but not by terribly much…)
  5. “Respect the Constitution!” / Warrantless wiretaps, destruction of due process, shunning of international treaties, which the Constitution says are the law of the land once ratified. (These are not quoted because I can’t think of a witty way to write them as though they’re being said by a conservative… this is just too hard to snark about.)

I could probably think of more, but it’s almost 4 AM at the moment, so my thinking is a bit sluggish. Besides, these are plenty enough to make me want to smack the next person I hear saying either one.

Further, it continues to boggle my mind just how little thought seems to be put into the actual policy positions of conservative politicians. Everything seems to be tailored to being said in the fewest number of syllables possible. Perhaps this is why conservatives seem to be so good at arguing via Twitter… none of their policy points are longer than 140 characters. Examples:

  1. Drill, baby, drill.
  2. Smaller Government.
  3. Tax Cuts.
  4. Privatize medicine (since that’s working so very well right now… *ahem*)
  5. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. (I don’t think I could conceive of a less tasteful policy position…)
  6. The aforementioned “respect the constitution!”
  7. Less regulation.
  8. American exceptionalism! (you do know this is not a policy point, right?)
  9. Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist nazi fascist communist witch doctor Chicago crony! (This actually isn’t a policy point, but it seems to be pretty popular on the right side of the country… and there’s still room in there for “nigger” before you run out of room on The Twitter. Not that a black guy running the country rubs anybody in the Southern-dominated Republican party the wrong way or anything… they even have a black guy of their own running the RNC! He’s the black guy every Republican can say they know, so they aren’t racist!)

Almost without fail, I have been unable to engage a conservative-leaning individual to elucidate on these policies or approaches to government beyond the basic 140-character talking points themselves. My efforts to elicit responses in a previous blog post netted me exactly one comment, which consisted of the typically vague “smaller government” and “respect the constitution” nonsense, with no justification, specifics, or detailed analysis.

It’s as if there are no policy positions or thoughts on governance in conservative thinking, but rather that their entire political ideology is bent on dismantling the government entirely. Seriously, what do Republicans do besides complain about government being the problem, and government not doing anything, while simultaneously doing everything in their power to grind the gears of the legislative branch to a halt as frequently as possible? What actual legislation have they proposed in the last 3 years? What positive actions have they supported? I mean, when you can’t even get beyond petty partisan politics when voting to strip government contracts from companies that prevent rape victims from having their day in court, what exactly are you even doing in government besides acting as a complete hinderance to progress?

Also, while I’m raving like a lunatic, can I ask what the hell is up with this American exceptionalism crap? America is not inherently better than every other country by virtue of it being America. We as a people are not some god-anointed civilization gifted with superior anything, for the purposes of accomplishing anything.

Given how willing we are to trample all over our own founding documents (by initiating warrantless wiretaps, making it possible for the President to have anyone in the country detained indefinitely without cause, and torturing prisoners) because a few guys managed to get past our absurdly lax security precautions and fly a couple of planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and how eager we seem to be to deny basic rights to those in our society who are different from us (be it gay marriage or health care for poor people), we have no moral authority to speak of on the subject of human rights or equal treatment. Our economy nearly collapsed last year because of our inability to properly regulate it, our infrastructure is about a hailstorm away from collapsing at any given moment, we rely so extensively on foreign energy that our national security is constantly at risk because of where that energy overwhelmingly comes from, our interactions with foreign governments are strongly biased toward whether or not they’re selling us said energy (tell me why else we didn’t bomb Syria, where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from), our status as a scientific, economic, education, public health, and human equality champion is nowhere near first in the world, and our production of greenhouse gases is very probably second-only to China, to whom we are so massively in debt that we couldn’t even get them to let us keep one of their pandas at the National Zoo in DC.

What, exactly, is so exceptional about America anymore? I mean, besides our obesity rate and the sheer mind-crippling scale of our national debt and military budget? For crying out loud, we can’t even get morally indignant with Switzerland for banning the construction of minarets in their country, considering how awfully we’ve been treating Muslims in this nation since 9/11, and nobody in our government has said a damn thing publicly about the horrific law being proposed in Uganda to permanently jail and/or kill by hanging anyone who is caught (or better yet, turned in) for being gay.

How exceptional of us.

Second Uru

November 17th, 2009

Yeah, I’m at it again. Be afraid. Be very afraid ;) . Also please note that for as much as I go on about this, I really would like to see Cyan do Something Completely Different, rather than staying chained to the boat anchor that is Uru Live.

There are several things that have recently motivated me to further reflect on how to build a better Uru, though two really stand out for me. The first is the fact that I’ve been poking around in Second Life for a while now, and have gotten a feel for how the game’s user-editability works in a broad sense. The second is that the platform I’ve been targeting all of my thinking toward, Unity, is now free for the basic version of the development IDE, which eliminates the barrier-to-entry concerns I had for player-created content on that platform.

To focus briefly on Unity’s strengths, it’s a rock-solid 3rd party engine with its own extensive QA testing department, meaning that support and maintenance of the engine itself are no longer concerns, which makes the cost overhead of development considerably smaller (programmers are not cheap). It has full support for DirectX and OpenGL pixel shaders including bloom, blur, and a whole host of others. It will run natively on Windows, as well as Intel and PowerPC-based Macs, which means no more Crossover or Cider strangeness in the Mac port, and increased accessibility to the product for players with older Mac systems (I’m willing to take any users I can get at this point). It supports live asset streaming from server to client, which means that assets can be retained on the remote server and only downloaded when the client needs them. Considering the bandwidth requirements of most MMOs anyway, these downloads should be fairly speedy, and should even be able to be handled asynchronously, so the remaining content can load while you’re exploring the initial spawn point. It natively opens 3DS MAX files (on Windows), layered Photoshop PSDs, and will import FBX files exported from MAX and Blender, in addition to a whole host of additional mesh, image, video, and audio file support. This pretty much covers all of the most popular tools currently being used to build player-created content for the Plasma engine, with the added benefit of having a documented development API and IDE with full support for every possible feature out-of-the-box.

All of these factors combine to position Unity as a truly capable technology that can easily supplant Plasma in practically every way. I give major props and kudos to Cyan for developing their own graphics engine and server technology in-house to do things in realtime that were unimaginable when they started Uru’s development over 10 years ago, but truth be told, it’s decidedly buggy and lag-ridden in ways that I don’t think open-sourcing the project will ever adequately solve (or at least, ever solve in a reasonable timeframe). Plasma has had a good run, but I think it’s time to move on to something better.

On top of all this, I’ve been reflecting for a while on how to bring some of Second Life’s openness into Uru without destroying the core of what Uru is, or just turning it into a Myst-themed Second Life clone. When players can go pretty much anywhere they please, and do basically whatever they want, as well as build almost anything they can imagine, with a minimal outlay of real-world cash on their part, Uru’s restrictive and largely fixed, scenic environments seem much more sterile and uninviting by comparison. This puts a further degree of importance on the developer-driven storyline, as player-developed concepts are limited to what can be done with only KI notes and unmodified in-game photos as props, and it’s somewhat surprisingly difficult to get people to use their imagination to invent unseen, behind-the-curtain locales for player operations when the rest of the game is so fully visualized. Thus, when the developer’s storyline isn’t going anywhere, or isn’t moving at a pace that can keep up with players’ demands for new material, the game suffers greatly.

After spending a really long time reflecting on what I think makes Uru a great concept, as well as working hard to incorporate some of the most demanded aspects of gameplay throughout Uru’s troubled existence, I think I’ve arrived at a model that can be used to build a better, more potentially successful Uru Live by creating a more player-friendly world built on stronger underlying technologies. Here’s what I’ve got.

User-placeable objects. The game wouldn’t have an object editor like Second Life’s, which is really super complex, but players would have the ability to place arbitrary objects around the game. Certain limitations would be imposed to retain a certain degree of “realism”, so objects like papers could only be placed on designated surfaces like the ground or on cork boards, rather than allowing them to float in mid-air. Players could use this system to drop short notes, full-on notebooks, images, and even arbitrary objects from a global object library into the game. Notes, notebooks, and images would follow a Second Life-style modify/copy/transfer permissions structure, so players would be able to configure whether others can edit, send, send copies, pick up, or pick up copies of the object in question. Arbitrary objects from the library or from a player’s personal collection would have only copy/transfer permissions since there would be no way to edit them in-game.

To further protect certain areas of the game, regions may be configured by the developer to disallow the dropping of objects onto them (the ability for a surface to receive dropped objects would be an explicit opt-in flag in the back-end). Player-owned areas of the game, such as rooms in the D’ni City, may have their structures configured by the owner to determine where things can be dropped by non-owners.

Asynchronous, lazy loading of content. Perhaps one of Plasma’s largest bottlenecks next to physics objects is the way in which it loads content. Everything seems to be loaded synchronously, so in large areas with lots of players, it takes a considerable amount of time before the game gets to a state even barely approaching useable. By decoupling content loading from the main rendering thread and making it asynchronous, players can begin to explore an area before all of the content has finished loading. This is especially prudent for objects like avatars and player-dropped content, but could theoretically be extended to cover the environment itself as well.

More user control of the game’s visual quality. This is a simple thing, but it would make a world of difference to many players. Give them the ability to reduce the visual complexity of the game by reducing the number of avatars their system renders at a time (X nearest, polled intermittently), and by reducing the draw distance for objects such as avatars and player-dropped content. Besides the general improvements to frame rate that would come from migrating to the Unity engine and cleaning up older, more inefficiently-assembled areas of the game, giving players control over the draw distance would likely have a marked impact on performance on lower-end machines, where even a one hundred polygon low-LOD avatar object would add strain to the rendering system. This is a point where we would have to concede “absolute realism” for overall quality and playability, but I think it’s an important and valid trade-off.

The ability to upload content into the game. This one’s going to stir a few pots, I suspect, but frankly speaking, there is no way to make Uru what players want it to be without making this possible. Having Cyan be the gatekeeper on every item that goes into the game is impractical, and there’s already precedent for user-created material being directly added into the game in the form of KI notes, which can be freely shared, edited, and posted publicly. Provided there is a method for reporting and removing offensive content, I think an honor code-driven system would work fine in Uru for the vast majority of cases. Players should be able to upload their own images into the game for use as images to share, and for use on clothing as extra texture options, without needing to go through Cyan for approval first.

I’m unsure of how (or even whether) a Second Life-like system where uploading content costs a marginal amount of real-world cash would work given Cyan’s traditional eschewing of micro-transactions for extra material, but when it comes to the storage space needed for uploaded text and images, there should probably be some way to defray those costs. The rest of the gaming industry, and Second Life in particular, has illustrated that micro-transactions are a viable method for minor gate-keeping and expanding a player’s available content for a minimal up-front cost, and I think if properly structured, such a system would work for Uru, but it would have to be very carefully managed, and should be considered separately from the notion of a player-driven economy within the game where players can sell items to one another, rather than just paying to upload their own content for themselves.

Uploading actual models and textures into the game would be a somewhat different ball of wax, I think, because of the way in which Unity compiles its game assets and given the fact that we wouldn’t be providing an in-game editor for creating one’s own objects. Objects would need to be built in a modeling environment, imported into Unity, and then submitted to the developer (in this case, Cyan) for addition to the global library/libraries in batches, or to an individual player’s account for their personal use. These additions could be done independent of major content drops because of support for on-demand content streaming built into Unity.

Create an API on top of which players can build. Player-created content is obviously going to be a big draw for Uru, if only because it’s been teased at for so long and is already happening under the table in Plasma. Creating a recognized development framework for players to build their own content and integrate it into the game is an absolute must from day 1. The framework should support adding objects, whole regions (Ages etc.), and extensions to the user interface (like new KI functionality) into the game. Depending on the type of material being developed, the developer may need to act as a gate-keeper of sorts, if only to serve as the conduit through which player content is included into the game’s published assets.

Because not every player will have the ability to build their own content for any number of reasons, it’s reasonable to assume that other players may band together to create development shops which would build objects for other players. Existing Guilds such as the Writers and Maintainers may be very well-suited to this task, and there may be some way to create a development shard that is more frequently updated (or possibly can be built on-demand) so that player-developers can test their content before giving it the green light for inclusion into the release builds. Addition of content would not be explicitly subject to Guild involvement, however; if a player wanted to build something and submit it on their own, they would be free to do so.

Certain areas of the game that were originally created by the developer could even have their own additional APIs for creating player-made rule structures, enabling things like more enforceable gameplay rules for player-invented games in Jalak. Provided the technology supported it, players should be able to upload these area-specific override scripts directly to the game for immediate integration, with the obvious ability to report broken, offensive, or griefing scripts.

Give players somewhere to showcase their work. Hand in hand with allowing players to create things like their own Ages is developing a way to let others access them. There should be developer-created spaces in the game for featuring player-created content such as Ages or artwork, and players should also be able to place their own content in player-controlled areas as well. For instance, if a player owned a room or building in the City, they could place a Linking Book to an Age they had created in that room or building, which would then be access-controlled based on who was allowed to enter that space in the City.

This framework for privatized content placement could even be expanded to a more fragmented shard system, where players could lease or operate their own server, and for a stated cost per month could operate player-created content on that machine with their own rules and code of conduct. Such privatized content would require certain disclosures to be put in place for players who may stumble onto it (my first and admittedly clunky thought is to present the player with a dialog box when they click such a linking panel, containing the destination’s rules as they differ from the main area of play, requiring the player to explicitly authorize the link before continuing to the new server).

In addition, there should be central upload repositories where players can upload content from their KI such as notes, images, and marker missions, for other players to download at their leisure. Again, content uploaded to these stations should have modify/copy/transfer controls built into it so players can control the distribution of their own content.

Don’t forget the story. If Uru did all of this, and nothing more, it would essentially be the Myst-themed Second Life clone I want to avoid turning it into. However, the strength of Cyan’s games has always been the one-two punch of high-quality content and storytelling. Without these, Uru is nothing special, but without the rest of this list, storytelling and content become such a tremendously exclusive focus of the player base that maintaining a sufficient development throughput quickly becomes unsustainable. Do all this, and provide a compelling central story with imaginative and gripping environments, and I think Uru’s chances of success improve greatly.

Of course, it sounds a lot easier than it actually is, or it’d be done by now ;) .

Upgrade Cycle, Vroom Vroom!

October 19th, 2009

So now that I finally have a replacement for my dead external media drive and things seem to be on their way toward stabilizing on the bug front, I’m looking at getting a copy of Snow Leopard to install on my iMac at home. I’m seriously considering doing for SL what I did for Leopard, which is to wipe the drive and do a fresh installation of the OS to get rid of any cruft that’s accumulated in the intervening 2 years (and there’s been quite a bit of that, to be sure).

I’m also going over all of the applications I use/have/installed-but-never-touch with an eye toward upgrading or replacing some of them as needed, keeping the ones I really like, and dumping the rest. Most of the “plugins” I use in Safari are already Snow Leopard-compatible, and I’ve found a possible replacement for the one that isn’t so that I can run the browser in 64-bit mode. I’m taking a long, hard look at Photoshop and contemplating whether I’m going to even bother re-installing it again once I upgrade. I have a couple of applications I’m eyeing as possible replacements, like DrawIt, which, in addition to Pixelmator, covers pretty much everything I ever seem to use Photoshop for in the first place, at 1/6th the price (plus hopefully a considerable boost to productivity that comes from not fighting with Adobe’s POS software).

The other application I’m eyeing for retirement is Fetch. It’s served me pretty well throughout my time on the Mac, and is one of the first apps I actually bought after CyberDuck started behaving poorly on my G5, but its interface seems dated, and if I’m going to have to shell out for a fully-Snow Leopard-compatible update anyway, I might as well play the field and see what I can find that might work a bit better. The alternative I’m currently looking at most favorably is Flow. I especially like the column view support it boasts (I live in column view now, and hate that Windows has nothing comparable), as well as the general look and feel of the application as a whole. Added bonus: Flow doesn’t seem to try and replace my cursor with a running dog which, since upgrading to Leopard, has been a spasm of flickering cursor icon fighting.

Sadly there doesn’t seem to be a downloadable version of DrawIt that doesn’t already require Snow Leopard, so I can’t really play with that app until after I take the plunge, but I do intend to fiddle with Flow tonight, and if nothing else I’ll suffer the indignity of Adobe’s absurdly bloated and unstable crapware until I can find something better if DrawIt and Pixelmator don’t measure up enough. I just have to get a couple of lingering things done in Photoshop first before upgrading to Snow Leopard so I can carry on without it and not lose anything in terms of time or effort.

I’m also hoping to pick up a copy of Versions, but it’s kinda pricey and I don’t have a lot of funding to lay out for stuff like that right now. Maybe in a while, and until then I can use something else for SVN, like svnX (don’t tell me to use the command line. I frankly hate doing things by command line; it’s just not how my brain works).