Sugarcoating The Saccharine

I just read Scott Donaton’s piece over on Ad Age called “Missed Opportunities At Ad Hall Of Fame Luncheon” (Link). It reminded me of my one and only trip to an IDSA national convention. More recently, it reminds me of this brown sugar piece over on Nussbaum’s … whatever (half the time I’m not sure if that’s a blog or a fan site) … “Apple’s Jonathon Ive Speaks Out Publicly” (Link). Funny how people have forgotten Ive’s predecessor, Robert Brunner. And I don’t need to voice my doubts about Kotchka’s “innovations” since I’ve stated those here already (reLink); wish I knew what ex-P&G wonder woman Cathy Rings and Rubbermaid intellectual (and also, former P&G employee) Brian Barton have to say about all this (PDF Link to their work – again, note the date: 1998). Right now the timelines I’ve seen don’t align.

Where on earth are the critical voices within the Industrial Design community? Where are the real leaders and what do they have to say about the state of affairs: job security, offshoring, the future of the occupation, etc? They must be out there. Right? Design Observer is nice, but it doesn’t really focus on the ID community.

The IDSA website has improved, but it’s still kinda slow (the “Buzz” section is decent, but unless you’re a member of the good ol’ boys club, don’t go looking for a discussion). Maybe IDSA is just too closely tied to Jurassic corporate park. No one wants to rustle any feathers; not when the client is paying for the new ride sitting in the firm’s parking lot.

Core77 is collecting cobwebs and the forum – now, too late, a registered-only site – is a sad excuse imo for an online discussion site; professional or otherwise. And the handful of forums that have sprung up are really mostly “how-to” sites. There’s not much critical discussion, imo.

It seems to me the ad industry isn’t the only one with issues.

Consumption vs Creation

There’s a Will Wright guest editorial over on Wired (Link) that’s worth a read. I’m not in the right frame of mind to properly digest and comment on it, but I don’t doubt my spores … I mean, synapses … will start firing after I’ve managed to eliminate a personal thorn from my side. I’ve earlier stated my belief that the percentage of creatives will rise dramatically. That expectation is tied in to some of the other things I discuss on this blog – from trademarks and branding to DRM to rapid manufacturing and personal fabrication.

The whole market is shifting. I guess that’s what happens when uneven ground starts to level.

The Kirkyan Awakens

I should probably start off by pointing anyone reading this to my earlier post (reLink) defining “kirkyan”, since the term will be meaningless otherwise. Of course, even after people read that, they’ll probably still think the term is meaningless; what I’m describing – or attempting to describe – is probably not an easy concept for most people to grasp. But once someone has a good example, with words and pictures (I’m big on pictures), I don’t doubt it will probably be much easier for everyone to grok.

Anyways, earlier I sent an email off to WorldChanging’s Jamais Cascio where I used that term and described the concept. I did so by using an example of a product idea I have; the same one I mentioned in an earlier comment. I don’t know if that triggered his latest post over on WC, but he’s definitely talking the same multi-reality language. So, if any of this sounds remotely intriguing, be sure to stop by and read “The Open Future: Living in Multiple Worlds” (Link).

Avatar, Phone Home

Interesting item regarding phone services inside virtual spaces. From the entry on MPOGD posted by Paul Philleo (Link):

To make the case for what Vivox is capable of, Sharma logged into a test area in Second Life on his laptop to demonstrate an audio technology demo. The environment was a bustling restaurant, where the wireless broadband connection was not ideal. That said, I donned a pair of headphones and listed as Sharma’s character walked to an in-game phone booth and punched the digits to his own cell phone, which then promptly rang. Using VoIP calling like other Internet telephony services such as Vonage, Sharma blurred the line between in-game and real-world communications. After that, the avatar was walked into a nearby room, where another Vivox developer was lounging on a couch as a character. Using the laptop microphone, Sharma and I were able to carry on a conversation with him at roughly the quality of a land line phone.

Be sure to read the whole entry to get some additional details; I’m just focusing on one slice of it. The “voice font” stuff will probably calm the fears of plenty, gender-bending alts.

via Clickable Culture

The “Kirkyan”

This will probably go nowhere, but I figure I’ll join in on the neologistic bandwagon and create a term for something I can’t otherwise define since neither spime nor blogject work: “kirkyan”. For background, you might want to start on the comments section of the SL Future Salon website (Link). That’s where I first blurted out the basic, unfinished idea which started forming back in December during an SL Future Salon meeting with Phillip Torrone from Make (I had suggested they code an artificial intelligence in Second Life and download it to the robotic mice the people at Make were building).

I’ve also very recently mentioned this concept in a post (reLink), and figured I should wrap it up and ship it. Good thing actually since I hit on something I’d not considered and wound up expanding on it and rethinking a few things; the changes will be obvious.

So, this is the concept:

A kirkyan is similar to a spime or blogject, but different in that a kirkyan is actually a Thing comprised of a combination of reality instances. One instance exists in our physical world (kirkyan P) and one or more “sibling” instances exist in their respective, independent virtual worlds (kirkyan V1′, V2′, V3′, aso). They are independent yet part of a whole.

Unlike the singular physical instantiation, the virtual instantiation(s) can itself/themselves replicate identically and sub-evolve independently (e.g. V2’1, V2’2, V2’3, aso). The virtual space kirkyan subset(s) then contribute to the evolution of the primary kirkyan instantiation; in this example, V2′ – the original virtual instantiation of this kirkyan for independent virtual space #2.

Each instantiation carries the “DNA” with which to create the other(s). Each carries the history and learnings of the other(s), so that when one expires, an evolved version can replace it; created from the data stored in the transreality sibling(s).

A kirkyan can be a blogject, with the physical instantiation involved in the physical world as an interactive component of a network that includes the virtual instance(s). Additionally, each instantiation of a kirkyan independently has most of the qualities of a spime:

  • 1) each instantiation has some means of affixing to it a unique identity.
  • 2) each instantiation has a positioning system that allows its location to be determined in either virtual or physical space and time.
  • 3) instantiations can be tracked and each can track the other(s).
  • 4) each instantiation maintains a searchable history that is independent yet intertwined with its transreality sibling(s). Consequently each has a narrative. The kirkyan history would be an integrated record.
  • I’d also add that each instantiation maintains a definition database, a record of its own “DNA”, and each maintains a database of the other(s) to facilitate their evolution/replication. It might not seem that a matching database is necessary for kirkyan V’s; however, even a virtual 3D object can have components that are independently unique beyond simple shape-defining data.

    For example, a virtual hammer might have Cartesian data defining its shape, but the handle could be tagged with a specific material (e.g. polymer; unique from the steel head) and thus have “solid” physical properties assigned to it (material density, thermal conductivity, elasticity, aso). In a physics-enabled virtual world simulation, this component data becomes integral to its existence in that virtual space. Because it {potentially} represents kirkyan P in this way, a physically representational “impact” in that virtual world which “damages” kirkyan V’ (or one of its replicated versions) might be used to evolve the physical instantiation.

    This would, of course, depend on the relationship between that particular virtual space and the physical space. However, if the relationship is determined to be relevant (e.g. the physics are similar), the discovery of a vulnerability through such a virtual event could trigger kirkyan P to self-destruct in order that it can be immediately recycled and refabricated into a more robust object. This sacrificial quality allows defective products to repair/evolve themselves, if possible; or at the very least alert creators to a defect.

    The kirkyan is essentially an evolutionary, redundant system; not so much an AI as a relatively simple comparison algorithm (after all, a hammer – real or virtual – is pretty unintelligent).

    So this all taken together allows, among other things, for the physical object (kirkyan P) to be recycled into a system that can then access data from the virtual object(s) (kirkyan V’) to replicate an evolved physical instantiation (kirkyan P+) … which then can cycle a feedback loop to the virtual object(s) (kirkyan V’+) so that it/they can then “regenerate” (to use a Pro/ENGINEER CAD term) to ensure any deviation in the final fabricated physical version is documented. The same would be true in the event a computer virus attacked and destroyed one, more or all of the kirkyan virtual instantiations. The physical manifestation – having a non-writable recovery system and the ability to isolate itself from the network – can subsequently evolve its code to make it immune to the virus; at which point it can create new, virtual siblings.

    Kirkyans are not “virtual objects first and actual objects second” in the literal sense. It is not necessarily a product of CAD/CAM. A kirkyan might start as a sculpted ceramic piece with embedded firmware and then be three-dimensionally scanned, with all data representing the physical instantiation, kirkyan P, then used to create the transreality sibling(s). A physical replacement would, however, be replicated through a network-controlled process; most likely additive. Consequently, kirkyans do not necessarily begin as data (unless of course we decide to get all metaphysical or Creationist here).

    A kirkyan can only be a non-living object. A plant or animal could be implanted with firmware and dimensionally scanned, but in such a case, the “ghost in the shell” always comes initially from the physical instance. That predetermination is in conflict with the concept of dual-direction, transreality multiplicity.

    Okay, that was fun. Glad it’s out of my system.

    For anyone who manages to remotely understand what I’m trying to communicate, rip it up. It’s as much a ramble as anything.

    {Update: Someone created a short-lived Wikipedia entry for this concept. It wasn’t accurate, so I rewrote it with what might be for most people an easy-to-understand example. The Wikipedia entry was voted off the site but I saved that entry: Kirkyan. I should also mention that the “buoy” to which I’m referring is a controllable, self-propelled node within a string of booms. I don’t know that the oil industry has anything of this sort, and, consequently, don’t know what something like it might be called.}