|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 19, 2009 12:02:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Mar 19, 2009 12:09:22 GMT
Uh whaaaaaaaaaaat
So it is like videoconferencing but instead various government officials turn up as robots or foxes with 20 foot wangs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Mar 19, 2009 12:43:42 GMT
Fucking idiots.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by karla on Mar 19, 2009 13:40:58 GMT
ha! thats just bloody awful!
wouldn't be suprised if they were using it to spy on 'terrorists' in second life.becasue thats such good value for money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 19, 2009 19:41:39 GMT
Although I want people to reduce carbon emissions and unnecessary travel, I have found that face-to-face real-life meetings are the only way to build good relationships. Went to London and back today for a meeting on the train - at the tax-payer's expense - 9.30am meeting, which meant catching 6.23am train, argh, so not exactly a jolly - but there's no way I'd have got half as much benefit from a teleconference or videoconference. Real-life meetings supplemented by e-mails and teleconferences are the way to go. I fail to see worth in any computer communications system more sophisticated than e-mail.
That said, if the horrible system in the news article does end up paying for itself in travel costs saved, the money aspect would be defensible. But I wouldn't want to use it.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Mar 19, 2009 21:58:22 GMT
I have a feeling that this is going to become one of those moebius projects, the kind that never actually deliver anything of value but just keep going because it somehow becomes impossible to cancel them.
I am hard-pressed to see what Second Life can offer in terms of showcasing "low-carbon footprint technology" than cannot be achieve by the expedient of pointing a video-camera at said technology and then streaming said footage over the internets to the intended recipients.
I'm not sure it is a viable way to handle trade-shows, meetings and the likes. As you observe Martin, these work far better for actual personal contact. Something that Second Life cannot offer. As social animals so much of human interaction is based on body language, that something like Second Life is always going to be inferior to an actual physical meeting until it can actually mimic the experience of sitting next to an actual person. Basically until we reach Ghost in the Shell level of virtual telepresence then any idea of a "virtual meeting" is really just email with bells and whistles. And for all my fascination with high-technology, if it is just email-with-knobs on then why not just use email?
Also, if it must be done then could it be done in some other budget than that of the DWP please? It feels like it has as much relevance to the department as would having the MoD pay for a prototype NHS records system or something. It feels like something that would be better placed in one of the departments that actually deals with trade and industry. It seems to be rather a long way for the DWP's core business to me.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Mar 23, 2009 16:34:51 GMT
I would agree that face to face meeting is def. better but sometimes lots of travel is just a bit over the top.
I was speaking to an Professor here in Edinburgh who specialises in Virtual Worlds as my department is thinking of using it to extend our science communications activities and there is really a lot of potential in these sort of things waiting to be tapped and it isn't all about being an alternative to meetings.
Properly exploited for suitable functions that are facilitated well by it I can quite easily see virtual worlds becoming the future of the internet. Much like web browsers now provide smooth access to the internet. Virtual worlds are capable of facilitating a much smoother association and interaction with the real world than any 2D information display.
|
|
