• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Gametech orlandothefutureofvirtualworlds
 

Gametech orlandothefutureofvirtualworlds

on

  • 1,218 views

Join us for a special date and time as Metanomics broadcasts live from Gametech, the annual military conference on games and virtual worlds for training and simulation....

Join us for a special date and time as Metanomics broadcasts live from Gametech, the annual military conference on games and virtual worlds for training and simulation.

Virtual worlds have become an important technology to support training and community outreach. But over the past several years, changes in the virtual world industry have opened up new choices while closing others. Advances like the consumer adoption of Microsoft Kinect, widening use of Unity 3D, and the coming changes to the browser with the launch of HTML-5 and WebGL are opening up a new range of options.

Click here to watch the video:
http://www.metanomics.net/show/march_24th_live_from_gametech_orlando_-_the_future_of_virtual_worlds/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,218
Views on SlideShare
1,217
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Gametech orlandothefutureofvirtualworlds Gametech orlandothefutureofvirtualworlds Document Transcript

    • METANOMICS: GAMETECH ORLANDO: THE FUTURE OF VIRTUAL WORLDS - MARCH 24, 2011ANNOUNCER: Metanomics is owned and operated by Remedy and Dusan WritersMetaverse.ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Hi. Im Robert Bloomfield, professor at Cornell UniversitysJohnson Graduate School of Management. Today we continue exploring Virtual Worlds inthe larger sphere of social media, culture, enterprise and policy. Naturally, our discussionabout Virtual Worlds takes place in a Virtual World. So join us. This is Metanomics.METANOMICS ANNOUNCER: Metanomics is filmed today in front of a live audience atour studios in Second Life. We are pleased to broadcast weekly to our event partners andto welcome discussion. We use ChatBridge technology to allow viewers to commentduring the show. Metanomics is sponsored by the Johnson Graduate School ofManagement at Cornell University. Welcome. This is Metanomics.ROBERT BLOOMFIELD: Welcome, everyone, to a special Thursday morning edition ofMetanomics. I am coming to you live from our studios on the Metanomics Sim in SecondLife, but we are joining the Gametech 2011 Conference this morning, to hear a paneldiscussion featuring Metanomics own Dusan Writer, Doug Thompson of RemedyCommunications, as well as two other experts who have been mapping out the future ofvirtual technology and particularly the future of technology with military applications. Sowere joined by Richard Boyd, of Lockheed Martin, and Dr. Mic Bowman, of Intel.
    • Before we talk much about our panelists, I thought I would just give a little bit of contextsurrounding the conference itself. First, although everyone refers to the conference asGametech, it is actually the Defense Gametech Users Conference, and it does have veryspecifically a focus on defense applications. Now the location of the conference is inOrlando, Florida, and I thought it would be useful to go back to a transcript from--it seemslike a long, long time ago, January of 2008, when I had the opportunity to interviewRobert Gehorsam, who was then the president of Forterra, that was a Virtual Worldplatform very focused on serious uses and particularly defense-oriented uses of VirtualWorlds.Robert Gehorsam introduced me to a phrase I had never heard before, that is the Militaryentertainment complex. So let me put this in some context. Im going to quoteRobert Gehorsam talking about University of Central Florida, which is in Atlanta [MEANTORLANDO], and heres what Gehorsam had to say, so this is a quote, "So UCF is one ofthe biggest sort of unknown universities in the country certainly, and it really is for variousreasons probably the simulation capital of the United States, something I didnt know untila few years ago. As some people have sort of drolly put it, its at the center of the Militaryentertainment complex."All the Services, and thats Services with a capital S--Armed Forces--have their simulationcommands based in Orlando, and you also have all the theme parks. And when you lookat the birth of simulation, which, really, someone noticed earlier related to flight simulatorswhich led to motion simulators. The difference between a ride, a motion simulation ride at
    • Universal, and a flight simulator is kind of minimal. So theres an enormous amount oftalent in the digital film and media departments, in the computer science departments andall throughout that area. So for those of you who are students or interested in looking at orstudying in these areas, UCF would be an interesting place to look at."I bring this up because the conference is in Orlando, the center of the Militaryentertainment complex, and I suspect that what well be hearing today from our panelistsis to give us an indication of where Virtual World technology is going, by the people whohave the money and the incentive, really more than any other groups, to push thistechnology forward. So here, let me read from the Gametech 2011 website the objectivesof the conference. The Defense Gametech Users Conference goals are to advance gametechnology and its use within the Department of Defense; provide a forum for Departmentof Defense game technology users to exchange ideas and experience new technologies;to inform, educate and train Department of Defense personnel on the use of gametechnology for military training.The objectives, and I love the Military and the government in general because theydistinguish between goals and objectives, something Im trying to teach my accountingstudents to do. The objectives are to provide tutorials for Department of Defensepersonnel, that maximize their ability to use game technology [fielded within?] Departmentof Defense; to provide Department of Defense personnel an update on industry andacademia gaming, Virtual World and mobile application trends; to provide community atlarge an update on Department of Defense gaming, Virtual World and mobile applicationprojects.
    • I feel like Ive spent so much time this semester teaching my managerial accountingstudents here at Cornell Johnson School, let me just--an aside on goals versus objectives,I think its useful to think of goals as being much more general and objectives as beingspecific, definite, concrete outcomes that you are hoping that you will achieve.So anyway, lets turn. I see we just have a couple minutes before the conference beginsso we can talk a little bit about our panelists here. Let me just quickly find our run sheet.As I mentioned, Douglas Maxwell is providing some introductory remarks. We will then behearing from Mic Bowman, of Intel, Richard Boyd, of Lockheed Martin, andDoug Thompson, of Remedy Communications. I think the audience is quite familiar withDoug Thompson who is the owner of Remedy Communications and the owner ofMetanomics as well. Richard Boyd, from Lockheed Martin, has been working closely witha colleague David Smith, and I think are worth a moment of our time. Both Richard Boydand David Smith are Lockheed Martin employees, and they believe that they are on theverge of what theyre calling the holy grail of virtual reality. Upon joining Lockheed Martin afew years ago, Boyd created what theyre calling--and here Im quoting from some PRmaterial, "an informal, internal Lockheed Martin organization called Virtual World Labs,which draws from creative expertise across the corporation." Essentially forming whatBoyd calls a [no-o-sphere?], or a sphere of human thought that they can use in the VirtualWorld.Let me check here. I see that it is, according to my clock, 9:45. Im not sure. I will be
    • getting a heads-up when were about to get started.Mic Bowman, the remaining speaker in the conference, is someone who came to myattention through the wonderful blogging at UgoTrade. And there is here--let me actuallypaste in--Im just going to paste in this chat here. In the chats are a link to UgoTrade andan interview with Mic Bowman. Mic is emphasizing in this--now this is admittedly from2008, but a fascinating article on connected visual computing, which is the union of threedifferent domains for applications: the MMOG, Massively Multiplayer Online Game; theMetaverse, which is the traditional universe of Virtual Worlds, like Second Life, which mayor may not be game-oriented. And then a word that despite the fact that this is from 2008may be new to many of you: the Paraverse, P A R A, thats the Paraverse, which isaugmented reality. Right? So not in a Virtual World but adding virtual elements to ourworld.Its interesting, since 2008, there have been so many changes in technology. Really thebiggest one, in my view, the biggest one is the rise of the mobile device and, again, myown personal view, I think that the rise of the mobile device has caused traditionalimmersion in Virtual Worlds a lot of difficulty. Its hard to get immersed in a screen thatsthree inches by four inches in size. But by the same token, I believe that it has raised thepromise of the Paraverse, of bringing virtual elements into the Real World. And, if youhavent seen it, I had a chance to interview Jesse Schell. Hes a former Disney imagineer,now associated with Carnegie Mellon University, and hes talked extensively about what isnow more broadly being called gamification, bringing game elements into life, whetherthrough advanced technology or not.
    • I think that he has a wonderful, wonderful video thats on G4, if you look for Jesse Schell,S C H E L L, and he will talk about the gamification of real life, things as simple as forexample having a wireless chip in your toothbrush, along with a tiny, little gyroscope, andthe toothbrush is going to record how you moved it. Do you brush up and down and side toside and do you do it for as many minutes as youre supposed to. And, if you did, all thiswill be recorded and sent to a family leaderboard, where everyone can see, you get pointsfor brushing well, and might get awards with the family for being the best, most detailedup-and-down and side-to-side brusher you could imagine. Ill be very interested to hearwhat the panelists have to say today, but I suspect its going to be less of the traditionaltype of Virtual World application that I talked with over two years ago withRobert Gehorsam, which was really creating a Virtual World at the time.They were focusing on things like urban environments in Middle Eastern countries, as ifwe would ever expect to have military actions there, and having soldiers go door to doorwith their avatar in an urban setting and do the stuff that they need to do to get familiarwith the threats around them and distinguishing threats, non-threats and so on. I suspectthat, given the events of the mobile technology that weve seen, even just since then, wellsee more Paraverse applications where, for example, you might give people either just cellphones that would gamify a real environment or, if we want to spend the additional money,providing some sort of heads-up display goggles at people.I am getting the word that we are going live. This is Rob Bloomfield handing you over toOrlando.
    • CONFERENCE ANNOUNCER: Good morning. Welcome to day three of Gametech. Hasit been fun so far? We hope its fun for you guys because its a lot of work for us. Thankyou for participating. I have the pleasure of introducing our expert panel on Virtual Worldtoday. Mr. Doug Thompson, CEO of Remedy Limited, a pioneer in immersive mediatechnology, on your right over there; Mr. Richard Boyd, a chief architect of a Virtual Worldat Lockheed Martin; and Dr. Mic Bowman, who leads virtual research at Intel. We have amoderator today, our very own Doug Maxwell. Hes our resident expert at _____. Its allyours, Doug. Lets give our panel a quick applause. Thank you.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Thank you, Dr. Wynne for the introduction. My name isDouglas Maxwell. Im with the [AUDIO GLITCH] STDC based in Orlando. Id like to thankall of you for coming today at day [AUDIO GLITCH] Gametech. We would like to do things,like create a virtual training environment that is actually tutable, which means that itsreusable. And its a rich area for R&D, and I really enjoy working with folks who are like theones that are on our panel because they can help us solve some very difficult problems.Some problems that were talking about would be realistic numbers of participants.So currently, realistically, you can get maybe platoon-level participation in a virtualenvironment, and we would like to go all the way up to a village or city level, which meansthat you need orders of magnitude of more objects and avatars in the scene. We wouldalso like a realistic operational area, which means that, instead of just a few city blocks orvery small area of country, we would like multiple kilometers represented in the sameplace at the same time. And then all of it needs to be tied together with realistic physics.
    • So Ive got five areas of research that I would like to see evolve over the next, say, coupleof years and address these specific issues.The first one, like I said before, is high numbers of avatars. We would like to create higherscene fidelity and complexity, to replicate the operational environment. AI: AI is a hugeheadache for us because theres really no one AI that does everything we need so weretalking about contact switching in your AI so you want an AI to behave differentlydepending on what the situation is. We would also like to address usability. Were stillusing a keyboard and mouse today, and well talk about that a little bit later. And thenlastly physics. Game physics: using game engines for physics are really only appropriatedepending on what kind of scenario that youre playing out. And a higher level, higherfidelity, a higher accuracy in your physics is really needed in the next generation of virtualtrainers.So with the opening remarks off to the side, Id like to further introduce our panel. Lastyear when we were talking about putting panels together, we were brainstorming on whatto do, and I popped off and said, "Why dont we do a futures panel," and almostimmediately regretted it. [AUDIO GLITCH] technology that, even Id put together a panelon the spot right there in the conference room, by the time we got here in March thingshad already evolved. So what were going to do today is have a discussion about futuredirections of Virtual Worlds, Virtual World technology and how we can see what wereobserving in current trends to be applicable in our current needs.Id like to introduce first, Mr. Mic Bowman. He is a principal engineer at Intel Labs, and he
    • leads the Virtual World infrastructure research project. Those of you who are watching inSecond Life may know him as the guy who did the thousand avatar in a Sim project. Hereceived his bachelors degree from the University of Montana, and his masters and Ph.D.in computer science at the University of Arizona. Id like to turn it over to you, Mic, forsome remarks.MIC BOWMAN: Its cool in _____, but it was warmer in Arizona than it is in [Portland?].So first of all, thank you for coming. I guess, as Doug pointed out, the group that I run inIntel is responsible for kind of technologies that advance the cutting edge of Virtual Worldsapplications and environments. The specific research projects that we work on arescalability related. Its how we can bring to bear computing resources to enable theirusages so we focus on order of magnitude improvements in scene complexity, in avatarinteractions, total numbers of avatars in a scene as well. In addition, Intel funds throughacademic research projects a large number of sort of funder-future applications intechnologies as well, things that we can bring in to these environments over time, as thetechnologies mature through the ISTC, the Intel Technology Center for Visual Computingand the Intel Visual Computing Institute, both of which are focused on North American andEuropean researchers. Were really excited about the opportunities we have to advancethis technology and enable the usages.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Next, we have Mr. Richard Boyd, of Lockheed Martin. I alwaysenjoy meeting authors, and I didnt put two and two together until it was too late, butactually have your VRML book. I used it.
    • RICHARD BOYD: Wow!DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Yes. Yes. So weve got someone whos been around VirtualWorlds for quite a while and has a pretty deep understand of our problem-set. Richard isone of the creators of the Lockheed Martin Virtual Worlds Labs, and you joined what,Martin, in 2007, when they purchased your company? Is that correct?RICHARD BOYD: Thats correct.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: And, Id like to turn it over to you.RICHARD BOYD: All right. Thanks. So as I look around the room, I see a lot of folks, thesort of list of usual suspects who have been admiring the problem of how do we take thismedium--whether you want to call it Virtual Worlds or computer gaming--and apply it tosome of the more pressing, I think, even existential problems that we have as humanstrying to survive and thrive in the information age. Those of you who know me know that,as Doug mentioned, Ive been working with gaming technology as a medium foressentially 20, 21 years.I wont steal any of Davids thunder from the keynote today, but I first met him when hewas working on the movie The Abyss, with James Cameron, trying to solve some verybasic challenges that all humans face actually when it comes to trying to understand fromtwo-dimensional blueprints and designs and that sort of thing, what an ultimate sort ofdesign is going to look like. Turns out that about 75 percent of us cannot look at 2D
    • information, like a blueprint or an image and extrapolate in our head, like what is that 3Denvironment going to look like. So we solved that problem together by addressing the, Ithink, four areas where this gaming medium is really powerful.The four areas that we focused on are design. Chances are if you bought one of thosekind of do-it-yourself 3D home-design tools in the mid 90s, that was technology welicensed to the Learning Company back then, and, of course, I think we all know todaythat, if youre going to build a 747 or design the chairs that you guys are sitting in, chancesare youd be doing your effort a disservice if you didnt start by doing some design in a3D CAD. Entertainment: I think we all know at this point that its a very powerful mediumfor entertainment. I think computer gaming exceeding movie box-office receipts may be,was it 1997, and has been sort of outstripping it ever since.The last two is where were really focused with Virtual World Labs at Lockheed Martin, andI know the community here is really focused on it, and that is how do we solve these twomajor, pressing existential issues that we have in this century, which is, weve got thisincreasing complexity were having to deal with. How do we prepare humans to operate inmore complex environments. Now something we know from flight simulation is that[AUDIO GLITCH] earlier and maybe getting access to the equipment or the environment isdifficult. If you can put them in a simulated environment and let them practice safely, youget a shorter path to mastery. I think we all know that today.RICHARD BOYD: It turns out that, if you apply that medium to a whole host of issues, likerunning a McDonalds restaurant or long-haul trucking or anesthesiology--Ive got some
    • folks visiting from Cornell Medical this week, that I brought down to see the stuff atGametech--that we have the same or similar results. Right? And I hope were not stillhaving that debate. We were having it as recently as three or four years ago at otherconferences about should we really be using gaming as a medium, or should we be usingsimulation in general to try to improve human performance. I think we all should knowtoday that theres a mountain of evidence. The evidence is in now that, if youre not usinggaming, youre costing yourself money and time and performance. And, if we get to thequestion phase and theres still some of you out there, who havent received that gospel,then I think were all really excited about having that discussion with you.The last one is interface. I think, in this [XO-flood?] of information that were all having toface today daily and these systems that humans are creating today, that are increasinglycomplex, I mean I think its fair to say, as Joshua Cooper Ramo says in his book, The Ageof the Unthinkable--anybody read that book? Please go out and check that book out. Imean when you see stuff, like whats happening in the Middle East right now, and in Japanyou see that we humans are creating systems that are tens of thousands of times morecomplex than our conception of them, and somehow we think that we ought to be able tocontrol them. Whether its financial systems or energy systems or the internet, weredealing with this increasing complexity. I believe firmly, although I havent yet, I think thejurys still out on this--I think were going to talk some about interface--I think theres a wayto harness this really powerful medium, to help humans make better sense of thisbewildering world that were creating for ourselves: How do you separate signal fromnoise? How do you learn what to pay attention to or what can be safely ignored? I think weought to be teaching this in K through 12 education. Right? Thats going to be a critical
    • skill for humans in this age.And again, the things I really admire about the medium is that basically, just to put it in anutshell, youve got every media type ever used before in human communication, right,available to you. So whether its video or audio or images, text or even animated 3Dcharacters and objects, we have that in this really powerful medium that were harnessing.So Im really looking forward to see how we harness it for simulation learning, as well asnew interfaces.Now, one of the issues, and I still remember the first time I went into Second Life, and Ithink that was maybe four years ago. As someone whos been working in gaming--Davidwill talk about this later--but David and I and our partners created Red StormEntertainment with Tom Clancy. We did Timeline with Michael Crichton. We did thisAmazing Trainwreck Company called [Irock?], with Ozzie Osborn, and have focused on allthese applications of the game technology over the years, but the issue is how do we takethat technology and apply it to some of these more fundamental issues that we havetoday. Im sorry. So when I went into Second Life the first time, I found this environmentwhere I met some really interesting people, some pretty kooky people. I played aroundwith the tools and realized that I could create in there and make these interesting worlds,but I quickly ran out of things to do, and it didnt meet my expectations as a gamer, right,so I didnt have the complex interactions with non-player characters. I didnt have Quest. Ididnt have physics.I know a lot of those issues are being overcome, but my first reaction, when I tried to figure
    • out how could we harness it for doing training and that sort of thing was, hey, I really wantthat superset of capability that I see in MMOG engines, like the HeroEngine and othersthat I know the DOD were beginning to look at. So that was about three or four years agowhen I was talking to General Lessel and other folks about, "Hey, Second Life is great,and I see how we can have really interesting meetings in these environments and havesome interesting collaboration, but if I wanted to do mission rehearsal and have thousandsof participants and that sort of thing, I really want this sort of superset of capabilities that Isee in an MMOG."And then my thinking has evolved from there to say what is wrong with even using anMMOG today and the problem with Second Life. And, again, I think these environmentsand these platforms are really good for a variety of things like collaboration andsocialization and that sort of thing, and Ive really enjoyed seeing the development ofthem. But, as Im looking at how do you actually get this used in a governmentenvironment that requires today too many unnatural acts. And you guys know what Imtalking about, right? So its go and get this very large proprietary platform client, downloadit, install it on your system inside of a firewall. Call your sys admin and say, "Hey, we needthe following ports opened so that I can be able to interact with other people." And thesethings are just [AUDIO GLITCH] approved and all that, and these things are just, theyreunnatural acts, and not just for government. I think its a lot to ask for consumers.Now we do it on the game side because the payoff is, you know, I have this entertainingexperience that I can have. But thats when we really started thinking about how do weremove all this friction that is keeping us from taking advantage of the medium. Thats
    • really what I wanted to talk about today is, I believe in the medium. I believe its a powerfulway for us to engage with each other and with information. Id like to do it in a way that hasless friction, that has better interfaces that has a better, more smooth pipeline for how Icreate content. And the ideal model, once you go through that sort of thought experiment,is, Id like it to be the way the internet is, which is, if I want to go to the Metanomicswebsite, even though I couldnt get the Flash to work on my iPad to see this streamingthing here, I go to that website, and Im pretty quickly in that experience. I dont have tousually think about going out and getting proprietary plug-ins or opening up ports or thatsort of thing. And, if I want to create content for a website today, well, thats really theenergy that made the internet take off.If you wanted to learn html, what did you do? How many of you know html out there? Andhow did you learn initially? You went to a web page. You probably right-mouse clicked it,and you said, "View source." You said, "Oh, thats really cool how they did that," or, "Thatsa really nice cascading style sheet," and you reused other peoples work, and thats whatkind of helped--everybody became a publisher because the barrier to publishing reallydropped dramatically. Now the barrier to creating a triple A game title today is pretty darnhigh. Now the barrier to making an iTunes or an iPad or iPhone sort of title is droppingprecipitously, thanks to better tools, a nice little ecosystem that Apple has set up. Andwhat youll hear--and I dont want to steal all of Davids thunder from this afternoon--butwhat youll hear him talk about is all of those elements, removing all of that friction on boththe content-creation side, we like to use the word democratize and commoditize that wholepart of it, as well as the distribution of the players, make it very easy for people to get intothe worlds and then develop a business ecosystem such that everybody gets to play.
    • There are no more walled gardens or proprietary platforms that prevent people fromparticipating in the environment. I think if we can finally make that happen, the barrierlowers. Well all be able to take more advantage of this medium that we all agree ispowerful. And I know Im taking more time than I expected.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Thats quite all right.RICHARD BOYD: But Im looking forward to the discussion.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Thank you, Richard. The next panelist is Mr. Doug Thompson,and Im having a really surreal experience right now because were having a complete rolereversal. The first time I met Doug was in San Francisco, at the Enterprise 2.0Conference, where he moderated a panel, and I sat down on the end. So you mightnotice, out in the crowd, that were also streaming into Second Life. Doug is CEO ofRemedy Communications, but he also owns a show called Metanomics, and wereparticipating there as well. Those of you out in the Metanomics crowd, please feel free tojump in with questions in chat, and Ill try to get to them.Also, Mr. Doug Thompson is known as Dusan Writer in Second Life, and he also has alittle company called Startled Cat, which does storytelling. And one component that I thinkis really missing in some of our virtual trainers is actually a good story to tell, to engagepeople so that they really get into what were trying to teach them. So, Doug, Ill turn it overto you.
    • DOUG THOMPSON: Thank you. I dont want to get into a big modology versusnarratology debate, but we started Startled Cat because, just picking up a little bit whatyou were talking about with James Cameron is, you can have really great technology, butwhy are you going and what is the reason that youre there. And while there aresimulations and there are game mechanics that help drive our participation in VirtualWorlds, we also have a belief that this is a tool for storytelling, that its incrediblycompelling and that storytelling can really bring you to an aha moment in a way sometimesthat game mechanics cant. Game mechanics allow us to kind of look under the hood ofthe way that reality is constructed. It can give us incentives. It can give us pathwaysthrough content, and, in conjunction with storytelling or storytelling as a separate element,Virtual Worlds, I think, have an incredibly powerful ability to communicate empathy, walk insomebody elses shoes, communicate emotion, and allow us to think about higherconcept, higher-level concepts.And, when youre immersed, the quality of Virtual Worlds that provides that immersion,whether its high-fidelity immersion or not, it tricks the brain. You think that youre there.You think that youre participating in a Real World. Theres no difference. The mind doesntsee difference between virtuality and whats real. Which is another interesting asidebecause I think that you talk about the future of Virtual Worlds, and I love the phrase "Thefuture is here, its just not widely distributed."RICHARD BOYD: William Gibbs.DOUG THOMPSON: And I always say what Ive learned about the world, I learnedbecause of Virtual Worlds, where the future is headed. And you think about a lot of the
    • work that were doing is in public face in Virtual Worlds. And you think about issues aroundidentity, how we express ourselves through avatars. You think about the ability tocollaborate globally, across time zones, across geographies in real time. You think aboutissues that have come up around privacy. Virtual Worlds have become a kind of test bedfor thinking about how we, as humans, work with technology and work with the tools oftechnology. So I think theres some tensions that I think about in the work that we do.Were doing work, for example, in developing a virtual environment for military amputees.Military amputee goes back home after theyve been in a military treatment facility. Theylose the support network, the face-to-face support network that they got while they were ata place like Walter Reed. So by providing them with a virtual environment, they can stayconnected to their peers, provide each other support and, through an avatar, work outissues, for example, about body identity and maybe, through a virtual environment, set upa sort of mentoring peer-to-peer support network that maybe is not as easily facilitatedthrough things like Facebook.So those are the types of projects that were working on, where its not just what happensin the virtual environment, but its the implications of the virtual environment to the physicalor actual world. And these create, I think, some tensions, and you touched on some ofthese tensions, one of those tensions being around fidelity because I think that theres aspectrum between extremely high-fidelity virtual environments and environments that dontneed to necessarily have that level of fidelity. And I think its a false dichotomy to say thatwe need to have increasing levels of fidelity because Im not sure thats true. We weredoing a project over the last couple of weeks where were actually prototyping a retail
    • experience for a Fortune 500 company. We brought some people in, and we did somestorytelling in a virtual environment, and we had a very high-fidelity environment, butreally, at the end of the day, all they needed was a table. Thats all they really needed wasa virtual table because they got into a story outside of their normal way of thinking, andwhat we discovered from that or the reminder for us was that it doesnt always take--Imgoing to be a little bit of a, whats the term for it--RICHARD BOYD: Devils advocate?DOUG THOMPSON: --devils advocate or take another side of this, which is that fidelityisnt always a necessary end goal. I think that other tension between narratology andmodology or game mechanics and social/storytelling experiences, I think theres someinteresting tensions to explore there. Finally, I think one of the things--the future is here,but we havent quite grappled with what it means, and thats around avatar expression. Ithink were starting to see technology such as facial recognition, where your avatar canrespond based on your physical face, but also other ways of expressing yourself throughthe identity of an avatar.I think its interesting to think about our avatars as starting to embed intelligence of theirown and that when we think about artificial intelligence, we often think of NPCs and bots. Ithink theres a really interesting work that we could do if we think about what type ofintelligence we could embed in our avatars so that our avatars could be sort of partially on,that we could be expressing ourselves in digital spaces, even when were not necessarilythere. I think this happens on its own right now, and we dont acknowledge that this
    • happens. Youre logged into Second Life. And I see a little IM there from somebody. Youravatar is there, and people are chatting with your avatar, even though your level ofpresence isnt necessarily fully there. I think this idea that we can start to embedintelligence and procedures and protocols into our avatars becomes a very interestingplace for AI development. And Ill leave it at that for now.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: The fidelity question is coming up over and over again during theconference, and I believe tutable fidelity in our Sims is important. I think the mission in thescenario should define what level of fidelity that you should have in it. And also the kindsof fidelity should be clearly defined as well. Fidelity is expensive and, if you did high fidelityfor everything all the time, it probably wouldnt be viable.I want to switch gears a second and ask the panel a set of questions, and, once werefinished, I would like to invite both in-world participants and the audience to jump in andgive us some questions.So the first question that I have for you guys has to deal with decreased budgets. So wereanticipating a drawdown in spending in the Military and pretty much across the board inthe government. My first question is: How do you see the reduction in budgets having animpact on how Virtual Worlds are used specifically as a collaboration medium? And, Mic,Ill turn that over to you first.MIC BOWMAN: [AUDIO GLITCH] clearly in a meeting thats held in some kind of virtualenvironments going to cost an awful lot less than holding them in the corresponding
    • physical space, for travel costs, for physical space issues as well. So there are two partsof my thinking about this. One is changing of budgets, change the acceptable level ofexpense to value ratio for virtual environments. So as we have lower and lower budgets,our willingness to get the very deeply interactive environment that we get when werephysically co-located is less important, and we found this on other kinds of interactions.The second part of that though is--and this goes back to a degree to the fidelityquestion--is what does it take to make these applications more useful, that is, what can wedo in order to get the benefits out of it. One obvious observation, and Doug and I have hadthis conversation a number of times, is that if you want to host a thousand people in aconference, you better have a virtual space to get those thousand people in theconference. Theres certain levels of basic scalability that we need in order to be able totranslate things from one place to another place.On things like fidelity, what do we have from our existing conferencing applications? Wehave a certain amount of interaction that we can get out of NetMeeting. Its a really _____interaction. But there are pieces of the expression of social interactions in those meetingsthats completely lost when you use something like NetMeeting. You can go into anenvironment, like Second Life, and it becomes more expressive. Theres the notion ofpresence and engagement and immersion into it. But, again, the number of dimensionsthat we can express, the amount of control that we can express in those is relatively low.So what we accept is in those environments is essentially a translation of our NetMeetingexperience with the avatar presence. Right? Theres very little else that goes into it.Theres a little bit of sort of pre-meeting and post-meeting that you dont get out of
    • NetMeeting, but your ability to express things is very small. Its I cant--when Im in aphysical meeting, Im notorious for this. Its the mean time to whiteboard what they talkabout, for me, that I have to have a whiteboard marker in my hand, scribbling on a boardat a meeting. And I cant do that in any of these virtual environments. Until I can get thefidelity of my expressiveness up to a level for this particular application, where I canspontaneously start writing on the whiteboard and have the same kinds of sort of deeplyexpressive interactions that I would get in a physical environment, it cant fully take theplace of our physical meetings. And so we go back to whats the level of acceptableexpression? Whats the level of acceptable behavior?One other observation that Ill make on this, Richard talks a lot about games, and thats hisway of capturing the world on this thing, and that is by far the most mature and effectiveapplication of these technologies right now. Games, [as turning in?] games of simulation,are the most successful use of these as serious applications. The way we talk about itinside Intel is very much about applications. Its not my goal to create a virtual space. Mygoal is to solve the collaboration problem. And the virtual space needs to be able toexpress the things I need to be able to express in order to achieve that application. So theapplication is share or communicate information, I think were going to see more trendstrending to that. If the application is collaborate and create and design, I think weve got aways to go on the technology, to be able to get to the point where we can express that.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Nice. Richard, your comments?
    • RICHARD BOYD: Sure. I mean obviously affordability is on all of our minds, not justwithin the DOD, but in society to a larger extent. And that is one of the primary driversbehind when you heard [D9?] yesterday talk about the virtual framework and trying to sortof break down all the walled garden sorts of siloed efforts that we see across the DOD andaround the world, thats one piece of it. And thats precisely why were trying to againcreate an ecosystem approach where we get rid of the walled gardens, proprietaryplatforms, allow everybody to participate and allow that sort of, finally, the share ability andportability of content so that were not creating content for one platform and then have itnot be portable to others.The company that I had, 3Dsolve, that was acquired by Lockheed Martin, was one of the, Ithink, six or seven software companies that were contributing to the Americas Army gameproject. I think that some fabulous work was done there. The one regret that I had fromthat whole process was that a lot of that great content that we created there is sort of tiedup in that platform, and theres a lot of people that are really interested in trying to takesome of that content in the fabulous training that was created in there and move it over tomore portable environments or to other platforms, bring it maybe, "Could you bring it intoSecond Life? Could you bring it into Teleplace? Could you bring it into VBS2?" And theanswer has been a resounding no, for a variety of reasons, some of them based on policyand people and some of them really just based on the technology.So those are the kinds of things we want to break down, that we believe will reduce costsin just the content creation and sharing, finally, [AUDIO GLITCH] work with BP on usingVirtual Worlds and advise them on using a bunch of different platforms. And naturally they
    • replaced a couple of their meetings where theyve got folks in Azerbaijan and in SouthAmerica and everywhere, and every year they were bringing them all to London. And, ofcourse, the individuals were really happy about that annual meeting, right, to get out ofAzerbaijan or the stans or wherever they happened to be and get to London for theseface-to-face meetings, with a lot of going to dinner and social interaction. So they did thistest where they replaced it with a meeting, I believe it was in ProtoSphere, and the savingswere dramatic, as you pointed out.Now, one of the things we learned from that though, and this is something that I feel, I alsoagree that we have a ways to go, in terms of really recreating the social aspects that wereall enjoying here in Virtual Worlds because I believe that there is an incremental benefit togoing into these environments. Now if you have a lot of experience, of course, and youveplayed World of Warcraft, and youve been in games, and you have Second Lifeexperience, youre going to get a lot more out of the meetings in these environments, likeTeleplace or Second Life, than people that are showing up for the first time, simplybecause youre more adept at how do you share content, how do I collaborate with others.Im not running around jumping up on the table and learning how to use my avatar for thefirst time.Within Lockheed Martin, weve been, again, exploring this technology for quite some time,and weve had a study of I think we had a thousand Teleplace seats. Is that right, Remy?REMY: Yes, you did.
    • RICHARD BOYD: And Ive used it for program management and just general meetingsand that sort of thing. Weve watched people go up that initial learning curve, where theyreagain not really aware of the etiquette and protocol that we all have here. You guys arentrunning around jumping on the tables. It would be fun, kind of, if you did, but--well do thatexperiment later. But youre sitting in your seats, and Im speaking, and everybody islistening, to some extent. Right?In these Virtual Worlds, sometimes you got people just running around everywhere, notpaying attention to the speaker, and I noticed yesterday in Remys thing in Teleplace, hehad this great little tool--because thats one great thing about the medium is, we do havegodlike control of everything in these worlds. Weve created them. Weve summoned theminto existence. And Remy was able to grab all of us--there were 15 of us, right--and slamus down in our seats and then make us follow him around as he showed us stuff. Andwed lost control of our avatars. I wish I could do that in Real World meetings so thats onebenefit. But I think, in terms of collaboration right now, the benefit is incremental overthings like NetMeeting and others, and Im still really interested in seeing us get rid ofsome of that interface friction. And, again, I know were going to talk about that shortly,and that sort of thing.Now, when it comes to training though, as I said earlier, the improvements andeffectiveness and efficiency that you get from being able to have people collaborate inthese environments, whether youre training on the Littoral combat ship where theres folkson a real ship out somewhere training right now, and the rest of us can be at our stationsin a virtual sort of analog of that ship and participate in those live exercises with them, that
    • is really powerful stuff. And its got a demonstrable effect on creating a shorter path tomastery. And, after all, that is what, as you pointed out, thats what we want.I dont want to learn how to use my iPad better. Ive never learned how to type. Im reallyglad that I never did because soon Im not going to have to. Im not going to even need itbecause were removing all of those barriers, and soon its going to be this frictionless wayfor us to, again, do our jobs, which is collaborate with each other and information andaccomplish our task and, hopefully, with a shorter path to mastery, which is, again, theresstill organizations that are not taking advantage of this, and I believe that very soon thoseorganizations that dont will be completely outstripped by those who do. And individualswho take advantage of this in the next ten to fifteen years will appear super-human tothose who are not taking advantage of it. So its all about easier interfaces, morecommoditized and democratized sorts of ways to develop the contents, and then takingadvantage of this medium. Game mechanics are just one piece of it.The point I made earlier is, its the fact that we have all these media at our disposal, and,to me, its actually--this is what I saw on the set of Avatar with James Cameron is thisgodlike power over a medium where you can do a lot more even than you can possiblywith the movies, with a passive linear medium. Essentially, this is a nonlinear interactivemedium where you can get emergent behavior and be surprised and that sort of thing, andI think its incredibly powerful, and Im looking forward to seeing where it goes. There areways to save money, certainly on meetings. Then on training. I think thats going to be abig game-changer in the next decade if D9s vision is realized.
    • DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Doug, what do you think?DOUG THOMPSON: I mean I guess just a couple things. I mean I like it when times arewhen youre scrambling around for budget because it makes you think that its not VirtualWorld budgets that [AUDIO GLITCH] just budgets in general. So people are saying, "Ivegot to figure out ways to do more with less." And I actually think these guys have pointedout some great use cases for Virtual Worlds, where you can do more with less. But alsokind of make two other points. One is that we dont typically talk about Virtual Worlds inisolation. Theyre part of a larger project so there might be a social media component.There might be a web component. You might be taking machinima in order to create atraining video, and that that machinima gets posted to an internet or out to YouTube.You look at this Metanomics event, were investing an avatar presence in Second Life, butthere are also people watching from the web so you are in a Virtual World, and then wemay probably have a couple of hundred people watching on our stream. And, if you cantwatch on our stream, youre probably participating in Twitter. And so when we look atinvestments in virtual technology, we look at that investment as part of a larger set. Andback to what Mic was saying, its a solution. If somebody has a problem and you can givethem a solution and one of the technologies happens to be Virtual Worlds, theyll pay forthe solution.The other thing I think that this encourages is interesting collaborations and looking atunique ways to bring partners together that might not have been brought together before. Ithink about the work were doing with military amputees, just as an example. Theres all
    • kinds of funding models that could work with that, including funding models through, forexample, the VA where youre looking at actual rehabilitation, and youre looking atmedical outcomes. But, you can think about other types of partnerships that you can bringtogether into an environment like that. If there was one thing I would encourage and onething that weve learned in Virtual Worlds is that these abilities to collaborate acrossdisciplines and with partners that you might not have thought about collaborating with canunleash value that maybe you hadnt anticipated.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: I agree. Thank you. Lets talk about security for a moment. One ofthe largest barriers to adoption in the Military, in particular, and across the federalgovernment is security. We currently have a zero-risk tolerance policy, if you will.Steven Aguilar, up here in the front, and I lived that for a couple years, just trying to get thebasics in place at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center for us to do demonstration andprototype work. I want to ask you guys what you think about new approaches to securityand how we can possibly either drive new policy that D9 talked about acceptable riskyesterday? What are your thoughts? Richard, lets start with you.RICHARD BOYD: Sure. Obviously since the Virtual World framework tasking came fromD9s office, I think Security, with a capital S, was right behind affordability or sometimesthey swap places, in terms of how important they are in our tasks. So thats something thatI think obviously is a must-happen, and its something that, of course, has held up theadoption of some of these technologies in the DOD and in the government at large. So ourgoal with this effort to democratize and commoditize and reduce friction with theframework is to make sure that anything that someone creates in this new framework or
    • deploys can be made as secure as any website today or any web deployment today. Andthat, again, is one of the things were going to be harnessing from what weve learned fromthe internet is making sure that that is the case.Obviously, saying that its as secure as any other internet deployment means that it isinsecure, but we routinely deploy content today within firewalls, within secure networks.And, again the way were trying to approach this platform is to say its just like any othermedium. Its like any other media type. Thats all it is. I think the public and the mediareally talk about gaming and Virtual Worlds, and we play it up quite a bit, but I really thinkof it again as just another medium that happens to contain all other media types and,therefore, allows new forms of storytelling, new forms of expression, new forms ofcollaboration, both with other people and with information. New ways of looking atinformation that were only beginning to harness. But the idea is, by using secure socketlayers and everything weve learned from the internet, anything we deploy on thisenvironment should be as secure as any other web deployment.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Doug, what are your thoughts?DOUG THOMPSON: Yeah. Two things. I think theres two pressures. One is thatenterprise and military are driving an agenda for security so I think youre seeing hacks,and I think the kind of work that you guys are doing to push that agenda will continue soweve seen hacks. But on the other side of it, I think that the push for more ubiquitousaccess, whether its through a browser, whether its using things, the Unity plug-in is still aplug-in. But, youre sort of seeing two pressures that are leading us to a place where you
    • will be able to say that you could start firewalling things, and those two pressure are, one,we want [AUDIO GLITCH] storytelling, [AUDIO GLITCH] you do need secureenvironments.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Mic, you guys are looking at it at a completely different angle.MIC BOWMAN: Yeah.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: So Im not going to steal your thunder. Go for it.MIC BOWMAN: Okay. The question of security in a Virtual World is by itself the questionis a really interesting problem and trying to understand what we mean by that. It happenson many different levels. Theres the basic level. This is a network application, and we cantreat it like a network application and try to secure it like a network application. But, evenwhen we do that, its not quite the same. Right? There are a number of different fairlyunique kinds of attacks that you can have in these environments. And a web application, auser that comes to that http server brings very little context, and the context that that theybring tends to be very static. Whereas, an avatar that comes into a simulation, into aVirtual World thats being simulated by a space, brings a significant amount of context withthem. They bring their avatar, and they bring all of their inventory, call it whatever youwant, with them. And that inventory frequently includes things that require computationalresources on the server. And so every avatar that comes into your server brings with themthis context, and the context is potentially destructive to the server.
    • And, just to give you a very creative example: Theres some wonderful DDoS attacksabout people with very complex avatars walking by a room outside. You cant even seethem, but the simulation engine, unless the simulation engine is fairly smart, its stillsending updates down the network for all of the changes that are happening to that avatar.And so network research is being consumed on my connection to the server, bysomebody else whos on the server. That doesnt exist in our web applications today. Weneed to rethink that.But it gets even more interesting, right? That, in order to do the optimization, we do thingslike Dead Reckoning and animations and other things, where we take sort of server-sizesimulation concepts and push them off onto the client, in order to get better behavior andbetter application and use of the resources. Well, what that really means is that when Imvisiting a site, somebody who walks through is actually consuming not just resources onthe server where the simulations occurring, where the virtual environment or gamehappens, but also on my client because theyre consuming the resources as I render theiravatar and as I do more and more of these optimizations where Im moving mycomputations to the client, theyre using more and more of my resources. And, if theyrenot starting to execute things on my client, now that opens up a whole nother spectrum ofkinds of attacks that can occur.There are a variety of levels that Intels working on: different features and capabilities thatallow us to provide layers of security, secure execution environments, all the way upthrough support of programming languages allow us to firewall applications for every[bot?]. So theres a whole stack of solutions that have to come in there. Theres a second
    • part of the security problem. So the first part is just how do we take this networkapplication and make it secure.The second part is the information [on conflict?] thats in there. So this whole notion ofpersistence and shared state that makes this such a powerful media is also something thatintroduces a set of complexities into the problem. That is, the information thats in thatshared state may not be consumable by everyone who has access to it. And so now wehave a problem of presenting the shared state in a way that different perspectives anddifferent viewpoints can take advantage of the sharing, but also see only the stuff thattheyre supposed to see in those environments. That kind of very compartmentalizedsharing of information is very much a military kind of application. There are certainlyapplications in enterprise, but theyre less open.But we see similar kinds of things in just general applications for consumers. Contentcreation and places like Second Life goes through a number of these problems of piracy,picking things up and moving it around, and that whole problem of ownership and movingcontent is yet another dimension to this. And, again, there are solutions that can bebrought to bear on it. The question is how much weight do you want in the security systemversus how much freedom to you want in order to act and the cost of it as well.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: We have about ten minutes, and Id like to open up questions tothe audience before I move on to the other questions. Mic, you brought up a great pointthough. Back in 2008, when we were filling out the Security paperwork to allow SecondLife in our networks, it was all about web pages, and they wanted to know, "What web
    • page would you like us to view?" And so you know the policy is lagging, and we need toeducate our policymakers to help us with that. Yes, maam?AUDIENCE: Thank you. Can you hear me okay?DOUGLAS MAXWELL: We can.AUDIENCE: Richard, you opened up with something I really, truly believe in, that todaywe have really complex system and problems that really require collaboration to be able tosolve. Mic, you mentioned the goal to collaborate in design around those problems[AUDIO GLITCH] have for you is: Why not take the approach of creating contextualenvironments that better showcase what the system problem is? For example, are youlooking at the world of games? All the games that help explain complex systems the best,the Sim City, Civilization, Starcraft, they explain supply-chain optimization problems.These arent in the style of FPS, theyre more real-time strategy, the god view. So whyavatars? Why not instead, for example, Foldit, the protein-folding game out ofWashington? A corroborative, contextual environment that showcases better the problemversus avatars. Im just curious. Im pushing back a bit.MIC BOWMAN: Okay. Ill go.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Okay, go ahead.MIC BOWMAN: [First ones easy to do?] I have two responses. The question of whether
    • an avatars a part of it or not is an independent question from what kind of problem am Isolving. Am I looking at the right set of problems? So theres a social application, a socialneed that Second Life solves, thats different from a protein-folding visualization. So wecreated sites and largely as in collaboration with the IEEE and ACP around the SuperComputing Conference, largely as a way to explore what we call collaborativevisualization, a way of looking at very complex--looking at and interacting with verycomplex datasets. And so we have a guy, for example, Aaron Duffy at Utah State, whouses OpenSim essentially as an interface to configure and interact with his biologicalevolution systems. So he can do these very complex simulations on the backend, and hesusing this as simply a front end for seeing the evolution of the populations in a very nice,graphical way. It also happens to be the case that we can join him and provide feedback,and so it becomes a very collaborative environment.A second example of that is, were doing some collaboration with Sandia National Labs,around this thing we call water wars. And Sandia has a very rich set of simulations forhydrology in the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. They have a very difficult timecommunicating the results of that to their constituencies. And so were using essentially agame front end thats being backed by a very rich, complex simulation environment, inorder to communicate the long-term results of decisions. And so you play it as a game, butyoure really configuring and interacting with a very rich simulation on the backend.And its those kinds of applications, its that conversion from sort of thinking about it as agame to thinking about as an application that has game properties to it, that were trying toexplore in those applications. So yes, the apps that I think more about are protein-folding
    • and serious games and less about sort of social interactions.RICHARD BOYD: Yeah. Among my collective of misfits and who have been looking atthese problems, weve been talking a lot recently about things like Katrina-like disasters or,of course, whats happening in Japan and looking at social media. Reid Hoffman investedin my last company and was on the advisory board, and hed explained social media to us,going all the way back to 2003, and, frankly, I saw the Moores Law and Metcalfes Lawtrends, but didnt know that wed want to use it just as a mirror, once we had all that greattechnology. I think theres another step that I think were about ready to take, which is,again, think about everything we just talked about with the medium, think about the powerof social media, and what if we could have an analog model of the world that where, withthe right filters, I could coordinate NGO response to whats happening in Japan or whathappened in Haiti or elsewhere. And were seeing a lot of examples of that.I just saw recently that Harrison Ford has a new effort with Facebook, called Ecotopia. Andgoing back to what you said, it is a massively multiplayer sort of game environment, but itis going to be a very simple interface, just like Farmville and some of these other efforts.But its about coordinating people and energy and collaborating on a problem and takingadvantage of this medium to get people to work together. When we first started working onVRML in the early 90s, with Mark Pesce and Tony Parisi, and when David and I wrote thebook on that in 96, the idea that we had originally was an analog model of the world, theidea--and Michael Jones was involved in those discussions as well. The guy is now CTOat Google Earth, of course. But the idea is, make an analog version of the world, thatssynthetic, that we can play with, and I know, Feydra(?), you talk about this a lot, about
    • using the medium to map the future. And it turns out to be really, really good at thatbecause you can do what-ifs, and you can say, "What if this changed or that changed,how would we deal with that problem? Lets run through a simulation of it before it actuallyhappens and see how we would coordinate and respond to it." But I think thats a perfectapplication of the medium.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Very good. Doug, would you like to weigh in?DOUG THOMPSON: Well, just to say I think its interesting you asked the question, andthe responses, because I think its showing that the boundaries between, for example,serious games and Virtual Worlds are blurring. And so we come back to our main point,which is, whats the problem and then find the right solution for the problem. But I thinkyoure bringing up an interesting question, which is a couple things. One is that Im notsure yet that [AUDIO GLITCH] as firmly worked out as they will be a couple of years fromnow. I also think that well start to see more interest in work around 3D environmentsthemselves, destructibility, entropy, environments which change on their own withoutmanagement. And so as 3D environments become intelligent, they can actually becomekind of like data landscapes. And then this question about how much presence--do youneed an avatar, so you end up with a spectrum of potential solutions depending what yourproblem is.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: I have one last rapid-fire question for you. We only have a coupleof minutes. But when are we going to ditch the keyboard and the mouse? Doug, you gofirst.
    • DOUG THOMPSON: Well, as I said, the future is here, its just not widely distributed. Ithink were [staying with?] Microsoft can act the first because its a consumer applicationand because people are hacking it and using it as an interface for things like Second Life.Were on the road. Whether people always want to be moving around as theyre accessingdata, well see.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Thank you. Mic?MIC BOWMAN: You want rapid-fire answers.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Oh, yeah.MIC BOWMAN: Very tough. I guess Ill focus on one part of it, and its just the observationthat, when we look at system architecture today, the amount of computation of power thatgoes into output is grossly out of balance with the amount of computation that goes toprocessing input. And until those line up, until we think as much about how we throwcomputation at the input problem, activity inferencing, managing the very, very rich set ofsensors that we now have in our devices, how we interact with mobile devices and themany devices we have available to us. Until we throw the computation and understandhow to throw the computation at managing that large amount of input thats largely ignoredright now, were going to have a hard time getting away from the keyboard and mouse.DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Thirty second, Richard.
    • RICHARD BOYD: Well, I think the best interfaces are invisible interfaces, and thats thetrend that were heading towards right now, which is ambient, fully ambient interfaces.When we first heard about Microsoft Natal, David and I went out to meet withAlex Kipman, the inventor, and it turned out Jaron Lanier was there as well. And Jaron, ofcourse, is the guy who invented the Data Glove years ago, and we spent a pretty rich daytalking about how the interface is going to disappear. But this whole connect thing is reallyabout a sensor revolution thats happening. Of course, at Lockheed, we know a littlesomething about sensors. Theyre getting incredibly cheap, and this era of us learning howto adapt to the devices, I think, is rapidly coming to a close, and its going to be allabout--and I think the companies are going to win, like the Intels and whoever, are thosewho are going to figure out how to make this stuff adapt to us and make it a lot morenatural. Were using natural-language processing and gesture. Another one of mycolleagues, Frank Bozeman, coined the term--you guys have heard of digital immigrantsand digital natives and all that stuff from Art Prensky--he coined the term gestural natives.And thats like my five-year-old today, I often tell the story of when she was three, from thetime she was three, she already had a year or more of experience working with an iPodTouch and that interface. I caught her one day out swiping her hand across the front of mytelevision. I asked her what shes doing, and she said--she speaks Italian--so she said,"Daddy, [e rota?]." Its broken. Its like, "Oh, youre trying to change the channel." And Iexplained to her heres the three or four things that I had in my den, that I use this one forthat device. And she just looked at me, puzzled. And I said, "Of course, youre right." Whydont these things just do what we ask them to do? Why do I have to figure out theinterfaces? And I think that age is ending soon.
    • DOUGLAS MAXWELL: Thats a fantastic close. Thank you. Thank you to the panel. Iappreciate your participation, and Im going to turn it back over to Dr. Wynne.DR. WYNNE: Thank you. On behalf of Gametech _____, Id like to present the panel withthe Team Orlando coin for your presentation here.RICHARD BOYD: Do we have to share it?DR. WYNNE: Its good for I think a beer somewhere around here. Im not sure.Could you please fill out the survey and drop it at the door. And do we have a way for theVirtual World to fill out the survey? Well capture the chats. Okay. Thank you for coming.Document: cor1100.docTranscribed by: http://www.hiredhand.com