(from the site) "This Virtual Worlds Management Industry Forecast 2008 (a 36-page report) brings together 45 virtual worlds industry leaders, including CEOs of developers, platforms, and agencies, analysts and thinkers, and lawyers and government representatives to offer their thoughts on and predictions for virtual worlds in 2008. Also examined in the report are the 2008 business goals for many of the leading companies in the industry. We asked participants the following questions:
1. What are your top 3 trend predictions for 2008?
2. What business goals have you set for 2008?
3. What challenges do you expect 2008 to bring for the virtual worlds industry?
4. A number of new platforms are launching in 2008. What are the biggest impacts this
will have on the industry?
5. How will the above changes affect your specific segment of the industry in 2008?"
Dion Hinchcliffe always does great visuals but I really like this one because I think it will translate well for audiences that perhaps don't swim in water as steeped in technology as all of you reading this.
This is a great way to explain how these pieces fit together.
As I become more and more convinced that implementing next-gen/Web 2.0 is soooo much less about technology than about culture (Duh Mark, I know), then I am also becoming more and more convinced of the danger of 'quick wins.' Changing organizational culture is hard. It takes time, will and extended effort.
I think the idea of 'quick wins' can be not only distracting but wasteful. I think that often 'quick wins' are used to cover up the lack of an over-arching strategy against which actions can be measured and be found either to support an long-range plan or not to support it or to support it in some measure. That strategy is the long pole in the tent - it is the metric that we can measure our actions against.
So 'quick wins' are fine as long as they take place within the context of a long-range plan and are executed in such a manner as to continue progress toward that vision. I guess what I am saying is that we should stop acting like changing any organization to take advantage of new technologies or ideas is hard, hard work and we need to respect that, fund like we understand that and invest in ways that indicate we see beyond the next quarter.
Just FYI people - According to a report released in May 2008 by the Energy Information Administration - an office within the Dept. of Energy...if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) were opened to drilling this year, 2008 - the first oil would be seen in 2018 (10 years) and peak production would not occur until 2027. As it relates to changing the price of a barrel of oil...the best case scenario would occur in 2027 when that cost would come down by $1.44. The Wall Street Journal cites an estimate that it would take at least seven years to get the first barrel out of new Gulf of Mexico drilling. Now if you want to look at real short-term relief, appreciate the fact that today, when China indicated that it would raise the prices of gasoline, the price of a barrel of oil dropped almost $5.00.
Honest to goodness, someone please respond to me so we can have an open conversation about this. Here is what I see. There is a journal, Field Methods, with an editor - H. Russell Bernard, and then you have this publisher. Now someone from the journal PLEASE explain to me, what benefits you and/or your customers derives from you having this relationship with this publisher?! Understand this - I am not against the publisher, I understand their business model and I understand their motivations - they are not evil, they're just capitalists and NO the two are not the same. (previous rants on this topic)
Until I get some explanations though, I'm pretty well amazed at the academics involved in this scheme. I've posted about it before, but to date have not received any kind of explanation as to what benefit derives to the side of this equation that supplies all the intellectual horsepower.
Faculty are paid by their schools. Usually research is part of their job description - so they aren't out of pocket in terms of the cost of the research. Usually the "peers" who review articles, aren't paid or they're paid very little. So then we take this paid for research, add some peer review and then add some editorial work and then what? Lock it up behind TWO walls - one of price and one of copyright.
I'm feeling stupid here because I just don't freaking get it! Want to know where EduPunk can make a dent that'll matter in terms of budgets, openness of research and so on? Tell your institutions to start contacting the academics on the other end of these journals and asking why the hell they continue to participate in an outmoded channel of production that strangles library budgets and restricts already paid for research to those who can afford it and then refuses to allow that content to be freely shared. I swear, I 'm just sitting here shaking my head...I understand this behavior from the recording and movie industries but from institutions and individuals that purport in some way to be supportive of openess and academic freedom. Well I guess its true...freedom isn't free.
<insert shameless plug here>
Just wanted to let everyone know, so you can all run out and sign up now! now! now! - that Brent Schlenker and I are doing an eLearning Guild Summer Seminar Series that is focused on all things "2.0" and how they can be used to create powerful ,collaborative, learning environments. An outline for our session is available here - but I should also point out that Clark Quinn and Jeff Johannigman are doing their session on serious games aka Immersive Learning Simulations, immediately following ours - so stay for both!
(link) Cautionary Note: I'd like to read this article but don't really want to drop $32 for the privilege. Maybe it'd be really cool if the authors, Marta C. González, César A. Hidalgo and Albert-László Barabási could explain why they want to publish such great research behind such a walled garden. Maybe it'd be cool if nature could explain why it needs $32 freaking dollars from me for an electronic version of an article that must have already been paid for by their subscribers and for which the marginal cost is ZERO. So that $32 is pure profit. Honestly, this is just disgusting behavior for people and organizations that PURPORT to be engaged in academic endeavors.
Excerpt: "Despite their importance for urban planning, traffic forecasting and the spread of biological and mobile viruses, our understanding of the basic laws governing human motion remains limited owing to the lack of tools to monitor the time-resolved location of individuals. Here we study the trajectory of 100,000 anonymized mobile phone users whose position is tracked for a six-month period. We find that, in contrast with the random trajectories predicted by the prevailing Lévy flight and random walk models7, human trajectories show a high degree of temporal and spatial regularity, each individual being characterized by a time-independent characteristic travel distance and a significant probability to return to a few highly frequented locations. After correcting for differences in travel distances and the inherent anisotropy of each trajectory, the individual travel patterns collapse into a single spatial probability distribution, indicating that, despite the diversity of their travel history, humans follow simple reproducible patterns. This inherent similarity in travel patterns could impact all phenomena driven by human mobility, from epidemic prevention to emergency response, urban planning and agent-based modelling."
So Firefox 3 Download day was a pretty big success. That is if you count something on the order of 8 million downloads and quadrupling your market share in a single 24-hour period successful (1). I do want to point out though, that as much as I like FF3, Opera 9.5 is also out and is a fine, seriously fast browser in its own right.
This article was one of the many that came out in the wake of Download Day; "Firefox 3.0 Doesn't Focus On Business IT." There are a couple of interesting points in this piece. The first thing is the sub-headline right under the main headline; "However, a lack of enterprise support won't stop employees from downloading and using the browser on their own, with or without the backing of IT." No doubt. This really is an extension of the already significant "consumerization" of the enterprise. I also like this quote "Give people the things they want and then they'll take it into the enterprise," Mike Schroepfer, Mozilla's VP of engineering, said in an interview. "Our approach for a long time now has been pull rather than push." Give people what they want...wow what a paradigm shift for thinking RE enterprise software...
Finally, I am REALLY interested in this line "Boeing and Fidelity Investments are among the companies that support or encourage Firefox use." Hmmm, I need to find some points of contact at Boeing and Fidelity who'll talk about that.