Infinite Space 83
E-mail poured in all weekend about Infinite Space -- whether or not space on the Net and Web is forever expansible.
This was an offshoot of columns and discussions here last week about whether new connective technologies like eBay combined with the millions of middle-class Americans pouring onto the Web were escalating the concept of virtual property, already a custom on some gaming sites.
On the subject of Infinite Space, I heard from physicists, academics, engineers, gamers, computer execs, developers and designers some very brainy geeks who offered smart and diverging theories.
While a majority of e-mailers thought virtual property was a big idea whose time had come, there were also skeptics claiming this idea wasnt really anything new.
In one sense, theyre right. Gamers have been trading virtual parts, symbols and characters for awhile. But the impact of new technology is often felt when new and middle-class users mainstream it, not when pioneers invent it.
Linux isn't new either, but that doesn't mean nobody should write or talk about it. As open source reaches critical mass, it becomes significant. Same with other technologies from the phone to modems to computers themselves. Hackers were patching together BBSs from the earliest days of networked computing, but it wasnt until many more people, from housewives to business owners started pouring online that the Net took off. As more and more people -- most armed with credit cards and checkbooks -- continue to explore and use the Net and the Web, expect continuous and unimaginable change. But most of you know that.
Note: Lots of people wrote asking if I was changing my column format to include more of my e-mail responses. Yes, I am. An interactive column should, when possible, include more voices than one. Not only do I get sick of myself, but I get especially weary of getting so much smart and thoughtful e-mail nobody but me ever sees, while the often highly testicular public posts on Threads are visible to everybody. Many visitors, lurkers and readers confuse Threads with reality. It is one reality, but not the only one.
People have a perfect right to flame, but as my e-mail (and every other Slashdot writer and author demonstrates daily) smart lurkers constitute the vast, unseen majority of Slashdot readers. They also want to be seen and heard.
So here are just a few of the posts pro and con -- responding to my columns about virtual property and my questions about whether space on the Net is an Infinite Space:
Boredom is More Significant, from: Stephane Lajoie
"Is Net and Web property infinite? That is, is the Net so expansible that it could never be overcrowded and congested?
If you abstract away things like bandwidth and hard-drive storage (which seem to grow fast enough anyway), the answer to the first question is yes: the net is infinite. But you seem to imply that the second question is the same as the first, which it isn't.
Crowdedness happens in a specific physical place. We can say that New York City is crowded, while Arkansas is close to empty. If we extend this concept to the net, you can say that slashdot.org is crowded while kgjrhegh.com is empty (the DN isn't even registered, anybody could move in there for free; not anybody could move in to Microsoft.com though).
The same thing happens in physical space: if you abstract away things like the currently limited means of transportation, you can come to the conclusion that living space for humans in the universe is infinite. But just like people go to slashdot.org and not to kgjrhegh.com, you won't see people moving to Mars en masse even if affordable transportation becomes available: there just isn't anything fun to do there. I think it is Linus Torvalds who said that in a few decades, the primary motivation for people to do "anything" will be fear of boredom.
The limit here isn't free domain names or available land in an online game. It's the attention span of people. People buy powerful characters in UO to get attention from other players. Once the game become dated and people start moving to Everquest, Asheron's Call or others, these characters will loose all their value because there won't be anybody to show them off to.
You can't open a 20 screens megaplex in Nowhere, Arkansas. You can't sell web adds at kgjrhegh.com. Hope I could keep your attention for that long :).
PS: The Cyber-Movers example was kinda weak. I mean, it's a bunch of engineers copying files around and setting up domain name servers. Hardly the signs of a revolution if you ask me :). Still, very interesting subject matter.
PPS: I like this format of writing series of articles instead of moving on to a new subject for each article.
Stéphane Lajoie / Ludus Design
Nanotechnology and other answers, from Rob Jellinghaus:
"Is Net and Web property infinite? That is, is the Net so expansible that it could never be overcrowded and congested?"
This question is familiar in another domain: nanotechnology. The general form of the question is, "Given sufficient technological development, are resources potentially inexhaustible? And if so, what happens to the economy?"
In general, it is scarcity that creates value. In a world where there are infinite amounts of everything, there is no reason for everything not to be free. But when there is only so much of something, then competition arises for that scarce resource, and suddenly you need a way to determine who needs/wants/deserves it most. Presto: economics.
Ultima Online could probably, in principle, expand their cyberverse to accomodate the influx of people craving land. But it's not clear that they should. The scarcity of land there is greatly increasing the value of each individual property, perhaps intensifying the fervor of their citizens, and certainly buying them advertising that they couldn't buy with their own money (your article being a great example). In other words, by keeping their virtual real estate scarce, they are more effectively competing for the attention of the world's gamers, by making it clear just how valuable that real estate is.
In fact, UO (Ultima Online)perfectly exemplifies the two resources that are _not_infinite, and will never be: Human attention, as all domain name squatters know, is finite. There are only so many eyeballs, and only so many hours in a day that those eyeballs can be looking at your little corner of the cyberverse. UO is competing with Everquest (which is coming up fast). Catchy domain names ("slashdot.org") for instance, will always be more valuable than clunky ones ("www.mybiglongcompanyname.net").
- Computing and, especially, network resources are getting exponentially cheaper, but as exponentially more people go online, it remains fairly costly to serve large audiences. UO definitely incurs ongoing costs in hardware, network maintenance, and operations management, to keep its servers running; if they were to expand their universe infinitely, their costs would also expand infinitely. Later.
Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking questions,
Liberating the Lurkers, from Dana Ryder, IMMSystems:
"Congrats on the new format, if thats what it is. You are liberating the Lurkers! Posting comments like you are is the only way some of us can get our ideas out and hear the good ideas of others. The rule on Slashdot Threads seems to be that the dumber one is, the quicker you are to claim youre smarter than everybody else, or that you already knew everything everybody else is saying. I cant fault anybody for being stupid, but boy, are these people proud of it! Slashdots columns on Virtual Property were talked about all day at my company keep ?em coming!"
Of Course Not, from: Randall L Joiner:
"To your question about Infinite Space
There are several answers: Of course not, physical (hardware) resources are limited by definition, and thus, eventually will run out. Within reason, yes, it's infinite, as tech grows, space keeps getting cheaper, there will always be room of some sort.
The question really is, is valuable web property infinite? Many people have already answered that, and from the skim I did, most seem to think no. I have to disagree to an extent. Since games and sites only seem to hold interest for short time periods (game attention spans often measure in hours of game play), and people are constantly searching for the next game, I would guess that the interest of the gamers will constantly be going through these stages:
1. New game hits, is relatively unknown.
2. Some gamers become regulars, game grows to a small number of players.
3. Game catches on in the main stream, many people start playing.
4. The original players start tiring of it, (for various reasons) and sell out.
5. Older players go back to stage 1 with some other new game. I think we'll start seeing stage 5 in about 6 months to a year with Ultima. I give Diablo as an example... Few still play it, because everyone's jumped to Ultima. The new up-and coming is EverQuest. It's part of the game cycle, only now we have the middle-class coming in throwing money around. I want to know what's going to happen when the mass evac happens for the next great game, and the fools are stuck with character's they've spent loads of $ on, and are now not worth anything, and no one is around to play the game with? Even the "rich" couldn't keep up for to long, constantly buying new characters for each new game.
Another problem I don't think you've thought of... What happens if there's a network down time? What happens if/when a hard-drive crashes and wipes out any record of you having owned the property?
If I were the company running the hardware those games are running on, I'd make damn sure I had a clause stating they aren't responsible for lost characters/property/etc...
Another problem. What happens when (not _if_) someone hacks a game and suddenly goes nuts with it? How about Virtual Theft? If I cracked the game, steal your house that you just paid 100,000 for, what recourse do you have? Then there's the difficulty with calling it property... We have a bung-hole load of property laws in the states, but do any of them apply to cyberspace? How about in a game where killing and taking property is a legal action? If I kill your character and taken the property you just bought, do you have any legal recourse in RL? No, I really don't consider that a silly problem either, as I've read some of the things people have gone to court over (and won!) that are much much more silly. Altogether, I'm just completely amused by the concept, and consider this just one more proof that most people really don't understand what the world or the net is really about."
Please! Absolutely Nothing New Here, from: thom stuart (painfully):
Much as it pains me every single time I realize it, I'm afraid that I have to report that once again you're picking value out of vapor and getting all excited about something that, as always, isn't exciting or new at all.
I'm tempted to launch into an extensive diatribe, but i've got work to do today. Suffice it to say that the "virtual property" that's got you so frantic in the last couple days is nothing more than a sale of service.
It's amazing that you're managing to misunderstand this to the extent where you think there's something new. Every month i buy a package of 'minutes' for my mobile phone from my wireless company. These are just numbers in a computer, of course - am I purchasing "virtual property" here? And, if i am, haven't people been doing that for years?
I could subscribe to a paying-members-only web site; I could choose to pay for HBO; I could buy an Ultima Online account or good domain name from ebay. These are all the same thing - I'm buying the right to use a service. Just because Im not getting a physical product in return doesn't make it magic or 'cyber' or anything else you might want to think.
Okay, the UO accounts and domain names might have certain 'added value' in terms of the time/effort invested in bringing them to their current status, but that doesn't make it any different. by buying an account or a domain, the purchaser is simply entitled to access to certain kinds of service in return for their cold hard cash - but hey, who pays in "physical cash" these days, anyway?
Ooh! ooh! virtual property paid for with "virtual money"! another monumental technological discovery from jon katz! better write another /.column about this! please.
Crackers, Gaming and Infinite Space (anonymous):
Here's a copy of the comment I just posted... thought you might like it...BTW great set of articles, and I find your style to finally have settled out into something that doesn't seem megalomaniacal and much more suited to the world you've stepped into.. I've liked about 75% of your articles, those I didn't like were some of the earlier ones:
It's bad enough that hackers are being berated by main stream media for supposedly "stealing" from large, anonymous corporations, can we all see what will happen when the middle class has a vested interest in computer security?
What were to happen if a cracker got onto one of the Ultima online servers, helped himself to some UO Cash and then bought himself whatever he needs? Worse yet: Cracker gets onto the server, figures out some of it's data structure, and decides to get into another player's building and cleans him out?
Crackers/malitious hackers finally have something that has value to steal and they would be stealing from mainstream america instead of the corps.
This can have several consequences as I see it:
First and formost: The biggest hacker backlash in history. You think the Kevin Mitnick case was bad... now the law enforcement officials no longer have to work on the "estimated losses" reported by companies when they get documents copied off their servers (say source code), they have real world price tags on what the damages were.
Moreover, can we really trust mainstream american media to see the difference between hackers and crackers? It's bad enough that they can't do it now when the crackers are just defacing websites.
Secondly: With a bit of luck, this will drive all aspects of computer security forward. I can see dedicated players paying godo dollars for crypto systems that would protect their online assets. As well, Internationalization of crypto technology will be given a big boost as non-North american players will want access to the same quality of crypto as we are privileged to have.
Thirdly: Goverment regulation will quickly be pushed onto the scene. Any location generating real US$ seems to become the target of the US house and senate.
Third, B: TAXATION! As is, it's very difficult to keep the internet taxes at bay.
In the states, the problem seems to stem from the separation of states.. but if people start shelling out cash for virtual property, the likes of which cannot be seen right now, there will be a renewed effort by the USG to tax online transactions.
Fourth: Hopefully this will lead to the apparition of "free" servers that will pop up and have much more room to grow, allowing people to settle in. It'd be even nicer if a "Homesteading" act were to be implemented on UO (specific example) to move over onto the new systems, giving them some sort of bonuses (very much like the development of the "Wild West in early America.)
From Craig Wright: Interesting, But Shame On You!
Virtual Property is an interesting issue but really is nothing new. Buying "space" from a isp for a large website has been around for years, paying someone else to build the website is comonplace, digitizing a photograph, and how about DOMAIN NAMES? - these are all forms of virtual property. Middle class americans have been paying cash for ownership of virtual materials for some time now.
Focusing on some geeks who spend too much on UO characters on ebay and then implying from that fact the economy is undergoing a fundamental change is really quite silly. Put your technophile cheerleader pom poms down and do a little research willyah?
Within the online gaming comunity there are other useful examples of virtual property such as Chron-X, Sanctum and other budding online games working on a far different paradigm than the "service" model of the "pay-as-you-play" games such as UO. C-X and Sanctum are wholly or partially based around the collectable card game paradigm introduced years ago by MAGIC: THE GATHERING.
The interesting thing about the online versions (which have been around for at least three years or so) is that they are ENTIRELY virtual property.
Unlike UO-type games where you have to buy the software and pay an ongoing service fee to keep playing. In these other games the only thing that one pays for is the virtual cards (software free, no fees except paying for more cards should you want them). As one might expect, trading, auctioning, and selling collections has been an integral part in the development of these games. I believe C-X at one time had over 70k accounts and may have plenty more now that they have moved to a Sony gaming site (I haven't played for nearly a year).
As a matter of fact Genetic Anomalies, the company behind Chron-X, began as a company devising a method for protecting virtual property and developed with what they call Collectible Bits (back in 1996 I believe) and designed their the game primarily as a way to illustrate what their software product could do in terms of reducing stealing and hacking problems already the cause of so many problems in various online gaming communities. UO tangent: it is neither the first, best nor probably even the largest of its genre. The 150k players - that's BS, online games inflate their players by counting ACCOUNTS rather than active players, many players play for a while and then either reduce their playing time significantly or stop playing altogether - but their ACCOUNTS are still counted. This is especially problematic with UO as there are a half dozen or so games all currently in stiff competition for the same audience.
By the way, UO is the only one of its genre in which its participants have attempted to bring a class action suit against the company because of their dissatisfaction with the game. The whole genre is unlikely to become a dominant faction within the online gaming community merely because it is so damn expensive to play. There have been dozens of experiments for specific subscription games or subscription gaming sites of several varieties and none have achieved more than moderate success.
I read a few of the /. comments on your first piece and ran across thoughful responses that disagreed with you which also made interesting points -- yet in your article you quote a few imbicilic flames as representative of those who disagree and more thoughtful responses of those who agree. This is a rather cheap way to make your argument appear stronger - shame on you! (Note: I only quote from e-mail, since thoughtful (and non-thoughtful) disagreements are posted openly on Threads. And I didnt get many disagreements last week. I always reflect an accurate balance of criticism versus agreement discussions where everybody agrees are sort of pointless, and, on the Net, impossible. As for nasty flames, they never bother me a bit kind of like mosquitoes or peas off a tank. Knowledgeable or thoughtful criticism, on the other hand, terrifies me).
Infinite is REALLY REALLY big (Score:1)
IPv6 will allow us to address more machines than we will probably be able to manufacture in the next billion years, but it's still finite, and limited to the bandwidth restrictions. (2^128 is a damn big number, even if we could make a trillion machines a day for the next billion years we're still short by an 15 orders of magnitude.)
But that is still a lot less than infinite.
infinite (Score:1)
No one should be allowed to use the word "infinite" or "finite" until they first receive a degree in math, or until they have those concepts explained to them by someone that knows what they mean.
Also, when one knows what infinite means, they should not confuse "finite measure of space => finite everything" with "finite measure of space && quantization && over finite time => finite everything."
And even then, it should be clear that we do not _know_ that these hyposthesis hold.
It just gets to me when people confuse "very large" and "infinite."
is this jonkatz.org? (Score:1)
Katz, I wouldn't mind taking you seriously. After all, I've done my best to do the same with social sciences professors, bosses and acquaintances riding the enlightened bullshit wave. Each time I've met an individual interested in the belief he purportedly defended, however, that individual felt strongly enough to support his opinions in a heated discussion. You don't. Case in point, your column about virtual property, fully dismantled by people more intelligent, aware and honest than you, without as much as a squeak from your direction.
Katz, wake up, stand up for your ideas or others will continue exposing your sophism to the world. Alternatively, shut the fuck up about interactivity on the web and just admit that you're nothing but a typical columnist of an age long gone, a master of one way communication. As usual, it is not the attitude that pisses me off, it is the hypocrisy summoned to cover it up.
AC
Network Solutions 'deed' pinned up (Score:1)
I didn't bother doing that....
I _shall_ do that! *pin*
Ahhh
My wonderfull virtual life on the net (Score:1)
This is exciting. After reading Jon's article I just want to get out and go virtual. Soon I'll never have to stop playing games, that will be my whole life, sitting in front of the computer all day. My friends will desert me, my family will disown me and people will think I'm wierd, but that's all right. I'll have virtual friends, virtual money, virtual reality, and a virtual life. How fun. If only I could get a real life.
Garden Hero - Ace of SpadesIn half-defense of Katz (Score:1)
The reason for this should be fairly obvious: He can control the resulting dialogue better by directing it through his mailbox instead of a public forum.
If he truly believed in interactivity, he would participate in Threads. (Of course, if he truly believed in technology, he would actually make use of it in his daily life. The furthest he has gotten into using a computer was to create a new document in a word processor. Everything else is beyond his capabilities.)
I'm still waiting for Katz to hold up his end of an attempted dialog (via e-mail and /.) about his Littleton articles, old-school versus new-school media, and forms of violence embedded in US culture. In his defense, I'll say that he's probably pretty busy; it's hard to respond to e-mail with more than a terse sentence or two when you're being deluged with the stuff. It's even harder to really read all the e-mail (as I've learned from one of his responses, in which he got pissed at a line in the couple of sentences without bothering to actually read the actual food-for-thought meat of the message).
The bottom line: Katz doesn't scale, and he continues to bring the mediocrity of the Old School to his New School ventures. The former can (and must) be forgiven, but the latter is unfortunate from someone who seeks to be the net.journalist. NetAid [freeb92.net]: a 24-hour Peace Netcast in honor of (and in aid of) Radio B92 on its 10th birthday, 15 May 1999.
--
In half-defense of Katz (2nd try) (Score:1)
The reason for this should be fairly obvious: He can control the resulting dialogue better by directing it through his mailbox instead of a public forum.
If he truly believed in interactivity, he would participate in Threads. (Of course, if he truly believed in technology, he would actually make use of it in his daily life. The furthest he has gotten into using a computer was to create a new document in a word processor. Everything else is beyond his capabilities.)
I'm still waiting for Katz to hold up his end of an attempted dialog (via e-mail and /.) about his Littleton articles, old-school versus new-school media, and forms of violence embedded in US culture. In his defense, I'll say that he's probably pretty busy; it's hard to respond to e-mail with more than a terse sentence or two when you're being deluged with the stuff. It's even harder to really read all the e-mail (as I've learned from one of his responses, in which he got pissed at a line in the first couple of sentences without bothering to actually read the actual food-for-thought meat of the message).
The bottom line: Katz doesn't scale, and he continues to bring the mediocrity of the Old School to his New School ventures. The former can (and must) be forgiven, but the latter is unfortunate from someone who seeks to be the net.journalist. NetAid [freeb92.net]: a 24-hour Peace Netcast in honor of (and in aid of) Radio B92 on its 10th birthday, 15 May 1999.
--
f u cn c ths (Score:1)
The interactivity that he inspires here should suffice for you, no matter that, amidst the genuine wisdom I see on /., there is often a lot of crap to wade through. Katz's time belongs to him, and if he should choose not to spend more time amongst us on these pages, I can understand. But I would say that a Katz-less interactivity isn't really as valuable as one that includes him; he's just one human being, and he probably doesn't have the time and energy to spend on being more hands-on here.
On second thought, maybe a Katz-less interactivity isn't really interactive at all. He just comes down from the mountain bearing his zeroes and ones; then he zips off elsewhere. Sending e-mail to him is a hit-and-miss proposition if you don't keep it trivial.
"Ever got the feelin' you been cheated?" -- Johnny Rotten, to the crowd, to Malcolm, to himself, after a disastrous 70's US Sex Pistols gig and tour.
(And Katz, if you're reading this, the ball remains in your court; I'm still curious to read your non-bleary-eyed take on the "guilty bystander" e-mail message.)
--
If a tree falls in a forest. . . (Score:1)
As ugly a word as that is - if you set up a web server with the answer to the secret of life, the universe and everything on it - it virtually does NOT exist, until it starts showing up in search engines, indexes (indices?) and links from newsgroups and chatrooms, or unless the URL gets spammed our in email.
Infinite info resources is one thing, but there are a finite number of conscious minds in existence at any given point in time to dial up and type in the URL, and read your page. And if that web server goes down before anyone gets a chance to view it, then the secret is lost, in the eternal 404 that is the internet. When everyone is gazing and drooling at their my.yahoo page, the sea of voices gets drowned out for a lack of free ears.
sorry.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
quality vs. quantity (Score:1)
If I'm looking for an mp3 because a CD of mine is scratched beyond ripping capability, I have to wade through dozens of porno-pop-up-pages and hordes of broken links. I'm better off spending another 12 bucks for the same CD than looking for one track off of it.
That is just one example. Another great example is when looking for, say, a simple text file, and the page loads a 200K GIF/JPG as the background. The page could have loaded in a second, but instead takes up to a minute... or more... For plain text, that's absurd.
How many 404's have you run into in the last 24 hours? Quite a few, I'm sure.
As far as 'intellectual property' goes, all the power to them. If someone wants to build up a character for a year, only to auction it off later, that's fine by me. I certainly wouldn't buy it. I don't know any sane people who would. Isn't part of the fun of gaming working to build your character up? If people want to waste their money through laziness, go nuts.
Or better yet, go outside.
The Internet is probably 75% toxic waste. It's a pain in the ass to wade through the toxic waste to get to the gold mines...
Infinite Jest. (Score:3)
It's obvious what is infinite on the Net: arrogance.
Nowhere is it so easy to trash your fellow human beings, with apparent impunity. Worse, because there is no lack of targets, people get good at this trashing. Shades of subtlety color the shit to make it seem like a reasonable response.
Certainly there are bone-heads on the net. Spammers, foul mouthed AC's, identity frauds all lurk, waiting for some chance to use up their 15 minutes of fame. But then you have the next level up, those who attempt to become important by denigrating the writing of others, dismissing it as stale, or the answer as well known.
These are the folks who do the most damage to the net in terms of PR. It's what causes people to brand Netizens as elitist Techno-Nazis.
It's easy to declare someone that is misinformed stupid. But it won't make your life O.K.
Isn't it relative? (Score:1)
Re:IDIC (Score:1)
GNDN
Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing (As seen on the pipes in TOS)
(like trying to find something on the MSDN page today, and 1/2 the search results linked to a "this page has moved, try using search to find it" page.)
Clancy's "Net Force: The Deadliest Game" (Score:1)
The game was so big that they added 'constucts' (equivalent of bots in Q3Arena) to fill in the gaps and do the dirty work. So it was almost unlimited space, they had to use spells to get from one end of the world to the other or take months of walking.
I just hope that the people playing Ultima and the successors (everlast, asheron's call, etc.) are the responsible intelligent type who wouldn't fall to that level. In the book it didn't seem all that possible to sell, trade characters because of the rules of the game. But if it was possible I don't think that the new owners could keep up the reputation of the prior player. In a lot of the current online games going around money does help you be succesful (ISDN or T1 for less lag, better machines for better performance, land and money in Ultima).
Property in the *geographical* sense. (Score:1)
What is new here is that we are talking about the ownership of something that is primarily experienced as 2-dimensional, the same way that land is (yes, i know that buildings are three dimensional, but property rights are generally owned for a 2D patch of land, then extended along the vertical dimension). That fact, as Stephenson's "Snow Crash" makes abundantly clear, changes the way that property is valued. Unlike domain names, there is distance between properties (i.e., it takes longer to go from A to B than from A to C.)
Such an environment will then create local hotspots where there are lots of people, and thus property where things can be sold or done are more valuable. For example, no one would pay money to participate in a virtual Sahara, cause there'd be nothing to do. But people are paying for eProperty (you heard it here first!) where there are things to do, where you have neighbors to adventure with, traders to buy from, and so forth. This works even if there were no scarcity of property in UO.
The popularity of cities is a testament to this aspect of human life. We are not evenly distributed over the world's land.
So, when will the first corporation buy a piece of eProperty and put an real-world ad ("Have a Coke while you play!" or "Got ADSL?") on the space?
mahlen
When I read a story, I skip the explanations; yet the moment I begin to write
one, I find that I must have an explanation.
--Anthony Hope, "The Prisoner of Zenda"
Re:Gravitational collapse of information (Score:2)
I think that gravity in this respect won't make it collaspe but gather into larger and more powerful systems that help the web to grow. It's effect will help sort through the trash instead.
-----------
Resume [iren.net]
Re:which infinity are we talking about? (Score:1)
> numbers.
wow.. you're braver than i am. i ducked out with a handwave rather than facing the task of explaining cardinalities.
thank you, as well, for the correct identification of C. it's been a while, and i'd forgotten the exact relationship.
> also, in response to the first post, the rationals are not "discrete." they get very
> close to one another.
loose use of terminology on my part, sorry..
i should've known better than to toss out a word with a specific mathematical definition and hope to get away with the conventional usage. it just sounded better than 'unique' or 'distinct' at the time. heat of the moment, thrill of the chase, and all that, y'know..
which infinity are we talking about? (Score:2)
the fact of the matter is that infinities come in different sizes. the number of integers in the number line is designated with the symbol aleph-nought.. that's the first letter of the hebrew alphabet, sub zero. aleph-nought is also the number of rational fractions, even numbers, odd numbers, integers greater (or less) than zero, integer multiples of 37, or any other value which can be expressed strictly as a combination of integers. as an interesting side effect, there are exactly as many discrete, rational points in a one-dimensional line of length 1 as there are in an infinite three-dimensional space.
the number of irrational fractions.. numbers which cannot be expressed as a combination of any finite integers, like the square root of five.. is also infinite. it's just that the infinite number of irrationals is provably larger than aleph-nought. that number is designated as 'continuum', which is written as a gothic C, and falls somewhere between aleph-one and aleph-two if memory serves me correctly.
as for what aleph-one and aleph-two are, trust me, it's not worth the explanation it would take.. they're just more orders of infinity, each being a provably different size than any of the others. there are actually an infinite number of possible infinities, each of which is infinitely larger (or smaller) than any other.
that's why mathemeticians call transfinite mathematics 'counterintuitive'.
meanwhile, numerical analysis.. the discipline which studies the approximation of values to an arbitrary level of precision.. offers a completely different spin on the issue.
the basic tenet of analysis is that in the real world, you eventually have to stop calculating decimal places and get on with life. it admits freely that the numbers it produces are wrong, but compensates by being able to prove that any inaccuracy in the numbers it produces will be small enough not to matter. numerical analysis effectively redefines zero as "any number so small we can ignore it".
that's signifcantly more useful in everyday life than the absolute precision of pure mathematics. anyone who wishes to argue otherwise will please refrain from doing so until they've first calculated the complete expansion of Pi.
the redefinition of zero has a serious impact on the concept of infinity, because infinity can be expressed as the value of any number divided by zero. at a more practical level, analysis only deals with one kind of infinity, which is defined as 'any number so large that making it bigger doesn't matter'.
by the second standard, yes, the web can be described as infinite. of course, so can a shoebox. the decision not to care is purely subjective, on the part of the person doing the measuring. as Hamlet said: "i could be bounded in a nut shell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that i have bad dreams."
it's infinite for you of you say it is, and not infinite for me if i say it's not, and there's nothing in the laws of mathematics or logic which says those two positions have to be mutually exclusive unless we've both agreed on some kind of standard for 'big enough'. three grams is one hell of an error if you're measuring the mass of a proton, but irrelevant if you're measuring the mass of a galaxy. there's no such standard here, so there's no meaningful argument either way.
and don't even get me started on the subjectivity inherent in the word 'valuable'.
That depends (Score:1)
Chuck
Re:My wonderfull virtual life on the net (Score:1)
You don't say (Score:1)
Huh, you know I... ah, never mind.
Go! Go! (Score:1)
I personally think you're mistaken about what he meant, but dammit, it's good to see somebody raising language issues in a coherent and polite way. Somebody will probably moderate you down, but hey, that's why I keep my threshold at -1.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
quantum model of the internet :) (Score:2)
it's all because of the exchange of virtual particles called attenti-ons. when a web site comes into the vicinity of another website in the cyberspace, tiny virtual 'particles' of attention (but they're not really just attention particles, remember the medium-message duality?) that are being constantly generated and annihilated within the website finally come close enough to each other that instead of staying inside one web site, they swap places, and a large number of such brief exchanges results in an attraction between the two web sites that is stronger than charge-based repulsion. hence the creation of multi-site nuclei (i.e. portals).
this is difficult to observe, because the attenti-ons are so tiny that they cannot be observed by bombardment with our statistical photons, but the results of their interactions can be observed by formation of such macroscopic structures as 'URL links' - which are really just models for exchange of attenti-ons.
it's also quite interesting to observe when a tiny web site traveling at a very high hype velocity collides with a large but stationary site - the results, such as slashdotting, can be quite spectacular, including a release of a large number of attenti-ons, and sometimes even flame-ons. but that's a whole different story.
r
now where's that quark model of attention i've been working on?
Re:IDIC (Score:1)
Happily, this is already more true on the net than in the Star Trek Universe, where IDIC pretty much just referred to forehead wrinkles. The few times there was any *real* difference, it would be the *only* real difference, and a major point of the plot.
What a way to confuond the IRS (Score:1)
No, I think he meant it. :) (Score:1)
Personally, I thought it was quite the zinger. I must remember it for the next staff meeting.
Good point, but re: value (Score:1)
If I go out and spend a fortune on an exotic car, and promptly wrap it around a tree, it becomes worthless. If I maneuver myself to the head of a prestigious company, and bankrupt it, it's reputation becomes a memory.
Likewise, if I buy a car from a reputable company - and pay accordingly, but the car has a design flaw and so actions of the parent devalue it...
Identity seems to equate to property on this plane, virtual, actual or whatever.
cyberspace is multi-dimensional (Score:1)
Excellent point. Like attracts like, where information is concerned.
So let's look at it in multiple dimensions.
On one plane you have my concept of information coaggulating into clumps based on mass/density; on a perpendicular plane there's your rebuttal of 'charged' information - attracting the like and repelling the unlike (except there's degrees of charge here)..
So what we end up with is globs of information, polarized by value, with the additional 'spin' or 'color' or 'flavor' (or some other QUARKiness) to differentiate among the various interest-groups.
Ultimately, I think we'll end up with weather prediction methods being folded into the discussion. An apparently chaotic system on the detail level, but with a superlative order which derives from the miniscule disorder. The flap of a butterfly wing that feeds the jet-stream draws another analog with my frequenting
Not a digital-only phenomenon (Score:2)
This is not as much about value as about reputation, and reputation is the cornerstone of the 'old boys network' and as such, predates the internet by thousands of years.
That Hun, Attila, he's a bad MoFo, so let him have your daughter and he won't kill you. Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft. My nick is Jar Jar, so I must be a total loser.
Gravitational collapse of information (Score:3)
With spam, web pages containing more ad banners than content, and everyone and their grandma 'working the web', we're getting dangerously close to this info-gravitational collapse.
The metaphor holds surprisingly well to layman astronomy. We have certain singularities of unusually dense matter on the net - AOL to name one. This dense matter distorts the flow of information around it, and emits a particularly dangerous form of radiation; MeToo-on radiation.
Ha! While at it, there's the M$sphere firing off FUD particles in every direction.
Another perspective is that of the net being a natural resource. The more junk we pump into the datastream, the more polluted and less usable it becomes. Eventually the frogs die off, the lurkers get other hobbies, and the cyber-ecosystem dies.
Add to this the ever increasing complexity of the net, which makes it harder and harder for a bot search engine to tell fact from fiction and content from bunk, and you've got a thicket of URLs that makes me long for the Dewey decimal system at times.
Re:My wonderfull virtual life on the net (Score:1)
Virtual property (Score:1)
Re:My wonderfull virtual life on the net (Score:1)
eye opener
but, as I look across my cubicle at
the Network Solutions invoice i have
proudly pinned like some title or deed,
i think more and more that there is something
more than a contract, agreement, or electronic
garbage to cyberspace. The cafe i frequent is as much
a home as slashdot.. who's to say which is real
and which isn't. man, i've watched The Matrix
too many times.
-Z
Property is Always Virtual, so as Money ..... (Score:1)
Property is always something virtual. I mean, seperate the rights you own something and the entity itself. So if you own something, you can do a lot of different things on it because you have the rights to do it. WHen you can't do something on it, it's either because you don't have the right to do it, or the physical properties of the thing itself make you too costful to do it. When we own something, we actually refer to the rights, although it's related to the phsical presence. To an extreme, if I say I can let you have love by paying me, as long as you think you have love from that even I do particularly nothing, that you still think you own the love, and I respect it. So many others would respect it too.
So UO character is virtual property, so as you real house, so as the diamond, and so as the water. As long as you derive happiness from owning this thing, there's a value for you. Does the physical properties of this things affect a lot on the value? I would give up nothing for an UO character, but somebody would give up thousands dollars. Yes, they may not be able to sell it out later, but they don't care, so that thousands dollars are the opportunity cost they are willing to give up. I respect people's preference. I'm willing to give up $100 dollars for wearing a diamond for a year, so if that diamond's price now is $10,000, I would buy it only if I expect I could sell it out at least $9,900 next year. If the price now is $99, I would buy it without considering the next year's price. Did I get any usable value from that diamond? I bet I would enjoy watching it only. So you think.
On the other hand, money is always virtual. People always tend to think that money should tie up to phsyically useful or scared things, like gold. Indeed, money's value is the value we believe it has. That's why ancient people can use stones as money, that's why prisoners' use cigarettes money, that's why we use paper notes as money. Money is just units to reflect the relative value of commodities.
So the web/net space is finite physically, but as long as the scarcity has not kick in, the price is zero, the value is in our mind, and looks like infinite, which again many people believe something is free of charge means it's infinite. Check a textbook on math to see the concept of infinity. Something with infinite supply and limited demand have zero scarcity, but not the vice versa.
Re:which infinity are we talking about? (Score:1)
Now when there's resource constraint on expanding web space, which establish the upper bound, and growing number of occupancy in web space, something you may think "infinite" now would not be infinite later if the growing of resource is slower than the growing of users. "infinite" now doesn't affect us. But then when it becomes "finite" to many of us, that's something we care.
So, infinite web space worth nothing to discuss.
"Of course, I enjoy learning some new math."
Re:Bah! What Utter Garbage! (Score:1)
With all of the web pages out there which are NOT purely simple files, but rather are GENERATED pages, I would say that the web can certainly be infinite. Sure the number of physical machines has a limit (albiet a very large one) and even the storage space on those machines is limited (albiet always growing), but the perception of the "internet" is that which appears before a given user, and this is ALWAYS growing, and unmeasuarable, both because people keep adding new information, but also because pages (and therefore "places") exist which are generated on the fly.
Just my 2 cents.
It's called barter (Score:1)
The real value is what someone is willing to give you for it.
Does anyone see the possibility of using UO game cash to purchase real goods? (Like on Ebay or some barter site?)
Sure! It's called barter. It's been going on for millenia. The web, like the central marketplace in a village, makes it easier for people to find other people who want to trade with them, but the underlying principle is the same. Two people, each with something the other wants, agree to an exchange.
No taxes, where would you declare them??
I don't know about other countries, but in the US, barter isn't supposed to be taxed. If enough items of value are exchanged this way (without the use of taxable currency) the powers-that-be might be tempted to implement a tax. Don't know how they'd go about it tho'.
Value of Money (Score:1)
Value of Money (Score:3)
In today's world, we can see that the actual value of currency is not gold anymore, but what you can purchase. If you can trade currency for goods, and thanks to ebay, trade virtual goods for currency, would you not be able to trade goods for virtual currency?
I have never played Ultima Online myself, but the concept seems simple enough. Property and characters have value in the game, and are only available in limited numbers. People use the virtual cash in the game to purchase goods and property.
Does anyone see the possibility of using UO game cash to purchase real goods? (Like on Ebay or some barter site?)
No taxes, where would you declare them??
Reputation and Names (Score:2)
It's a cute affectation to show a kind of membership in a particular subculture, but reputation must ultimately be earned and cannot be bought.
Futhermore, when you take on a name where someone else has the primary control, future reputations may be altered by the parent's use of the name.
You take the name Neo, then in the sequel to the Matrix find out he is simple a pawn and betrays everyone, and Trinity is the true savior. If you paid to have that name, how would you feel now? Ok, this is perhaps an unlikely situation, but my point is that one shouldn't *pay* for a name based on pre-existing reputations. The association between the name and what it represents is too easily broken, either by your own actions or anothers.
Re:Good point, but re: value (Score:2)
Which is fine, if all you are doing is choosing a user name for your new internet account. You didn't pay anything extra for the name, so the consequences of devaluing the identity name (reputation) doesn't hurt you in the pocket.
Neo for sale? (Score:3)
If I were to buy 'slashdot.org', for example, the value would be associated with what this site has done. If I then removed all the news for nerds and replaced it with sermons for teletubbies or something, then I have devalued my new property.
So, when the next new thing comes along, there might be a rush on acquiring names and characters related to it (I imagine all the new characters in Phantom Menace got taken here in on AOl, etc. shortly after the first rumors and news came out), but trying to acquire a specific name@place that's already being used seems insane to me.
I mean, would anyone want the CmdrTaco name?
No, bigger than that, no even bigger, etc. (Score:1)
But that is still a lot less than infinite.
but a heck of a lot closer to it, eh?
"Infinity and Nothing: same sides of different coins and both equally impossible."~Wah thought for the moment.
Until the universe collapses :) (Score:1)
:)
Re:which infinity are we talking about? (Score:1)
As for what {Aleph}1 and 2 are, they're power sets. A power set is the set of all subsets of a set, so {Aleph}1 is the cardinality of the power set of {Aleph}0, {Aleph}2 is the cardinality of the power set of {Aleph}1. The cardinality of a power set is always strictly greater than the cardinality of the set itself.
Why does it matter? Well, if you assume the axiom of choice, then you get things like the Tarski-Banach paradox, which lets you take a sphere, and decompose it into 2(3?) spheres of equivilant volume. Not something that jibes well with our intuition. On the other hand, if you don't assume the axiom of choice, then you can't construct a function that returns an arbitrary element of a given infinite set. So you either get weird paradoxes (only paradoxes according to our intuition), or you can't tell what's in a set or not (if it's sufficiently infinite).
IDIC (Score:1)
IDIC
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. (Vulcan Saying)
It's as diverse and dynamic as the nature of people themselves.
Re:Good point, but re: value (Score:1)
oh contrair...
what your speaking of here is "goodwill" goodwill is basically... the fact that if Pepsi is worth 5 billion dollars, they can sell it for 10 billion because they're "Pepsi" and the name is known, respected, etc...
on a financial statement, the purchase of goodwill is seperate from the purchase of something tangible.
See in my major(management information systems), I have to take these classes The degree is much more than just IT
ok and this raises a question I struck onto my accounting professor last semester. I asked him if he would consider domains to be intangible or tangible assets? I mean you can't reach out and touch a domain... but it is surely worth something. Up until now, intangible assets have been defined as things such as patents. So where does a domain fit in here?
oh and the answer my university professor gave me: "I dunno" can you say... master's degree?
I enjoy your posts jabber
-cebe
Re:Virtual property... (Score:1)
I should have read all the way down before posting above... but what I mentioned is the difference between intangible, and tangible assets, but more importantly, "goodwill" on financial staements.
If slashdot decided they've had enuf and these guys want to spend the rest of their life in a hut on a beach, well they'd sell off the domain. And could probably get much more than Network Solution's 70 bones for it. why? well because of slashdot dot org's "goodwill" (If you are not familiar with this term, try to get the idea of a goodwill store out of your head)
The funny thing about accounting today... is that very few accountants have the knowledge to implement this information technology revolution into their number crunching. Where do you put a domain on a financial statement? Well theres really only two options... tangible assets, or intangible assets.
I spent a good two weeks pondering this until it made me so confused I gave up. A domain is obviously not tangible... you can't reach out and touch it, or anything on the net for that matter, but should it be included with patents, etc? I certainly hope not.
As for all this talk about infinity... well I can't get into that becasue when I think about infinity I get sick to my stomach... it has to end somewhere... arrrrgh.
-cebe
Re:This is the stupidest thing Katz has ever said! (Score:1)
Re:cyberspace is multi-dimensional (Score:1)
would suggest that we are dealing with "interest" rather than something as simple as "mass" or "charge"...
all quantum particles are indistinguishable...
websites are perhaps exactly opposite
Re:Infinite is REALLY REALLY big (Score:1)
in math? or in physics? which metaphor are we using?
(remember that pure math decries anything "real")
things that are microscopicly large can be macroscopicly small
thus a glass of water is "an infinite heat bath" to a spoon...
but the room is "an infinite heat bath" to the glass of water...
infinities get tossed around alot in physics...
is one of the reasons its so fun!
thus "infinity" is (i suggest) relative to the observer
Re:infinite (Score:1)
Math & Physics people use the word differently...
Re:Isn't it relative? (Score:1)
if more hardware can be added fast enough...it is effectively infinite
until the boundary is actually met the effectively infinite and the truely infinite won't be distingushable...accept in religious debates
good posting, slacker!
Bah! What Utter Garbage! (Score:1)
As far as there being "infinite space": If we in fact assume that bandwidth and disk space are unlimited, then, yes, we have infinite space. But that assumption is absurd. Bandwidth and disk space will ALWAYS be limited. The limits will grow, but, applying Hofstadter's Law, we will always be bumping into them. There's also isn't enough room in the universe to store an infinite number of disk drives.
This is kinda like saying that the amount of information in the universe is infinite. Well, it might be, but the amount of knowable information is necessarily finite, because there's only so much space to store it in, and so much time to find it.
The namespace issue is nothing new: we've long recognized that there is value in easily remembered names, that easily-remembered names are limited, and names acquire meaning through use. This is why we have trademark law, which is hundreds of years old.
This article illustrates once again the ease with which cyberpundits spew bullcrap under the guise of "virtual reality" and "The New Frontier of the Internet". The Internet is interesting and important, but it is NOT a "New Frontier", just a new paint job on the old one.
Virtual property... (Score:1)
What's different between the right to play an Ultima Online character and the right to operate a McDonald's? Not much. In fact, almost nothing at all. Franchise rights have been considered intangible property for decades, if not centuries.
This is all much hype, little substance.
Infinite Space (Score:1)
1) OK, the math geeks have weighed in, and I only solve big polys, I'm not a math geek. Comments on transfinite numbers are an effective technical containment for this conversation, so I accept those as givens.
2) The real interesting bit is the historical meaning of real estate (this is the web, go to altavista or wherever). A fundamental truth is that it is completely based on a finite nonrenewable (yes recirculating) supply. Web space is not infinite, but at the same time it is not finite the way physical real estate is finite. Hence when the web has pricing metaphors for space that mimic the real estate model things get interesting, theoretically, and very lucrative, commercially. It's the conflict between extensibility (the web) and non-extensibility (real estate). I think that the real real estate (hmm, real^2 estate?) will be real interesting when we have real companies like bechtel making new real estate, e.g. undersea living. Yes I agree this should be done in an intellegent fashion, I do have a son and therefore do care about issues that extend beyond my lifetime.
3) As far as infinite real estate for cool new sites, don't I wish. It would theoretically make anyones chance of site success much bigger. I think the deal is that as individuals or as cultures, we have only so many balls we can keep in the air at once. It's that old saw that people can keep seven things in their head at once with a