Lists Home |
Date Index |
I don't get the question, Sterling. That post was
about the inherent insecurities of script languages
inside content. RSS is not an exception.
As to your comment, good graphics and
video cards are a must for modern 3D, certainly, and
scenegraph technologies without a doubt. Better
transport is a nice to have, but so far, multicasting
appears to be working with current technologies. Even
broadband is not required.
For example, on Wednesday and Saturday nights, the Jewel
of Indra 3D site hosts parties. The Blaxxun VRML servers
are hosting multiuser worlds with avatars running up to a
hundred behaviors per avatar, and from a separate site
in San Francisco (Ratty Radio) streaming real time audio
music of very good quality into the local player.
I can log in, chat, have local
audio for voices (synth) and do all of this over
a 56k dialup (max is 48k really) and crash only if I
fail to clear the cache. Is it perfect? No but it
is adequate, works now, and is waaay better than what
was tried when we did the Midsummer's Night Dream
project some years ago.
In other words, we may be pushing the limits but the
limits are not what we thought they would be five years
ago. We may not know precisely what the limits are
except for too many lights in a scene. And that we've
always known about. Better graphics cards help. ;-)
From: sterling [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Seems to me a good set of graphics cards with new and better video cards
could do wonders for 3d. Do we really need a better packet transport
technology than packets ?
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Thanks Jeff and Bill.
> Apparently, any media type developed with internal scripting
> is a candidate for exploitation. That's painful. Almost
> every media type that is fun to do has that as a feature.
> I was asking originally because a fellow BoD member for the
> W3DC (X3D) asked about putting 3D worlds inside RSS. It is
> a great idea, but then we have to cope with the kiddies and
> the criminals.
> This is interesting reading.
> It corresponds to the darker thoughts I've had since 1989. The only
> really safe approach is to recognize the Internet is inherently insecure
> and start over with the humbling knowledge that we have to plan for
> the dark and dumb sides of human nature when building world wide
> systems. So yeah, let's put a semantic engine on top of the current
> system and see what they do with that given the unreasonable way
> people accept whatever comes out of these boxes.