Something Seems To Be Going Right for LL

Check this out
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7952213.stm ]
and this
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7303279.stm ]

The first one isn't 100% positive, although it's nice to see the DWP defending its use of SL. The second one is over a year old, and was only a six month project anyway.

The Beeb have been pretty supportive of SL all along, having current affairs and entertainment events here, especially back in 2006. In fact, it was their coverage back then that got me here.

Same here almost same time as well.
I would love to know how they managed to spend so much of our money on it though.I don't believe LL got all that money.
Did Peter Mandelson,who is reportedly creeping around here somewhere,get his mitts on it? Did he blow it all on clothes?

If that lot can't run a bloody country how can they run a virtual plot.

Yep, I can't figure out why they're so supportive of SL. There has to be a conspiracy or a glass of koolaid somewhere. I'm gonna get to the bottom of it.

I don't often comment on RL politics here. Being British, I just have to speak out on this one, though.

I'm all for organisations using SL,... but the Department for Work and Pensions?
....AND their land won't even be open to taxpayers. I think they'll just be partying all the time and spanking each other and shouting "HHHOOOOO!!" when they should be working.

I also found Second Life after seeing a BBC News feature about it.

A lot of the BBC studio sets for chat shows and current affairs programmes look like they're straight from SL - even the prim shapes look familiar.

Maybe for the same sims that are about to be pushed to the 'adult continent'.

Just not publicly.

Virtual offices are a damn good idea that every organisation, large or small, should be developing. Many of my colleagues spend/waste a tremendous amount of time and resources tramping their big, muddy carbon footprints all around Europe and the globe for meetings that could be managed just as easily with a video link through skype or in a virtual office.

The short-sightedness of this whinging complaint is typical of a conservative. No doubt he was balking at the notion of computers twenty years ago when a good old typewriter and a fax would have done the girls in the typing pool just as well.

[/url]
The accusation is so unutterably stupid when it is pretty much a certainty that the cash spent on setting up the innovations centre is peanuts compared to travel and accommodation costs otherwise incurred by The Department for Work and Pensions on an annual basis.

And why should the question of access be relevant since plenty of offices, governmental and otherwise, are inaccessible to the public?

So they don't *already* have access to video conferencing in many varied forms that would save all the jauntering around and clocking up of air miles and travel expenses?

They're using the taxpayers' hard-earned cash to pay for all this and it won't just be setup costs. It'll also include the days and days of "training" that would invariably follow for anyone involved, with the associated expenses of *that*.

I reckon the participants in these meetings ought to able to see the faces of the real people they're talking to, so they can spot the visual clues when the PPS or the Minister is being economical with the truth (again). I don't see what's wrong with the already available video-conferencing methods.

Pity "Yes Minister" wasn't still around. The writers would have had a field-day with this story.

--
Aes

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of virtual offices is good as an add-on to the normal RL organisational structure.

It's just the idea of our British 'Department for Work and Pensions' investing £20,000 of OUR money in something that might just end up as a plaything that isn't even open for us to visit! My doubt is not about whether it COULD be useful and money-saving, my doubt is about whether it WILL be useful and money-saving.

SL may still need to have some bugs and glitches ironed out of it but the combination of features make it a very suitable medium for disseminating multi-media and interactive presentations that would likely save unnecessary travel. There is every reason why these options should be explored.


I can think of numerous and far more impressively wasteful instances of tax-payers hard-earned cash being frittered away: without wishing to appear too cynical, it seems to me that it is almost the raison d'être of government in any country you care to name. The money spent on this innovative project is still peanuts: it would hardly pay for a weekend beano in medium standard hotel or conferencing facilities.

Training is necessary for anything new and this is a field of communications that definitely needs to be developed. Besides, who is to say that the figure quoted for set-up didn't include training? I would think that it probably did.


Of course face-to-face meetings will always be necessary but I am sure that even a cursory time and motion study would show that in most cases they are not only unnecessary but a waste of resources.


The article still smacks of an opposition member digging desperately deep for a 'shocking' story - as if the government were investing in video games. Why should a project connected with Second Life necessarily be viewed as a potential plaything?

Nick Hurd's attitude is backward and irresponsible: many interesting projects are being developed within SL by various governments and institutions. Citizens of the UK should be pleased that at least one department of their government is looking into the potential uses.

Given that current annual salary for an MP is £63291, the member concerned is hardly in a position to complain about the cost. Personally I've never understood why holding a virtual meeting in SL is any better than a straightforward conference call, but spending a pittance like this on exploring new and possibly better ways of working has to be worth the effort for any large organisation.