I might have made an impression since the last entry that I consider philosophers to be an annoying lot. Leaving that for a separate discussion I must admit they are definitely good at one thing, asking questions. The seemingly annoying (again) question “what do you mean by this?” is the key to the right understanding of things. Only this will allow us to form a specification of a given idea so that once it is clear it can be understood in the same way by everyone. Let’s take ‘freedom’, for instance. It can represent living without any constraints brought on citizens by governments (e.g. freedom to speak), or it can be a feeling of being able to act in possibly any way we wish to at any given time (I choose to switch on the heater now).

Defining ideas that are subject to constant change is even more difficult. That is precisely the case with virtual worlds. Should we maintain a basic and most generalised (ageless?) definition or should we amend and expand it on a regular basis?

Warburton (2009) rightly (or so I believe) opts for the former, repeating Schroeder’s (1996) definition of virtual world as one which: 1- is computer generated, 2- gives sense of being somewhere else than we really are, and 3- allows users to interact with each other or the environment. This definition is very straightforward.

I will refrain from analysing/polemicising with Warburton’s ideas of applying Second Life (SL) as means of learning/teaching as I have no sufficient knowledge or research history in this field. I do, however, have a few observations and comments after reading his article.

Warburton concludes that there are three major components that make up the Second Life experience. As we read we find out that each of the three components has certain limitations. The difficulties with the SL’s technical infrastructure – the first of the three components – are posed among others by the 3D visuals. These are running on the Lynden Lab servers, thus posing a substantial stress in the user’s bandwidth. In fact the big upside is that the downloadable interface (initially 24MB) is in fact minute in comparison to, for instance, most game installations. The stress placed on the user’s bandwidth should, in my opinion, be one of the determiners of SL’s minimum requirements. The simple fact of the matter is that SL cannot be used, understood and fully appreciated with slow internet connections and long lags caused thereby. Tightening the minimum internet speed would surely not diminish the number of SL users any more than a failed first impression could.

           I do not understand the author’s mention of “educators’ limited resources” as a barrier to SL use, since both the engine, use (to a large extent), and update downloads are all free of charge. The supposed ‘burden’ of installing new client releases has been a part of the software industry ever since and is more and more often overcome by automatic (often without user’s awareness) updates (e.g. such services are provided by Google’s Chrome).

           Speaking of current trends and developments in MUVEs (Multi User Virtual Environments) I admit to be particularly optimistic about the work on open standards and portability of identities. I would risk a claim that moving between various platforms/virtual worlds with only one avatar/virtual profile would allow these platforms to become more specialised and focused in their domains. Users as such would be able to experiment with different experiences without wasting their time on creating new profiles or learning how to move around in the new worlds. This could even lead to a fantastic surge in course taking by those who have already done it once (starting with an on-line Spanish course a student may want to try to learn some Hungarian next spring, or a 5-week course in cooking, followed by an improver's photography course, etc.).