Microsoft has certainly set themselves up as being able to do this.
As is pointed out on BoingBoing. IANAL, but it certainly looks like you're handing over all copyright on your work to Microsoft the moment you post it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
To the best of my knowledge, no other blogging service has such clauses, and is enough for me to think of the MS blogging service as something evil.
The difficulty in computerizing the game becomes evident when you compare the way that go and chess are played. While chess has many standard openings that can be "fed" to a computer for analysis, a go player can pretty much do anything he or she wants. There is no "encyclopedia of openings" such as any self-respecting chess player would study (although there are some standard beginnings that players follow for common sense reasons). Nihon Ki-in's Saheki feels that there is a certain "feel" for the game, one that, at this point in technology, only a human can understand. A "feeling," he says, is similar to fuzzy logic. "Unless the technology of the computer can solve this fuzzy theory, a good player cannot be beaten by a computer."
There are just too many variables in the game of go for modern computers to deal with. A machine, according to Saheki, will have to duplicate human thought to accomplish with go what Deep Blue did with chess. Brute force calculation isn't enough. However, a few computerized go games do exist. How do the best of these compare to the top human players? When I asked Saheki this question, he picked up three magazines that were sitting on the coffee table between us. He put two of them next to each other. "This is a professional-level player," he said, pointing to the magazine on his left. "This is a top amateur-level player," he continued, pointing to the magazine on his right. "And the computer would be...." he proclaimed as he tossed the third magazine to his right halfway across the room, "there. Very, very, very weak." Point taken.
Yeah. There's a big difference between reports and commentary--if you want the facts, you'll want to go with the people who have the resources to actually, you know, go out there and, like, get the facts; while if you want commentary, flip through the Joe Shmoe blogs and find the ones who write well and who you enjoy reading.
This is a pretty crucial difference, I think, and it's one that doesn't get enough play. I don't see blogland doing much in terms of actual reporting, but in terms of getting people to actually talk about stuff, interpret stuff, draw conclusions from the information available? Yes, they can do that.
The next Grand Theft Auto game maxes out a dual-layer DVD, I believe. And they've already gone on record as saying they hope the next-gens use something even bigger. They plan on using it.
Re:The English Class Ruined the Essay
on
The Age of the Essay
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Except form and content are intimately entwined. A truly perfect piece of writing will not only be formally precise but intellectually stimulating. You can have all the brilliant ideas you want, but if you can't express them in a clear, engaging manner, you've got a handful of roubles in a world of American vending machines: your currency ain't gonna get you a Mountain Dew. And yes, sure, clear writing without interesting thought contained within it is pretty worthless, but. I guess the point is: you can't separate the two.
While it's true that form might be taught more vigorously than content in schools, there's good reason for it; many students still need to grasp the formal rules of good writing. That, and it's so much harder to teach someone to think creatively than it is to teach them to write clearly. I guess it might be like composing music: you can learn what all the notes on the staff "are," but making them work to create music is something else entirely. Let alone, getting those notes to create truly original, creative, exciting, enticing, whatever music.
I'm not saying that's why it sucks--I'm saying that trying to do advanced work will show you how bad it sucks. Because Word itself thinks its capable of doing things that its not capable of doing.
Believe me, if I had my druthers, I'd rather use the right tools for the right job.
They then went on to discover the secret level of that hot new First Person Live game. Known as "the outdoors," it was accessed by passing through a heretofore undiscovered "doorway"...
Yeah. I gotta agree. I mean, I've read more controversial subject matter on the sides of cereal boxes...I mean, gee, have you SEEN what kind of ingredients those companies use? Wow!
Compare the $.50/hour (so far) it's cost me to play FFX compared to the $4.00/hour for any movie I've gone to see in the theaters. Yeah. I'm not complaining.
Slashdot Mirror
Newbies.
The "Still Reality" series? Now THAT'S oldschool.
A bounceback would assume something was here, then it went away, so it can come back now.
Technology never went away.
Microsoft has certainly set themselves up as being able to do this.
As is pointed out on BoingBoing. IANAL, but it certainly looks like you're handing over all copyright on your work to Microsoft the moment you post it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
To the best of my knowledge, no other blogging service has such clauses, and is enough for me to think of the MS blogging service as something evil.
Snippet:
No.
Next question, please.
Yeah. There's a big difference between reports and commentary--if you want the facts, you'll want to go with the people who have the resources to actually, you know, go out there and, like, get the facts; while if you want commentary, flip through the Joe Shmoe blogs and find the ones who write well and who you enjoy reading.
This is a pretty crucial difference, I think, and it's one that doesn't get enough play. I don't see blogland doing much in terms of actual reporting, but in terms of getting people to actually talk about stuff, interpret stuff, draw conclusions from the information available? Yes, they can do that.
And then there's me and my lack of URL-fu. Right.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary& va=phraseology&x=20&y=17
:)
Sorry.
It's okay. We can all admit it. Here, I'll start:
I just peed my pants in joy.
Ok, go on. Your turn!
For $350, I better get some SERIOUSLY advanced SideTalkin' functionality!
The next Grand Theft Auto game maxes out a dual-layer DVD, I believe. And they've already gone on record as saying they hope the next-gens use something even bigger. They plan on using it.
A few days? Try the rest of the year!
Except form and content are intimately entwined. A truly perfect piece of writing will not only be formally precise but intellectually stimulating. You can have all the brilliant ideas you want, but if you can't express them in a clear, engaging manner, you've got a handful of roubles in a world of American vending machines: your currency ain't gonna get you a Mountain Dew. And yes, sure, clear writing without interesting thought contained within it is pretty worthless, but. I guess the point is: you can't separate the two.
While it's true that form might be taught more vigorously than content in schools, there's good reason for it; many students still need to grasp the formal rules of good writing. That, and it's so much harder to teach someone to think creatively than it is to teach them to write clearly. I guess it might be like composing music: you can learn what all the notes on the staff "are," but making them work to create music is something else entirely. Let alone, getting those notes to create truly original, creative, exciting, enticing, whatever music.
Then try working in a setting where management tells you you have to do those things so you can share your lunch with your co-workers.
Yeah, things get ugly real fast...
I'm not saying that's why it sucks--I'm saying that trying to do advanced work will show you how bad it sucks. Because Word itself thinks its capable of doing things that its not capable of doing.
Believe me, if I had my druthers, I'd rather use the right tools for the right job.
Try creating complicated/complex documents in Word. Use lots of style sheets, use images and frames and text boxes and layout-intensive stuff.
IE, try working in an office where work is done in Word that is typically meant to be done in Quark.
Soon, when you see a 50 page document bloat to over five megs on its own, you too shall loathe Word with your entire being.
I say there's a reason interactive fiction lives on: people are naturally drawn to a medium which allows them to feel they are in control of a story.
Like...life?
If video game skills transfer into real life skills, I oughta have no trouble going out tonight and pickin' myself up a hooker.
They then went on to discover the secret level of that hot new First Person Live game. Known as "the outdoors," it was accessed by passing through a heretofore undiscovered "doorway"...
Yeah. I gotta agree. I mean, I've read more controversial subject matter on the sides of cereal boxes...I mean, gee, have you SEEN what kind of ingredients those companies use? Wow!
Ah..but what IS real?
I dunno. My Atari 2600 felt pretty cutting-edge at the time. Never really thought of it as "all they had" at the time.
And, there were plenty of games back then that you couldn't force me to play twice, because they were just so bad. Limited graphics or not.
Designers will either take advantage of the tools available to them or not. That's what's not new. IMHO.
Compare the $.50/hour (so far) it's cost me to play FFX compared to the $4.00/hour for any movie I've gone to see in the theaters. Yeah. I'm not complaining.
But..but..but, what does that have to do with Devo?
I dunno if there's much of a parallel. . .we've had synth rock for quite a while now, and I don't think it's ever been cheaper than the real thing.