As a CMU student, it was a bit startling to find this under the Google domain. This has been a graduate research project for some time now at CMU.
Refer to www.espgame.org
I would be very interested in knowing how Google was able to do this given the fact that their system is a facsimile of what CMU has to offer.
There is a certain fundamental flaw with this proposal. I'm not exactly sold on the idea that there was a clear and vivid understanding of this proposal by those who backed it. Here are my reasons.
They have a product, and a product isn't really anything if they don't have a viable consumer base. Which begs the question, just who are we selling our products to? In short, I put forth the idea that there really is no consumer base.
Those who would need ubiquitous access to the internet and its infinite resources would more or less need access to things that are only current, or some form of information database, thereby rendering this product as effective as an encyclopedia. So thank you, but I'll keep my Britannica volumes anyday over a homebrew assembledge of information.
This might also be perceived as a viable alternative to a monthly subscription to some form of internet access but when one really sits down to think about this, the product in this specific instance becomes obselete in a matter of seconds because of the delivery of new content. We are not far from an age that has a computer with internet access in every household. The notion to sell a static copy of the past is one that will interest at a rate proportional to the installations of new computers with internet access.
The bottom line is this, the proposal simply does not make sense for the reason that there is no palpable customer base for this product.
Slashdot Mirror
As a CMU student, it was a bit startling to find this under the Google domain. This has been a graduate research project for some time now at CMU. Refer to www.espgame.org I would be very interested in knowing how Google was able to do this given the fact that their system is a facsimile of what CMU has to offer.
There is a certain fundamental flaw with this proposal. I'm not exactly sold on the idea that there was a clear and vivid understanding of this proposal by those who backed it. Here are my reasons. They have a product, and a product isn't really anything if they don't have a viable consumer base. Which begs the question, just who are we selling our products to? In short, I put forth the idea that there really is no consumer base. Those who would need ubiquitous access to the internet and its infinite resources would more or less need access to things that are only current, or some form of information database, thereby rendering this product as effective as an encyclopedia. So thank you, but I'll keep my Britannica volumes anyday over a homebrew assembledge of information. This might also be perceived as a viable alternative to a monthly subscription to some form of internet access but when one really sits down to think about this, the product in this specific instance becomes obselete in a matter of seconds because of the delivery of new content. We are not far from an age that has a computer with internet access in every household. The notion to sell a static copy of the past is one that will interest at a rate proportional to the installations of new computers with internet access. The bottom line is this, the proposal simply does not make sense for the reason that there is no palpable customer base for this product.