Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Future of Gaming
The era of thought controlled games is here! The days of hand controlled gaming could be on the way out. Soon you could be required only to think to operate a video game and maybe you'll even have the chance to be completely immersed in a video game 'world'. This can all be made possible by a headset called the
Emotiv EPOC. This is the first Brain Computer Interface device for the gaming market and is the technology behind the revolution. The EPOC detects and processes real time brain activity patterns using a device that measures electric activity in the users brain. It allows the user to manipulate a game or virtual environment naturally and intuitively.
In total, it can pick up over 30 different expressions, emotions and actions.
President and co-founder of Emotiv Systems, Tan Le, said the brain-to-computer interface was undoubtedly the future for video games.
"Being able to control a computer with your mind is the ultimate quest of human-machine interaction. When integrated into games, virtual worlds and other simulated environments, this technology will have a profound impact on the user's experience."
Brain Computer Interfaces could bring exciting times in gaming leading the way for the future of game development.
Here is another interesting article I fould on the future of gaming:
Could Google bring cloud computing to gaming?
What if Google did video games?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
If we are all amateurs, there are no experts
“Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online.” (http://webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_2_point_0.html)
Web 2.0 websites allows for increased interaction compared to Web 1.0 websites that just retrieve information. It has been a improvement on the interactive facilities of Web 1.0 to provide cloud computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data. e.g facebook, bebo, twitter etc. These sites encourage users to add value to the application as they use it, which stands in contrast to traditional websites, that tended to have a limited visitor experience and whose content the user could not interact with. Web 2.0 sites offer a much richer and more user-friendly experience. It differs from Web 1.0 because it allows for user generated content, citizen journalism, social networking, information sharing etc and is therefore often referred to as the 'DIY Internet' or 'architecture of participation'.
Is today's Internet killing our culture?
The rise of Web 2.0 has negative aspects also allowing anyone to generate content to share it with an audience across the web. As a result the quality of media content that certain generations are taking in has gone down. User generated websites such as Wikipedia can have a negative impact on society. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia written collaboratively by its users from all around the world. The fact that anyone can edit its content, means that a lot of the information might not be necessarily factually correct. Where are the contributors sourcing their information? If you compare it to another on-line encyclopedia e.g Britannia Online encyclopedia, which website would you go to for researching founded facts? There are also other negative aspects some of which are, a lack of face-to-face communication, an avoidance of interpersonal interactivity, obesity amongst children, sexual predators, identity theft, on-line bullying.
Although, there are these negeative aspects the user-generated revolution of web 2.0 is clearly gaining more popularity and is noticeably replacing the more traditional means of information sharing. Media companies are betting on the longevity of user-generated sites by acquiring them. News Corp bought MySpace, AOL paid $850 million for social networking site Bebo and The New York Times owns About.com.
Web 2.0 technologies have become an effective means of communicating within our society as it allows for instant communication and information gathering thereby helping to bring the world closer together through allowing users to experience other cultures with the click of a button and helping to eliminate ignorance towards other cultures. Although these services are very beneficial to our society, I still believe that more strict regulations should be implemented to combat on-line bullying, identity theft and factually incorrect content.
So, are there any experts?
User-generated content will never replace The New York Times or Britannica Online for the overall quality of content, but reading informational blogs, or political blogs about issues such as global warming provides some perspectives that you don't get from newspapers. Even though Britannica Online's content is more reliable, there is no way it will ever match the coverage of Wikipedia, because of it thousands of amateur contributors. Although the quality of most Wikipedia entries is surprisingly good and factually correct, there are times I want the certainty that the work I am referencing is factually correct, written and edited by experts.
“Ideally, I see Internet content being a blend of professional and amateur content, but how do we develop an economic model that supports both?" (Whitehouse, 2008)
Sources
What is Web 2.0?
The Architecture of Participation
The Social Impact of the Web
The Experts vs. the Amateurs: A Tug of War over the Future of Media
Web 2.0 websites allows for increased interaction compared to Web 1.0 websites that just retrieve information. It has been a improvement on the interactive facilities of Web 1.0 to provide cloud computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data. e.g facebook, bebo, twitter etc. These sites encourage users to add value to the application as they use it, which stands in contrast to traditional websites, that tended to have a limited visitor experience and whose content the user could not interact with. Web 2.0 sites offer a much richer and more user-friendly experience. It differs from Web 1.0 because it allows for user generated content, citizen journalism, social networking, information sharing etc and is therefore often referred to as the 'DIY Internet' or 'architecture of participation'.
Is today's Internet killing our culture?
The rise of Web 2.0 has negative aspects also allowing anyone to generate content to share it with an audience across the web. As a result the quality of media content that certain generations are taking in has gone down. User generated websites such as Wikipedia can have a negative impact on society. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia written collaboratively by its users from all around the world. The fact that anyone can edit its content, means that a lot of the information might not be necessarily factually correct. Where are the contributors sourcing their information? If you compare it to another on-line encyclopedia e.g Britannia Online encyclopedia, which website would you go to for researching founded facts? There are also other negative aspects some of which are, a lack of face-to-face communication, an avoidance of interpersonal interactivity, obesity amongst children, sexual predators, identity theft, on-line bullying.
Although, there are these negeative aspects the user-generated revolution of web 2.0 is clearly gaining more popularity and is noticeably replacing the more traditional means of information sharing. Media companies are betting on the longevity of user-generated sites by acquiring them. News Corp bought MySpace, AOL paid $850 million for social networking site Bebo and The New York Times owns About.com.
Web 2.0 technologies have become an effective means of communicating within our society as it allows for instant communication and information gathering thereby helping to bring the world closer together through allowing users to experience other cultures with the click of a button and helping to eliminate ignorance towards other cultures. Although these services are very beneficial to our society, I still believe that more strict regulations should be implemented to combat on-line bullying, identity theft and factually incorrect content.
So, are there any experts?
User-generated content will never replace The New York Times or Britannica Online for the overall quality of content, but reading informational blogs, or political blogs about issues such as global warming provides some perspectives that you don't get from newspapers. Even though Britannica Online's content is more reliable, there is no way it will ever match the coverage of Wikipedia, because of it thousands of amateur contributors. Although the quality of most Wikipedia entries is surprisingly good and factually correct, there are times I want the certainty that the work I am referencing is factually correct, written and edited by experts.
“Ideally, I see Internet content being a blend of professional and amateur content, but how do we develop an economic model that supports both?" (Whitehouse, 2008)
Sources
What is Web 2.0?
The Architecture of Participation
The Social Impact of the Web
The Experts vs. the Amateurs: A Tug of War over the Future of Media
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)