No doubt, the animator animates the calculated emotion. And they actually have great insight into what "looks real" versus what looks creepy/kooky/messed up/just wrong/etc.
But how do we calculate the emotion? No matter how complex the representation, abstractions are made and details are left out. And the details are what make AI lacking.
TFA is short but its an excellent commentary on the fundamental issues.
As someone who sells for a software vendor, I concur on the detrimental effects Sarbox compliance. Sarbox has added levels of complexity to the revenue recognition process that shouldn't be there. It is driving up our cost of sales and making a lot of busy work for lawyers, accountants and auditors.
Forget whether $4.99 is a fair price. The important issue is whether Apple's explanation is really true, i.e. that they have to charge for it.
Their spin almost fits -- if you sell a product and then later materially change the product you sold such that the first release would be considered not a product, then you have revenue recognition issues. You might have to re-book the deal because you sold something that did not yet exist.
In this case, I see this as a new feature to an existing product. New features that don't re-define the product aren't going to cause a Sarbox issue.
From the sales perspective, if someone says "Sarbox issue", you should be skeptical. Usually "Sarbox issue" means "I'm too lazy to figure out how to get this to market without causing any revenue recognition issues. And I might see some money in it too."
Slashdot Mirror
But how do we calculate the emotion? No matter how complex the representation, abstractions are made and details are left out. And the details are what make AI lacking.
TFA is short but its an excellent commentary on the fundamental issues.
Forget whether $4.99 is a fair price. The important issue is whether Apple's explanation is really true, i.e. that they have to charge for it.
Their spin almost fits -- if you sell a product and then later materially change the product you sold such that the first release would be considered not a product, then you have revenue recognition issues. You might have to re-book the deal because you sold something that did not yet exist.
In this case, I see this as a new feature to an existing product. New features that don't re-define the product aren't going to cause a Sarbox issue.
From the sales perspective, if someone says "Sarbox issue", you should be skeptical. Usually "Sarbox issue" means "I'm too lazy to figure out how to get this to market without causing any revenue recognition issues. And I might see some money in it too."