People who know the difference want matte. If I spend 5 minutes to explain the difference, a noob wants matte.
People in a store have no idea what to look for, and the glossy screen has brighter colors and has yet to display small scratches (which we all know the get and display way more clearly) and is set up in a way so no annoying reflections are in it.
Which is part of my point. It's pointless statistics, no more, no less.
I can say my sales are up 1000000000000000000000% in hardware. Cause it was 0 last year, and it will be this year as well. The fun part with math and statistics is you can twist them.
Also, I see little errors in my text, but, as I'm not a native english speaker I may definitely be mistaken.
Without knowing the specifics, I'll still explain why this study is a folly.
Let's say that 95% of all computers that where sold to businesses last comparable period where PCs (conservative guess). Let's say, just for example that a total of 100 million computers where sold last comparable period. That would mean 95 million PCs, 5 million macs. If we apply the above percentages, this would mean that 99.275 million PCs where sold. This would mean that 8.3 million macs where sold. This would mean a total of 107.575 million computers where sold.
Not saying that these numbers are correct, just pointing out that PCs are in fact still selling more according to them, by far. And, a single fiscal period is irrelevant for showing a trend.
It's really that simple, squeenix has lost all manner of quality. They just make ugly designs, annoying musc, 100% grindy gameplay and stories which grow less and less cool.
The main problem is that japans gaming culture and western gaming culture has grown more and more widely apart.
Gaming boxes are poorly equipped to be a general solution for loads of reasons. Also, the margins on a machine that is just used for games can't be as high as apple likes to sell its hardware.
The real question is whether people will care about high-performance gaming or not, if so, apple is an equal competitor with an already functioning market.
So, no, a console has too many requirements to behave in the same fashion for a long while to suit apples needs.
In the phone section, you have this one phone which costs approximately 7k SEK while there are no android phones past 4500 SEK. Not sure how it looks in other countries, but that price different is BIG, especially sine there are well-functioning android phones for less then 2000 SEK on the market. So, yeah, people come into a store wanting an iphone, look at the price tags and decide it's not really worth it when you can get basically the same thing for 1/3 of the price.
Tablets on the other hand. They are as expensive or more so in many cases, or they lack features which actually matter on such a large device, people buying it will want true function for it, a phone is something which you need and the extra features are just gravy, a tablet is gravy, so you need to justify the reason that you are buying it somehow.
Also, Apple is good at making people feel like they are getting a luxury item when they buy their decent stuff that's packaged well and looks nice. Since a tablet is inherently a luxury item, it's a fight on apples turf.
So, yeah, why would android win? It has nothing to compete with for the moment.
It's re-entered some movies again actually (the Hulk for instance). But, yeah, between Godzilla and Deep Blue sea, something definitely happened (heck even the Hulk before the last one was genetics).
Actually, no. In general, while intelligence doesn't exist in the general fashion, people who excel at one thing tend to excel at others.
There are many fringe cases (like myself, my curve is quite uneven (Aspergers and ADHD to prove it)), but, in general, stupid people are stupid, smart people are smart.
Being trained and having aptitude for something are also entirely different things, and not as easy to distinguish as one might think. In reality, talent only accounts for a small amount of what makes a person good at something, most careers pretty much only involve cramming a system into your head and then reapplying that system time and time again.
However, remember, almost half of all people are less then average in intelligence, and the common man isn't smart. To get to the people who stand out noticeably in intelligence, you have to go to 120+ IQ so to speak, meaning the top 20%, to get to brilliant, you need to go to the lowest 2% or so.
In short, most people are most decidedly not smart, some like to call that dumb.
It's quite simple really. Do you want to make games educational or do you want them to be entertainment?
Yes, both of these are in stark contrast when it comes to replicating real life. No one will have fun playing a game where falling a bit too far makes you limp for the rest of the game (or the remainder of the mission), where you slowly bleed to death and lose accuracy based on how close to death you are and so on and so forth. Likewise, living a normal day life, or, heck, living the life of an actual soldier (sitting and waiting for hours on and, then somebody sneaks up on you and kills you) is also quite boring.
Moral ambiguity is one thing, actually teaching people about how real life works would be a horrible passtime. Seriously, imagine a game where you spend the entire game fighting a villain, everything points towards that he is the villain and he will walk. You finally kill him, find out that you've been duped by the actual villain, then you get arrested and put on death row.
Game over.
Does that sound fun?
The point is, entertainment isn't supposed to be like real-life, if it where, you would only get a single chance at it and it wouldn't be straight-forward and entertaining all the time, cause life isn't.
So, no, unless you think that games should solely be based on learning things about real life, let them be just, let them be fun and let them be rewarding.
Not saying that depth isn't relevant, just saying that fiction usually let's the good guys win, even if that is a blatant lie.
As a person who likes looking up laptops and hardly ever land on a mac being the best choice (iBook g4 was my latest mac, it was, by far, the most capable 12" notebook in it's pricerange), I must say that I truly understand where he is coming from.
Most laptops are pure and utter crap, seriously. They are too loud, too hot, look like crap (Wife Approval Factor is low) and a whole lot of other things.
If a normal person is supposed to choose hardware on it's actual merits, they have to study for hours if not days to get an actual result, hours which for them will be boring. Let's say you can get a laptop which is good enough for your usage for 600 dollars but it takes 60 hours to get that laptop (not at all unreasonable unless you just wing it and hope for the best (or ask a computer geek, in which case it's a cost on the friendship instead), then you've lost 59 work hours assuming it would take an hour finding the right mac for you. That means you've worked for about ten bucks an hour, with something you hate in your spare time.
And this laptop is also not as good as the mac in question, most macbooks have reasonable quality.
So, no, they are not very expensive for a person with a decent wage, especially since all consumer grade laptops (most sub 1k) are loaded with trials and other crap, which takes several hours to remove in many cases, and even when you've done that, something may have broken, so you need to reinstall. The only way to get a good experience in my experience is to make it a clean install, in which case it takes slightly more expertise.
Writing this from a thinkpad X60 loaded with ubuntu and with several mods (changed wlan, disk and RAM among other things), but, I can definitely see why someone who doesn't care that much and just wants a machine which will be workable from when they pick it up shelfs out extra cash to get a mediocre laptop. It's NOT that much money.
For businesses it is very much more money though, hence, checking out hardware which is appropriate is actually worth it. Hence, consumers like macs, corps like PCs.
It hasn't been for a while. Apple is a parallel solution and will most probably continue to be so in a long, long time.
The thing is, buying a complete solution has it's uses, custom-building has other uses.
Apple is moving more and more toward complete solutions, not towards customizability.
It's not that windows is irrelevant, it's not even that it's less powerful or anything like that. It's just that it's plain and simply not a threat to Apple, at all, they don't compete in the same markets at all.
Dell is a competitor, as is HP, google is one as well. Microsoft however, is not.
Changing? The Hobbit was written with the full knowledge of what the ring was, that was the reason that Bilbo was so keen on hiding it, Gandalf would've immediately disapproved if he found out about it.
There are only 20 magic rings in the whole world, and, yes, none of them are too be taken lightly.
The point is that the hobbit was written by Bilbo, that is the entire point and the reason things are explained very differently. LotR otoh is written by Frodo and Sam, both of them much more serious in their writing.
Distributing source code that can be compiled into a functioning program you mean? That's the entire point.
Until phones allow you to compile and run the compiled software (not sure which do and which don't, I assume iPhone doesn't) or there is another way to compile for it with said source code, no, it isn't following the intention (maybe the license as written, uncertain) of GPLv2.
Since facebook uses XMPP, this would mean that they would create a gateway between skype and XMPP. This would be frikkin awesome since then I could finally dump skype.
The thing with this type of dissolving conflicts is that it works very well on several levels. If you just ban people for trolling, you might miss the whole point of their argument.
The thing is, a person acting like a troll, when confronted, will show it's true colors.
As a moderator of a political board on veganism I can tell you that most of my sub-moderators actually came from people coming into the forum as trolls but realized it was more interesting to go deeper into the subject instead.
If someone actually responds to what you are saying and not trying to goad you further, you can tell that they are actually serious, just not very good at communication, if they still try to goad you though, it's very easy to ban them since they are in fact not constructive.
Slashdot Mirror
People who know the difference want matte.
If I spend 5 minutes to explain the difference, a noob wants matte.
People in a store have no idea what to look for, and the glossy screen has brighter colors and has yet to display small scratches (which we all know the get and display way more clearly) and is set up in a way so no annoying reflections are in it.
So, yeah, no surprise here.
Which is part of my point.
It's pointless statistics, no more, no less.
I can say my sales are up 1000000000000000000000% in hardware.
Cause it was 0 last year, and it will be this year as well.
The fun part with math and statistics is you can twist them.
Also, I see little errors in my text, but, as I'm not a native english speaker I may definitely be mistaken.
Which, as I said, almost certainly means that there is a numerically larger increase on the PC side.
Wrong.
It's not a question of manufacturer vs manufacturer.
It's a question of platfom vs platform.
I'm not even saying it's not impressive, I'm saying the article is using an idiotic interpretation of the data.
Without knowing the specifics, I'll still explain why this study is a folly.
Let's say that 95% of all computers that where sold to businesses last comparable period where PCs (conservative guess).
Let's say, just for example that a total of 100 million computers where sold last comparable period.
That would mean 95 million PCs, 5 million macs.
If we apply the above percentages, this would mean that 99.275 million PCs where sold.
This would mean that 8.3 million macs where sold.
This would mean a total of 107.575 million computers where sold.
Not saying that these numbers are correct, just pointing out that PCs are in fact still selling more according to them, by far.
And, a single fiscal period is irrelevant for showing a trend.
It's really that simple, squeenix has lost all manner of quality.
They just make ugly designs, annoying musc, 100% grindy gameplay and stories which grow less and less cool.
The main problem is that japans gaming culture and western gaming culture has grown more and more widely apart.
This really hurts their market.
Gaming boxes are poorly equipped to be a general solution for loads of reasons.
Also, the margins on a machine that is just used for games can't be as high as apple likes to sell its hardware.
The real question is whether people will care about high-performance gaming or not, if so, apple is an equal competitor with an already functioning market.
So, no, a console has too many requirements to behave in the same fashion for a long while to suit apples needs.
The real problem is that until you examine them, there is no way to actually know.
War is bloody business, especially when the opponents use their own civilians as shields, which is what lack of uniforms actually is.
In the phone section, you have this one phone which costs approximately 7k SEK while there are no android phones past 4500 SEK.
Not sure how it looks in other countries, but that price different is BIG, especially sine there are well-functioning android phones for less then 2000 SEK on the market.
So, yeah, people come into a store wanting an iphone, look at the price tags and decide it's not really worth it when you can get basically the same thing for 1/3 of the price.
Tablets on the other hand.
They are as expensive or more so in many cases, or they lack features which actually matter on such a large device, people buying it will want true function for it, a phone is something which you need and the extra features are just gravy, a tablet is gravy, so you need to justify the reason that you are buying it somehow.
Also, Apple is good at making people feel like they are getting a luxury item when they buy their decent stuff that's packaged well and looks nice.
Since a tablet is inherently a luxury item, it's a fight on apples turf.
So, yeah, why would android win?
It has nothing to compete with for the moment.
It's re-entered some movies again actually (the Hulk for instance).
But, yeah, between Godzilla and Deep Blue sea, something definitely happened (heck even the Hulk before the last one was genetics).
Actually, no.
In general, while intelligence doesn't exist in the general fashion, people who excel at one thing tend to excel at others.
There are many fringe cases (like myself, my curve is quite uneven (Aspergers and ADHD to prove it)), but, in general, stupid people are stupid, smart people are smart.
Being trained and having aptitude for something are also entirely different things, and not as easy to distinguish as one might think.
In reality, talent only accounts for a small amount of what makes a person good at something, most careers pretty much only involve cramming a system into your head and then reapplying that system time and time again.
However, remember, almost half of all people are less then average in intelligence, and the common man isn't smart.
To get to the people who stand out noticeably in intelligence, you have to go to 120+ IQ so to speak, meaning the top 20%, to get to brilliant, you need to go to the lowest 2% or so.
In short, most people are most decidedly not smart, some like to call that dumb.
It's quite simple really.
Do you want to make games educational or do you want them to be entertainment?
Yes, both of these are in stark contrast when it comes to replicating real life.
No one will have fun playing a game where falling a bit too far makes you limp for the rest of the game (or the remainder of the mission), where you slowly bleed to death and lose accuracy based on how close to death you are and so on and so forth.
Likewise, living a normal day life, or, heck, living the life of an actual soldier (sitting and waiting for hours on and, then somebody sneaks up on you and kills you) is also quite boring.
Moral ambiguity is one thing, actually teaching people about how real life works would be a horrible passtime.
Seriously, imagine a game where you spend the entire game fighting a villain, everything points towards that he is the villain and he will walk.
You finally kill him, find out that you've been duped by the actual villain, then you get arrested and put on death row.
Game over.
Does that sound fun?
The point is, entertainment isn't supposed to be like real-life, if it where, you would only get a single chance at it and it wouldn't be straight-forward and entertaining all the time, cause life isn't.
So, no, unless you think that games should solely be based on learning things about real life, let them be just, let them be fun and let them be rewarding.
Not saying that depth isn't relevant, just saying that fiction usually let's the good guys win, even if that is a blatant lie.
As a person who likes looking up laptops and hardly ever land on a mac being the best choice (iBook g4 was my latest mac, it was, by far, the most capable 12" notebook in it's pricerange), I must say that I truly understand where he is coming from.
Most laptops are pure and utter crap, seriously.
They are too loud, too hot, look like crap (Wife Approval Factor is low) and a whole lot of other things.
If a normal person is supposed to choose hardware on it's actual merits, they have to study for hours if not days to get an actual result, hours which for them will be boring.
Let's say you can get a laptop which is good enough for your usage for 600 dollars but it takes 60 hours to get that laptop (not at all unreasonable unless you just wing it and hope for the best (or ask a computer geek, in which case it's a cost on the friendship instead), then you've lost 59 work hours assuming it would take an hour finding the right mac for you.
That means you've worked for about ten bucks an hour, with something you hate in your spare time.
And this laptop is also not as good as the mac in question, most macbooks have reasonable quality.
So, no, they are not very expensive for a person with a decent wage, especially since all consumer grade laptops (most sub 1k) are loaded with trials and other crap, which takes several hours to remove in many cases, and even when you've done that, something may have broken, so you need to reinstall.
The only way to get a good experience in my experience is to make it a clean install, in which case it takes slightly more expertise.
Writing this from a thinkpad X60 loaded with ubuntu and with several mods (changed wlan, disk and RAM among other things), but, I can definitely see why someone who doesn't care that much and just wants a machine which will be workable from when they pick it up shelfs out extra cash to get a mediocre laptop.
It's NOT that much money.
For businesses it is very much more money though, hence, checking out hardware which is appropriate is actually worth it.
Hence, consumers like macs, corps like PCs.
All macs have the same size keyboard for consistency.
I think it has a wonderful size personally.
However, yes, it's annoying to use in windows since the layout is adapted for mac.
It hasn't been for a while.
Apple is a parallel solution and will most probably continue to be so in a long, long time.
The thing is, buying a complete solution has it's uses, custom-building has other uses.
Apple is moving more and more toward complete solutions, not towards customizability.
It's not that windows is irrelevant, it's not even that it's less powerful or anything like that.
It's just that it's plain and simply not a threat to Apple, at all, they don't compete in the same markets at all.
Dell is a competitor, as is HP, google is one as well.
Microsoft however, is not.
Changing?
The Hobbit was written with the full knowledge of what the ring was, that was the reason that Bilbo was so keen on hiding it, Gandalf would've immediately disapproved if he found out about it.
There are only 20 magic rings in the whole world, and, yes, none of them are too be taken lightly.
The point is that the hobbit was written by Bilbo, that is the entire point and the reason things are explained very differently.
LotR otoh is written by Frodo and Sam, both of them much more serious in their writing.
Distributing source code that can be compiled into a functioning program you mean?
That's the entire point.
Until phones allow you to compile and run the compiled software (not sure which do and which don't, I assume iPhone doesn't) or there is another way to compile for it with said source code, no, it isn't following the intention (maybe the license as written, uncertain) of GPLv2.
Since facebook uses XMPP, this would mean that they would create a gateway between skype and XMPP.
This would be frikkin awesome since then I could finally dump skype.
The thing with this type of dissolving conflicts is that it works very well on several levels.
If you just ban people for trolling, you might miss the whole point of their argument.
The thing is, a person acting like a troll, when confronted, will show it's true colors.
As a moderator of a political board on veganism I can tell you that most of my sub-moderators actually came from people coming into the forum as trolls but realized it was more interesting to go deeper into the subject instead.
If someone actually responds to what you are saying and not trying to goad you further, you can tell that they are actually serious, just not very good at communication, if they still try to goad you though, it's very easy to ban them since they are in fact not constructive.
So, it's sort of a filter.
Watchmen isn't a book for kids.
The story in it can not be told in a way that appeals to kids.
It's way too dark and serious for them the understand it.
I mean, the book is about the threat of apocalyptic nuclear war, questions about godhood and psychological issues.
The watchmen movie is, in contrast to the printed form of it, actually not at all comic-like.
The last day I used my winmo it crashed 10 times.
6 times while it booted.
It was in prime condition with standard firmware.
HP Ipaq 550.
Because there are abundance of diseases in genes which spread outside the host?
Both the first and second fallout gave you an opportunity to kill EVERYONE.
Even essential characters.
You even gained reasonable profit for it.
However, the problem was that you never knew when someone you killed was actually important for something later on.
So, in the end, killing people was risky business.
I hated fallout for that.
Nope.
Seeing the mistakes of the past is the only way to move forward and not make the same mistakes again.