Ars Technica covered this a few days ago, and their analysis (as opposed to the publicity blurb the university made up) said the study basically came out a wash. Some groups saw gains, some didn't, but there was no clear pattern.
I'm in the "HFCS should be avoided" camp at the moment, but this study doesn't really prove anything.
I'm on Safari on OS X, and I can tell you that the link doesn't work. I get the standard Safari page saying "Can't find the server 3277....".
I tried the links in the blog post, the first three don't work, they have the same problem. The fourth link, the one padded with 0s, eventually failed because the server failed to respond (/.ing, I'm guessing).
This is the first time Safari has failed me in something geeky like this. Safari is the only browser that render's my brother's URL properly. It's one of the unicode symbols, and Safari shows it that way. Safari shows (snowman).net correctly, but FireFox turns it into xn--n3h.net.
Of course,/. won't let me post a unicode character.
This whole this is pretty passive-agressive. The count-up clock of how long they've been waiting for approval is really passive-agressive.
I don't really care about Opera myself, but this is going to be so much fun to watch. Opera has been doing a good job setting up their case that they are being unfairly denied when it happens.
So does Apple deny, look bad, and get hit with a lawsuit, or cave in? I can't see Steve caving.
Quite true. But when I took French or Latin in school, you would learn the word for speaking and it's meaning, and you basically knew it for writing and reading. There were only a few little rules for spelling.
If I were to learn German, I'd have to learn the vocabulary, the writing would be quite easy. Learning Japanese, I have to learn the vocabulary, as well as a different writing form. If I wanted to learn Korean, I'd have to learn Hangul, but it's an alphabet so it wouldn't be too hard.
If everything in Japanese was written in Katakana or Hiragana, writing would be pretty easy.
It seems to me that, to a large degree that the first three are all effects of the second two, and #5 is because no one has bought the devices (essentially due to #1 right now).
If you fix #4, and design the tablet and the software on it for the way it will be used, instead of pretending it's a normal computer, the rest of the problems could fall away.
I can't wait to see what happens with the iPad. If it's a big success, it will really change things. If not, because it's the first big attempt at a real tablet (as opposed to a keyboardless touchscreen Windows box), if it doesn't do well we'll learn something new and interesting.
I'm betting it will succeed pretty wildly, but it should be quite fun to watch.
Yes, there is no reason a K is pronounced like a K. You can make up mnemonics, but it's just an abstract shape. There are only 26 to learn (56 if you include capitals, which can bare resemblance to the lower case versions).
I've been trying to learn Japanese and this effects me too. I learned Katakana and Hiragana pretty easily, using little mnemonics and memory tricks (Kana Pict-o-Graphics is amazing), and so the alphabets are easy to learn and retain. There are only about 100 in total, plus a few combinations that are easy to learn, and two possible add-on marks (called diacriticals, I think) which change the sound. This is made easier because some Katakana look almost exactly like the equivalent Hiragana, and they are all for the same sets of sounds (so there is no sound that you can write in Katakana that isn't in Hiragana). The whole thing can be memorized in a week or two with enough effort. Memorizing that much stuff isn't terrible.
Then you get to the Kanji, which are either borrowed Chinese characters, possibly changed and with new inventions. They're a nightmare. Some are simple and you can learn based on what they represent (forrest and river are pretty easy). Many are composed in ways that would help you learn them if you remember the parts and what they represent. Another Michael Rowley is pretty good here, Kanji Pict-o-Graphix. The problem is that book has over 1000 characters to learn. That's the amount that a 6th grader is expected to know (and the set in the book don't match that set, I don't think). The equivalent of high school is about 2000, with another 200 which have different readings when used in names.
Then you get the fun of X means "moon" and Y means "duck", but XY might mean "reclining chair", which is read totally differently from the pronunciation of X and the pronunciation of Y. But if you don't know that combination, the sentence won't make sense.
The poster is right. With these kind of languages, they really aren't hard. In fact, Japanese seems much more regular than English. The problem is that if you want to be literate, you're going to just have to blindly memorize a ton of stuff, and doing that is really difficult. I'm glad he asked this, it's something I'm struggling with.
Well, since the devices are probably not terribly cheap, they are only installed on cars from tote-the-note car lots. Since the places are a horrible scam, it shouldn't be too surprising that other... non-fun consequences... can come of the deal.
If you get a car (new or used) from a normal dealership, they don't have this ability (unless OnStar decides to start enforcing GMAC payments).
But Avatar was designed, from the ground up, for 3D. I've read bits about the problems with 3D before. Besides the pseudo 3D problem mentioned, there is the fact no one really knows how to use the extra space yet, or the loss of focus it can cause.
Right now, a director can focus my attention on something with focus, but in 3D that doesn't quite work. Either the whole scene is blurry except what they want me to look at (which can be confusing when your eyes can't pull something you look at into focus), or everything is in focus, so I can get easily distracted looking at neat thing X in the background, and not the plot point I am supposed to be focusing on.
We're still at gimmick stage. It's going to take some time before there are many movies where the 3D is actually worth something.
But the whole "take a 2D movie and fake process it into 3D" thing is nearly a scam. I understand if you want to update Gone with the Wind in 3D, you don't have an option (short of a complete reshoot). But when you are starting filming this year, buy the second camera. Either you care about making a 3D movie or not.
That's a serious plus, and a perfectly sane decision on MS's part. IE 6 is most of a decade old, and they've released two operating systems since the one it was shipped on. But they won't force people into IE 9, so there will be a ton of people on Vista with IE 7 or 8, and more on Windows 7 with IE 8.
I know the catch. The catch is obvious. I know people who use IE 6.
IE 7 came out 4 years ago. IE 8 came out a year ago, not including the long public beta.
No matter how good IE 9 is, we'll all have to continue to support IE 6/7/8 for the next 6+ years. It doesn't matter if IE 9 was FireFox with a skin, the curse of IE will continue to haunt anyone doing web development for years.
I'll agree that Apple makes Disney Land. It's all highly controlled and polished to look exactly how they want it to, and to keep "undesirable" elements out.
There's still quite a lot of choice in the market. In fact, whatever you think of the iPhone it's self, we've certainly seen a bigger improvement in the cell industry in the last 3 years (post iPhone) than we did the in 3 or 4 years before. Today, there are numerous phones out with interfaces that aren't abysmal. You can get a game like Bejeweled without having to pay $3 or $4 per month (as carriers liked to charge).
I like the Apple experience, and I love my iPhone. Daniel Jalkut put up a post on his blog today called Surfing in Antartica, which really resonated with me on why I think the iPhone is so great, and why I'm really interested in what the iPad might bring.
Apple does some stuff I don't like. Disney does a lot I don't like (and I know many/.ers agree with me). But there are large segments of the market that love the way those companies do things. There are people who happily pay a large chunk of money to get to live in Disney Land for a few hours a day, a few days a year.
This seems like the ideal opportunity to mention Translation Party. You give it English, and it translates it to and back from Japanese until the input and output English are the same.
I know, I like to inject that word (embryonic) into these conversations. Some groups really love to go around with that "they hate saving people with stem cells" argument, leaving out that crucial word; completely changing the meaning of the statement.
I was aware embryonic cells weren't used here, but re-reading my post I see that wasn't clear.
I'm aware of all that, and I still think that fetal stem cells shouldn't be used. But I think many politicians who were willing to stand up and say "we shouldn't do this, think of the children" would back down if amazing results started coming in. I just don't think most believe those positions strongly enough to keep up the fight.
This is an interesting development, but I expect they'll be shut down. Either way, the big question is do the people end up tumor-ravaged 5 years later. Even if everyone agreed this was as legal as drinking water, it couldn't become a normal treatment for years due to testing.
I don't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad, it's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy.
This doesn't surprise me. I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.
Wouldn't wind do better if the turbines were closer together? I remember reading that the way wind turbines are placed (axis parallel to the ground) they had to be placed something like 10 rotor lengths apart to get full efficiency, while vertical orientations can be packed much more densely, getting more electricity out of the same land area.
I like wind power, because I think it's kind of neat, but unless we get a good temporary storage mechanism (new battery type, compressed something-or-other, flywheels, etc) I don't think will every be terribly useful for the general public, maybe only some manufacturing with large power demands who might be able to step things up on windy days to take advantage of the cheap electricity's temporary availability.
Printers can, but it's uncommon. Trying to print any kind of photo would take forever. Scanners would be much too high bandwidth, and would make much more sense with WiFi.
I'm a little surprised to find out about BT 4. I've never heard of BT 3. The best I knew of was 2+EDR, which Apple has been using.
That said, BT mice work very well. I know the headsets are popular (which I despise since almost no one is considerate when using them). I have a great little mouse (a RadTech BT500) that I use with my laptop, and I also have a Bluetooth Wacom tablet.
But BT generally works. At my company, we have a conference room that used to have a Mac Mini in it. We used a wireless Apple keyboard and mouse for 2 + years without issue, both were Bluetooth. When we moved offices, they upgrade the Mini (which was an 4-5 year old PPC) to a Windows box, and bought a new wireless keyboard and mouse, which dropped all the time. They replaced that combo with another, and another. None of them worked well. Some had ultra short range (like 6 feet), others would drop all the time, it was a mess. But we kept returning then and buying new ones because those little custom wireless gizmos don't pay licensing fees and consequently don't cost much.
Eventually the executives got annoyed enough that they were willing to pay for something good. We bought a Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse combo that has worked perfectly ever since. It used Bluetooth.
I've heard of some good wireless mice that don't use BT, but most wireless stuff seems to count the interface as one more place to cut costs.
I wonder what would happen if the group that licenses Bluetooth would cut the cost on devices and only charge on the host chipsets. That extra $0.50 (or whatever) seems to keep the Bluetooth market smaller than it should be.
At this point, I'm far more interested in Vavle's Mac development that they seem to be doing. I'd love to know if I can finally ditch my Windows partition. I'd love to see Steam and the Source Engine on OS X.
Given their solid Direct3D stance, I'm a little worried... but a gamer can dream, right?
This is the short-term/long-term thing. Modern Warfare 3 can look nice and it will sell amazingly well, even if it's a horrible game. It's got mindshare. Just look at Guitar Hero 3 (which was just Guitar Hero 2 with new paint) and the Matrix game (which was horrible but had a big property).
You can even do this for a while. You only spend $10 or $20 million and make $400 million. You burn the fan base people start to hate you, but hey, you made $380 million. The next game costs the same, but sells $180 million. Then $90 million. You ruined your franchise (so you have to develop a new one at great cost) and you made $600 million in 3 years.
On the other hand, you can spread things out. You can spend $40 or $50 million, and take in $300 million, maybe a little less. But the next game will cost as much and make as much. Same with the third. Now you've got $900 million, and a franchise that sells well, but it took you 5 years.
So what's better for stockholders? $200 million a year and a franchise that's destroyed, or $180 million a year and a franchise that's got a lot of good will? You may a little more money in the first one, but now you have a ton of risk. And when both companies come out with new games in new series, which do you think people will trust more?
See: Mario vs. Sonic. One had amazing games come out every few years, the other had terrible games come out every year. One is worthless, one is one of the biggest and best selling properties in the gaming world.
Harmonix didn't pick up and go somewhere else, they were fired.
There was a quote from one of the high ups in the last month, that explained what happened. They purchased Red Octane and got the license to Guitar Hero. They said "Here's this little developer that makes music games that don't sell, if we give the series to a A-list developer, they'll be able to hit it out of the park."
So they dropped Harmonix, who pioneered the recent music game, was full of musicians, knew what they were doing, and got not one but TWO games to sell in huge boxes taking up tons of shelf space and costing nearly $100... and replaced it with a studio known for driving properties into the ground.
Harmonix went and innovated some more. They made a full band. They made a game with soul.
Activision made Guitar Hero 2, with big budget celebrities and extra notes in the charts to make it harder (thus violating the "playing real music" idea).
But since Guitar Hero had a name at that point (thanks entirely to Harmonix), GH3 sold really well. This happens (see: other Matrix Movies, Star Wars episodes 1-3, etc.).
I'm rather amazed that someone finally admitted that canning Harmonix may not have been the best move.
Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica covered this a few days ago, and their analysis (as opposed to the publicity blurb the university made up) said the study basically came out a wash. Some groups saw gains, some didn't, but there was no clear pattern.
I'm in the "HFCS should be avoided" camp at the moment, but this study doesn't really prove anything.
Slight clarification: My brother doesn't own (snowman).net, he has a URL with a unicode character in it. (snowman).net was an example I found.
I'm on Safari on OS X, and I can tell you that the link doesn't work. I get the standard Safari page saying "Can't find the server 3277....".
I tried the links in the blog post, the first three don't work, they have the same problem. The fourth link, the one padded with 0s, eventually failed because the server failed to respond (/.ing, I'm guessing).
This is the first time Safari has failed me in something geeky like this. Safari is the only browser that render's my brother's URL properly. It's one of the unicode symbols, and Safari shows it that way. Safari shows (snowman).net correctly, but FireFox turns it into xn--n3h.net.
Of course, /. won't let me post a unicode character.
This whole this is pretty passive-agressive. The count-up clock of how long they've been waiting for approval is really passive-agressive.
I don't really care about Opera myself, but this is going to be so much fun to watch. Opera has been doing a good job setting up their case that they are being unfairly denied when it happens.
So does Apple deny, look bad, and get hit with a lawsuit, or cave in? I can't see Steve caving.
FIGHT!
Eigenlaut?
All I know is some people I know are probably very familiar with it.
Quite true. But when I took French or Latin in school, you would learn the word for speaking and it's meaning, and you basically knew it for writing and reading. There were only a few little rules for spelling.
If I were to learn German, I'd have to learn the vocabulary, the writing would be quite easy. Learning Japanese, I have to learn the vocabulary, as well as a different writing form. If I wanted to learn Korean, I'd have to learn Hangul, but it's an alphabet so it wouldn't be too hard.
If everything in Japanese was written in Katakana or Hiragana, writing would be pretty easy.
It seems to me that, to a large degree that the first three are all effects of the second two, and #5 is because no one has bought the devices (essentially due to #1 right now).
If you fix #4, and design the tablet and the software on it for the way it will be used, instead of pretending it's a normal computer, the rest of the problems could fall away.
I can't wait to see what happens with the iPad. If it's a big success, it will really change things. If not, because it's the first big attempt at a real tablet (as opposed to a keyboardless touchscreen Windows box), if it doesn't do well we'll learn something new and interesting.
I'm betting it will succeed pretty wildly, but it should be quite fun to watch.
Yes, there is no reason a K is pronounced like a K. You can make up mnemonics, but it's just an abstract shape. There are only 26 to learn (56 if you include capitals, which can bare resemblance to the lower case versions).
I've been trying to learn Japanese and this effects me too. I learned Katakana and Hiragana pretty easily, using little mnemonics and memory tricks (Kana Pict-o-Graphics is amazing), and so the alphabets are easy to learn and retain. There are only about 100 in total, plus a few combinations that are easy to learn, and two possible add-on marks (called diacriticals, I think) which change the sound. This is made easier because some Katakana look almost exactly like the equivalent Hiragana, and they are all for the same sets of sounds (so there is no sound that you can write in Katakana that isn't in Hiragana). The whole thing can be memorized in a week or two with enough effort. Memorizing that much stuff isn't terrible.
Then you get to the Kanji, which are either borrowed Chinese characters, possibly changed and with new inventions. They're a nightmare. Some are simple and you can learn based on what they represent (forrest and river are pretty easy). Many are composed in ways that would help you learn them if you remember the parts and what they represent. Another Michael Rowley is pretty good here, Kanji Pict-o-Graphix. The problem is that book has over 1000 characters to learn. That's the amount that a 6th grader is expected to know (and the set in the book don't match that set, I don't think). The equivalent of high school is about 2000, with another 200 which have different readings when used in names.
Then you get the fun of X means "moon" and Y means "duck", but XY might mean "reclining chair", which is read totally differently from the pronunciation of X and the pronunciation of Y. But if you don't know that combination, the sentence won't make sense.
The poster is right. With these kind of languages, they really aren't hard. In fact, Japanese seems much more regular than English. The problem is that if you want to be literate, you're going to just have to blindly memorize a ton of stuff, and doing that is really difficult. I'm glad he asked this, it's something I'm struggling with.
This is a dupe from like 2 days ago, which was a dupe from like 6 months ago. USAA has been allowing this for months and months with the iPhone.
Well, since the devices are probably not terribly cheap, they are only installed on cars from tote-the-note car lots. Since the places are a horrible scam, it shouldn't be too surprising that other... non-fun consequences... can come of the deal.
If you get a car (new or used) from a normal dealership, they don't have this ability (unless OnStar decides to start enforcing GMAC payments).
But Avatar was designed, from the ground up, for 3D. I've read bits about the problems with 3D before. Besides the pseudo 3D problem mentioned, there is the fact no one really knows how to use the extra space yet, or the loss of focus it can cause.
Right now, a director can focus my attention on something with focus, but in 3D that doesn't quite work. Either the whole scene is blurry except what they want me to look at (which can be confusing when your eyes can't pull something you look at into focus), or everything is in focus, so I can get easily distracted looking at neat thing X in the background, and not the plot point I am supposed to be focusing on.
We're still at gimmick stage. It's going to take some time before there are many movies where the 3D is actually worth something.
But the whole "take a 2D movie and fake process it into 3D" thing is nearly a scam. I understand if you want to update Gone with the Wind in 3D, you don't have an option (short of a complete reshoot). But when you are starting filming this year, buy the second camera. Either you care about making a 3D movie or not.
That's a serious plus, and a perfectly sane decision on MS's part. IE 6 is most of a decade old, and they've released two operating systems since the one it was shipped on. But they won't force people into IE 9, so there will be a ton of people on Vista with IE 7 or 8, and more on Windows 7 with IE 8.
I know the catch. The catch is obvious. I know people who use IE 6.
IE 7 came out 4 years ago. IE 8 came out a year ago, not including the long public beta.
No matter how good IE 9 is, we'll all have to continue to support IE 6/7/8 for the next 6+ years. It doesn't matter if IE 9 was FireFox with a skin, the curse of IE will continue to haunt anyone doing web development for years.
I'll agree that Apple makes Disney Land. It's all highly controlled and polished to look exactly how they want it to, and to keep "undesirable" elements out.
There's still quite a lot of choice in the market. In fact, whatever you think of the iPhone it's self, we've certainly seen a bigger improvement in the cell industry in the last 3 years (post iPhone) than we did the in 3 or 4 years before. Today, there are numerous phones out with interfaces that aren't abysmal. You can get a game like Bejeweled without having to pay $3 or $4 per month (as carriers liked to charge).
I like the Apple experience, and I love my iPhone. Daniel Jalkut put up a post on his blog today called Surfing in Antartica, which really resonated with me on why I think the iPhone is so great, and why I'm really interested in what the iPad might bring.
Apple does some stuff I don't like. Disney does a lot I don't like (and I know many /.ers agree with me). But there are large segments of the market that love the way those companies do things. There are people who happily pay a large chunk of money to get to live in Disney Land for a few hours a day, a few days a year.
This seems like the ideal opportunity to mention Translation Party. You give it English, and it translates it to and back from Japanese until the input and output English are the same.
It can be a ton of fun.
I know, I like to inject that word (embryonic) into these conversations. Some groups really love to go around with that "they hate saving people with stem cells" argument, leaving out that crucial word; completely changing the meaning of the statement.
I was aware embryonic cells weren't used here, but re-reading my post I see that wasn't clear.
I'm aware of all that, and I still think that fetal stem cells shouldn't be used. But I think many politicians who were willing to stand up and say "we shouldn't do this, think of the children" would back down if amazing results started coming in. I just don't think most believe those positions strongly enough to keep up the fight.
This is an interesting development, but I expect they'll be shut down. Either way, the big question is do the people end up tumor-ravaged 5 years later. Even if everyone agreed this was as legal as drinking water, it couldn't become a normal treatment for years due to testing.
I don't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad, it's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy.
This doesn't surprise me. I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.
Wouldn't wind do better if the turbines were closer together? I remember reading that the way wind turbines are placed (axis parallel to the ground) they had to be placed something like 10 rotor lengths apart to get full efficiency, while vertical orientations can be packed much more densely, getting more electricity out of the same land area.
I like wind power, because I think it's kind of neat, but unless we get a good temporary storage mechanism (new battery type, compressed something-or-other, flywheels, etc) I don't think will every be terribly useful for the general public, maybe only some manufacturing with large power demands who might be able to step things up on windy days to take advantage of the cheap electricity's temporary availability.
Printers can, but it's uncommon. Trying to print any kind of photo would take forever. Scanners would be much too high bandwidth, and would make much more sense with WiFi.
I'm a little surprised to find out about BT 4. I've never heard of BT 3. The best I knew of was 2+EDR, which Apple has been using.
That said, BT mice work very well. I know the headsets are popular (which I despise since almost no one is considerate when using them). I have a great little mouse (a RadTech BT500) that I use with my laptop, and I also have a Bluetooth Wacom tablet.
But BT generally works. At my company, we have a conference room that used to have a Mac Mini in it. We used a wireless Apple keyboard and mouse for 2 + years without issue, both were Bluetooth. When we moved offices, they upgrade the Mini (which was an 4-5 year old PPC) to a Windows box, and bought a new wireless keyboard and mouse, which dropped all the time. They replaced that combo with another, and another. None of them worked well. Some had ultra short range (like 6 feet), others would drop all the time, it was a mess. But we kept returning then and buying new ones because those little custom wireless gizmos don't pay licensing fees and consequently don't cost much.
Eventually the executives got annoyed enough that they were willing to pay for something good. We bought a Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse combo that has worked perfectly ever since. It used Bluetooth.
I've heard of some good wireless mice that don't use BT, but most wireless stuff seems to count the interface as one more place to cut costs.
I wonder what would happen if the group that licenses Bluetooth would cut the cost on devices and only charge on the host chipsets. That extra $0.50 (or whatever) seems to keep the Bluetooth market smaller than it should be.
At this point, I'm far more interested in Vavle's Mac development that they seem to be doing. I'd love to know if I can finally ditch my Windows partition. I'd love to see Steam and the Source Engine on OS X.
Given their solid Direct3D stance, I'm a little worried... but a gamer can dream, right?
Still, Portal 2. Going to have to play that.
Call of Duty: Turnabout?
This is the short-term/long-term thing. Modern Warfare 3 can look nice and it will sell amazingly well, even if it's a horrible game. It's got mindshare. Just look at Guitar Hero 3 (which was just Guitar Hero 2 with new paint) and the Matrix game (which was horrible but had a big property).
You can even do this for a while. You only spend $10 or $20 million and make $400 million. You burn the fan base people start to hate you, but hey, you made $380 million. The next game costs the same, but sells $180 million. Then $90 million. You ruined your franchise (so you have to develop a new one at great cost) and you made $600 million in 3 years.
On the other hand, you can spread things out. You can spend $40 or $50 million, and take in $300 million, maybe a little less. But the next game will cost as much and make as much. Same with the third. Now you've got $900 million, and a franchise that sells well, but it took you 5 years.
So what's better for stockholders? $200 million a year and a franchise that's destroyed, or $180 million a year and a franchise that's got a lot of good will? You may a little more money in the first one, but now you have a ton of risk. And when both companies come out with new games in new series, which do you think people will trust more?
See: Mario vs. Sonic. One had amazing games come out every few years, the other had terrible games come out every year. One is worthless, one is one of the biggest and best selling properties in the gaming world.
Right. Re-reading my post, I misread it too.
What I should have written is "Activision made Guitar Hero 3 by cloning Guitar Hero 2 and adding big budget celebrities and extra notes".
To be fair, Harmonix made some contractually obligated pump-outs (like Rock the 80s), so they weren't immune from it.
Harmonix didn't pick up and go somewhere else, they were fired.
There was a quote from one of the high ups in the last month, that explained what happened. They purchased Red Octane and got the license to Guitar Hero. They said "Here's this little developer that makes music games that don't sell, if we give the series to a A-list developer, they'll be able to hit it out of the park."
So they dropped Harmonix, who pioneered the recent music game, was full of musicians, knew what they were doing, and got not one but TWO games to sell in huge boxes taking up tons of shelf space and costing nearly $100... and replaced it with a studio known for driving properties into the ground.
Harmonix went and innovated some more. They made a full band. They made a game with soul.
Activision made Guitar Hero 2, with big budget celebrities and extra notes in the charts to make it harder (thus violating the "playing real music" idea).
But since Guitar Hero had a name at that point (thanks entirely to Harmonix), GH3 sold really well. This happens (see: other Matrix Movies, Star Wars episodes 1-3, etc.).
I'm rather amazed that someone finally admitted that canning Harmonix may not have been the best move.