The technology is where consoles have often been ahead of PCs, but with tablet computers becoming almost as slick as Star Trek Pads, it's harder to imagine a console being able to process a lot more than a PC or be as portable as an iPad or Android phone.
But who cares about technology? Didn't the DS and Wii teach us anything? Like, it isn't the technology that counts, but the actual games? Nintendo made games loads of people wanted to buy, so they got incredible sales for those titles. It's got nothing to do with technology. I mean, New Super Mario Bros. Wii basically didn't use any "new technology" at all!
These people are going all gaga over mobile and tablet games, but let's look at the numbers for a moment. I'll quote this NeoGAF post:
As of July 7th 2011 (Apple WWDC Keynote) The iOS App Store had generated $3.6 Billion ($2.5 Billion paid to developers after Apple's 30% cut) in revenue in total since its launch in 2008.
Mario Kart DS alone has generated $621 million in revenue (20.70 million units sold as of December 2010 @ $30)
One DS game alone has generated over one fifth of the revenue generated for developers by the entire App Store over the course of its history (Oh and that includes all non game Apps as well)
So what is my point?
The point here is that the guy with a vested interest in mobile and tablet gaming is implying that these games are eating into the profits of "traditional" gaming companies. But I do not believe this for a second.
The reason sales on dedicated consoles are falling is that the games are not of sufficiently high quality. They do not appeal to a wide enough audience. However, were Nintendo to start making games that do appeal to a wider audience, they would sell very well indeed.
In other words: The enemy of dedicated gaming consoles is not games on mobile phones, but rather the lack of quality software on these dedicated gaming devices.
And yes, the revenue from these minigames on phones is tiny compared to the big sellers on dedicated consoles.
You know, people were saying the exact same thing 5+ years ago. It's not like typos and other errors were unknown 5-10 or so years ago either. Take off your rose-tinted glasses, please!
Yes, like game consoles. Like I wrote elsewhere, I don't really think the Xbox is a success. The PS2 was a huge success and the Wii was a huge success. But I don't see the Xbox pushing numbers like that. While the games sell better than PS3, the Wii totally destroyed the Xbox when it came to big-selling games.
I think that the Xbox is only a success if you compare it to the crappy results of the gaming industry in general. It is not a success if you compare it to actual success stories like PS2, DS and Wii.
Is the Xbox really a success, though? The PS2 was a huge success and the Wii was a huge success. But I don't see the Xbox pushing numbers like that. While the games sell better than PS3, the Wii totally destroyed the Xbox when it came to big-selling games.
I think that the Xbox is only a success if you compare it to the crappy results of the gaming industry in general. It is not a success if you compare it to actual success stories like PS2, DS and Wii.
Good job. You just ignored everything I wrote, desperately tried to change the subject, and ended up with a short reply which is nothing but a pathetic attempt to save face.
You can keep lying and deceiving, but you simply can't refute the facts I presented you with, such as the fact that there are no scientific institutions on the entire planet which reject global warming.
What about those quote-mines? More lies and quote-mining from denialists. But why are you desperately trying to change the subject? Because I proved that you are wrong and clueless?
The scientific consensus on climate change is no myth. It's a simple fact. You won't find a single respected scientific institution which does not accept the AGW theory. Only idiots and hacks ignore the facts and reject it because they find it to be incompatible with their fascist beliefs.
As for that nonsensical article you are linking to, it's just another example of creationists, I mean climate denialists, doing quote-mining and lying because the truth doesn't support their (your) ideology. Three articles debunking that quote by liar and hack Lawrence Solomon:
Thanks for proving how extremely dishonest and disgusting denialists are. You should be ashamed of yourself for actively lying and doing quote-mining to try and fool others.
We do know why it has warmed. There's no "sect of scientists." Rather, there are thousands of scientists from around the world who have independently verified the cause of the warming.
There are not many actual climate scientists who reject the theory. Those that do have failed to show that they are correct through their research. They have been trying for years to invalidate the consensus position of 97-99% of all climate scientists, but all their research has failed to do so. So these scientists reject it on faith alone, and contrary to the actual facts.
I mean, there are actual biologists who reject the theory of evolution. But they are irrelevant because they have no research to back up their opinion. Just like "skeptical" climate scientists.
I actually used to be completely ignorant of the whole thing, and back then I was an actual skeptic. But then I educated myself about the facts. I recommend that you do the same thing, because right now you are just being a denialist asshole who rejects all facts.
The fact is that the climate is warming, and it is caused by human emissions of CO2.
The "only a theory" nonsense is typical creationist BS. It is not only a theory. It's a scientific theory. Your ignorance about science says it all, really.
Higher CO2 is, in fact, detrimental to food production. Just because plants live off of CO2 doesn't mean that extreme amounts of it is good for them. I'm sure you'll agree that even though you need water to survive, drowning is unpleasant indeed.
You are simply ignorant. Not only of the actual science, but also of the scientific process. Typical creationist/climate denialist.
AGW means that humans are causing the observed warning. We are causing it with our CO2 emissions. The science is clear on this, regardless of your attempt to lie about the science for political reasons.
The "only a theory" nonsense is typical creationist BS. It is not only a theory. It's a scientific theory. Your ignorance about science says it all, really.
Climategate was a manufactured controversy which did nothing to provide evidence against AGW. You are exactly like a creationist with your lies, quote mining and general BS.
Did you even read the summary? Of course, you didn't bother to read the paper, but you didn't even seem to read the Slashdot summary! You just started the robot and spewed automatic phrases.
Um... Nope. Not at all. Did you even read the Slashdot summary? Also, it's one study. But it's funny how you seem to accept the science only now. Weird. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
No, you are incorrect. The facts are clear. AGW is real. That's what the actual science shows. The ones that deny AGW have only pseudoscience and lies.
There is not a lot of genuine evidence against AGW. People have tried to publish research that "disproves" it, but it has always turned out to be deeply flawed and thus had to be rejected. Back to the drawing board.
The "skeptics" do not have data. They have lies and cherry-picking. They do not have the actual science to back up their claims. And the published science by "skeptics" that was supposed to debunk the consensus has always turned out to be deeply flawed.
By that logic, no browser conforms because all browsers are missing pieces of those standards, or have bugs that mean that they violate them.
And you are artificially and dishonestly limiting to Opera Mini (which still did what Silk does ages ago), ignoring browsers like Bolt, Skyfire, Nokia's S40 browser, etc. Anything Silk claims to do, other browsers did it before it.
but it was not transparent, in that if you came by a website that used something that couldn't be handled in that manner, you were SOL, and had to switch to a proper browser
That's a load of nonsense. First of all, Opera Mini handles more dynamic content now. Secondly, other "cloud" browsers like Skyfire (before they removed that feature), Bolt, etc. all handle all that stuff perfectly.
The neat thing about Silk is that it does that completely transparently to the user - those parts of the page that can be rendered in the cloud, are, and those that can't are rendered locally with full support for HTML5 features and plugins.
Again, this is nonsense. It's exactly what all these other browsers have been doing for years.
Thus you get all the speed / low-power advantages of Mini everywhere they can be used without sacrificing user experience. That is what's new with Amazon's offering.
Again, no. Complete and utter nonsense. You have been drinking the Amazon Kool-Aid.
The point is: As you can clearly see, Opera offers both local and remote handling of the page itself. Browsers have been doing this for years. There's nothing new with Amazon's offering.
Slashdot Mirror
So what does this have to do with working hours per week?
But who cares about technology? Didn't the DS and Wii teach us anything? Like, it isn't the technology that counts, but the actual games? Nintendo made games loads of people wanted to buy, so they got incredible sales for those titles. It's got nothing to do with technology. I mean, New Super Mario Bros. Wii basically didn't use any "new technology" at all!
The problem is that these games don't seem to come even close to touching the "traditional" games, as I pointed out in another comment.
These people are going all gaga over mobile and tablet games, but let's look at the numbers for a moment. I'll quote this NeoGAF post:
So what is my point?
The point here is that the guy with a vested interest in mobile and tablet gaming is implying that these games are eating into the profits of "traditional" gaming companies. But I do not believe this for a second.
The reason sales on dedicated consoles are falling is that the games are not of sufficiently high quality. They do not appeal to a wide enough audience. However, were Nintendo to start making games that do appeal to a wider audience, they would sell very well indeed.
In other words: The enemy of dedicated gaming consoles is not games on mobile phones, but rather the lack of quality software on these dedicated gaming devices.
And yes, the revenue from these minigames on phones is tiny compared to the big sellers on dedicated consoles.
You know, people were saying the exact same thing 5+ years ago. It's not like typos and other errors were unknown 5-10 or so years ago either. Take off your rose-tinted glasses, please!
Yes, like game consoles. Like I wrote elsewhere, I don't really think the Xbox is a success. The PS2 was a huge success and the Wii was a huge success. But I don't see the Xbox pushing numbers like that. While the games sell better than PS3, the Wii totally destroyed the Xbox when it came to big-selling games.
I think that the Xbox is only a success if you compare it to the crappy results of the gaming industry in general. It is not a success if you compare it to actual success stories like PS2, DS and Wii.
Is the Xbox really a success, though? The PS2 was a huge success and the Wii was a huge success. But I don't see the Xbox pushing numbers like that. While the games sell better than PS3, the Wii totally destroyed the Xbox when it came to big-selling games.
I think that the Xbox is only a success if you compare it to the crappy results of the gaming industry in general. It is not a success if you compare it to actual success stories like PS2, DS and Wii.
Good job. You just ignored everything I wrote, desperately tried to change the subject, and ended up with a short reply which is nothing but a pathetic attempt to save face.
You can keep lying and deceiving, but you simply can't refute the facts I presented you with, such as the fact that there are no scientific institutions on the entire planet which reject global warming.
You lose, liar.
What about those quote-mines? More lies and quote-mining from denialists. But why are you desperately trying to change the subject? Because I proved that you are wrong and clueless?
Yawn. Denialist caught lying. Denialist caught quote-mining. Result: Denialist tries to change the subject.
Yes, those quotes in that link are taken out of context as well. You need to stop blindly reposting right-wing, fascist propaganda.
The scientific consensus on climate change is no myth. It's a simple fact. You won't find a single respected scientific institution which does not accept the AGW theory. Only idiots and hacks ignore the facts and reject it because they find it to be incompatible with their fascist beliefs.
As for that nonsensical article you are linking to, it's just another example of creationists, I mean climate denialists, doing quote-mining and lying because the truth doesn't support their (your) ideology. Three articles debunking that quote by liar and hack Lawrence Solomon:
Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight
The climate consensus: How to take a quote out of context
Thanks for proving how extremely dishonest and disgusting denialists are. You should be ashamed of yourself for actively lying and doing quote-mining to try and fool others.
We do know why it has warmed. There's no "sect of scientists." Rather, there are thousands of scientists from around the world who have independently verified the cause of the warming.
There are not many actual climate scientists who reject the theory. Those that do have failed to show that they are correct through their research. They have been trying for years to invalidate the consensus position of 97-99% of all climate scientists, but all their research has failed to do so. So these scientists reject it on faith alone, and contrary to the actual facts.
I mean, there are actual biologists who reject the theory of evolution. But they are irrelevant because they have no research to back up their opinion. Just like "skeptical" climate scientists.
I actually used to be completely ignorant of the whole thing, and back then I was an actual skeptic. But then I educated myself about the facts. I recommend that you do the same thing, because right now you are just being a denialist asshole who rejects all facts.
Models have indeed been surprisingly accurate.
The fact is that the climate is warming, and it is caused by human emissions of CO2.
The "only a theory" nonsense is typical creationist BS. It is not only a theory. It's a scientific theory. Your ignorance about science says it all, really.
Higher CO2 is, in fact, detrimental to food production. Just because plants live off of CO2 doesn't mean that extreme amounts of it is good for them. I'm sure you'll agree that even though you need water to survive, drowning is unpleasant indeed.
You are simply ignorant. Not only of the actual science, but also of the scientific process. Typical creationist/climate denialist.
AGW means that humans are causing the observed warning. We are causing it with our CO2 emissions. The science is clear on this, regardless of your attempt to lie about the science for political reasons.
The "only a theory" nonsense is typical creationist BS. It is not only a theory. It's a scientific theory. Your ignorance about science says it all, really.
Climategate was a manufactured controversy which did nothing to provide evidence against AGW. You are exactly like a creationist with your lies, quote mining and general BS.
What kind of thing are you referring to? The quote-mining performed by right-wingers to portray these hacked emails as something they aren't?
Did you even read the summary? Of course, you didn't bother to read the paper, but you didn't even seem to read the Slashdot summary! You just started the robot and spewed automatic phrases.
Um... Nope. Not at all. Did you even read the Slashdot summary? Also, it's one study. But it's funny how you seem to accept the science only now. Weird. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
No, you are incorrect. The facts are clear. AGW is real. That's what the actual science shows. The ones that deny AGW have only pseudoscience and lies.
There is not a lot of genuine evidence against AGW. People have tried to publish research that "disproves" it, but it has always turned out to be deeply flawed and thus had to be rejected. Back to the drawing board.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but scientists have known about globa warming since the 1800s.
The scientific data clearly shows global warming, and the models have, in fact, been surprisingly accurate.
You are rejecting scientific facts because you feel they are a threat to your political ideology.
Hansen? What on earth are you talking about?
The brainwashing here is that which affects denialists who blindly reject all scientific facts to promote their political ideology.
The "skeptics" do not have data. They have lies and cherry-picking. They do not have the actual science to back up their claims. And the published science by "skeptics" that was supposed to debunk the consensus has always turned out to be deeply flawed.
The same argument can't be made against his position because his position is based on facts.
By that logic, no browser conforms because all browsers are missing pieces of those standards, or have bugs that mean that they violate them.
And you are artificially and dishonestly limiting to Opera Mini (which still did what Silk does ages ago), ignoring browsers like Bolt, Skyfire, Nokia's S40 browser, etc. Anything Silk claims to do, other browsers did it before it.
That's a load of nonsense. First of all, Opera Mini handles more dynamic content now. Secondly, other "cloud" browsers like Skyfire (before they removed that feature), Bolt, etc. all handle all that stuff perfectly.
Again, this is nonsense. It's exactly what all these other browsers have been doing for years.
Again, no. Complete and utter nonsense. You have been drinking the Amazon Kool-Aid.
The point is: As you can clearly see, Opera offers both local and remote handling of the page itself. Browsers have been doing this for years. There's nothing new with Amazon's offering.