That's really not what the article says at all. It says they decided to go with an ad supported model on Android because it pays better than selling the app. Which, as noted, not only proves the "Android users don't like to pay for apps" point, it doesn't mention a comparison to iOS at all. While I'm sure you could probably find an example of an app that has made more from Android than iOS, this isn't it.
I was a huge early proponent of Google+, and actively evangelized it to my friends and family. But it's been months now, and they haven't fixed anything that's wrong with the site, the mobile apps are still a mess, and as far as I can tell they never resolved the "real names" thing or even issued an apology. And they've botched virtually every other step of the launch.
At this point, I'm about to give up and reactivate my Facebook account. I just don't think Google is agile enough to run an evolving social networking site.
Good Photoshopping is worth at least as much as good photography. Look at any high quality professional photography these days, and a large portion of the quality and look comes from post-processing. The only people who would disagree with that are either delusional about the current state of photography, or desperately clinging to the last vestiges of the analog age. Obviously journalistic photos aren't edited to the degree in the article, but most things not explicitly documentarian in nature are.
It's also true that a lot of analog-age artists have trouble making the switch to Photoshop. It's a completely different skillset that allows people without traditional artistic ability to make art, and challenges traditional artists who have to develop entirely new technical skills. Makes me wonder how many other photographers out there are doing this, but are competent enough at Photoshop to get away with it. I certainly know how to clone things out without leaving telltale clone marks or other amateur mistakes. And I'm not even that good with Photoshop.
I think photographers keep getting away with this because people are gullible, and tend to believe what they see without listening to the quiet, nagging voice in the back of their mind telling them that something looks wrong. I'm a little surprised they caught him by spotting that the Lynx had the wrong season coat. When I looked at the pictures it was glaringly obvious that they were poorly-edited fakes, regardless of their content.
FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN is an incredibly popular SSID that comes up on every list of clever network names I've ever seen. A friend of mine even uses it, though hers has some numbers attached to make it look better.
Vancouver is an awful example of this. I've been there several times, the most recently for the Olympics, and I have never enjoyed the trip. Vancouver is filthy, gridlocked with traffic, impossibly expensive, and laid out in an incredibly inconvenient way. I would never choose to live there, let alone have children there.
Game designers have this annoying kind of god complex about how they think you should play their games. That's not how it works. You make the game, I'll decide how it's going to get played. Just because a company is capable of creating a game doesn't mean they're capable of creating compelling gameplay.
Except that the author pretty much says exactly the opposite of that.
“The startling results of this study suggest that when left unchecked texting and other widely popular methods of staying connected can have dangerous health effects on teenagers,” said Frank. “This should be a wake-up call for parents to not only help their children stay safe by not texting and driving, but by discouraging excessive use of the cell phone or social websites in general.”
That sounds like "if your kids text, they'll start doing drugs!" to me. Which is sad, because usually the original study is well-intentioned, but is misquoted and turned into fearmongering bullshit by the media. In this case, it looks like the author intended for that from the beginning.
There is a large but quiet contingent of computer gamers who do play alone. I don't intend to play any SC2 multiplayer, for example. And I'm going to have to drag my gaming computer halfway through the house to get it an internet connection if I want to install SC2 and play the single player campaign. That's wrong. Period.
When Valve first started requiring an internet connection to install HL2, people treated it like the DRM end of the world. I certainly haven't bought anything from them since they started doing that. The fact that "restrictive DRM" now means that you're required to be connected to the internet to play is insane. Restrictive DRM is anything that makes it harder for a paying customer to play the game than a person who pirated it. Requiring me to register online when I install is more work than the pirates are going to have to do. And that's both ethically wrong and counterproductive.
The reason I'm not paying any attention to the U1 is because apparently Lenovo doesn't want me to. Around CES there was a bunch of buzz about it, but then Lenovo completely let it drop off the radar. No pricing, no release data, no live demo units at CES. It's like they were trying to kill it. Bummer too, because it's not a bad concept. I can only assume they had some kind of massive hardware or software problems, and decided to keep it under wraps a little while longer.
I'm amused by how little companies even try to not make it sound like they're lying. Shutting down XBL is good for XBL customers. Oh, of course, why didn't I think of that. Here I just assumed it was because subscription levels had reached a low enough point that it was no in Microsoft's financial interest to continue to support it. Too bad I and the gaming public are too dumb to understand things like that.
Do you honestly think Apple would give more than a passing thought to inconveniencing programmers?
Here's how it would go.
Launch Day: Programmers are notified that they will have to rewrite their programs to work on the Nano. Everyone whines, bitches, moans, and claims that the Nano will fail within weeks without programmer support. A lot of them vow not to buy it or program for it.
Fifteen minutes later: The first fart app for the Nano is ported.
A week after launch day: Programmers of apps that make obscene amounts of money grudgingly announce that they're working on porting their apps.
Six months after launch day: The Nano 2nd generation is announced. All apps have either been ported, or portable equivalents have been written.
I never had any parental oversight of my computer activities, and I not only turned out fine, I learned a lot more than I would have with someone hanging over my shoulder all the time.
I would venture a guess that the same goes for most of you.
Slashdot's demographic is clearly getting older. Yes seven is a little young (by the time you're 12-13 you should be on your own), but I don't see what harm can possibly come from it if she's properly educated.
I think it's important to keep in mind that Alienware doesn't have the capability to actually create new products. Their computers are just standard components in a gaudy case, and even the much-touted curved display was created by a company in California (for NEC), and relabeled with an Alienware badge.
If they were to release an Android phone they would need to wait for someone else to do so first, then slap their (according to this article, hideous) chunk of custom plastic on the front.
I'm sorry, but I think generally submitters and editors of Slashdot assume a certain level of informedness from the readers. If you're a technie, you should either know what HDMI is, or be able to look it up yourself. I don't complain when stuff gets posted about Linux that I don't get. I look it up.
The eeeeeeepc was supposed to be $200 too. That stupid OLED keyboard was supposed to be $500.
I don't see this going for less than $600 by the time the bean counters get done with it. For $200-299 it's a toy, and everyone will buy one, but very few companies seem to understand that price point. I'll believe it when I see it.
If they don't, then should. All games should, and it would be great if it was a requirement for the platform.
Save points are silly. I don't always have time for that kind of thing.
You can't brick a computer. They might be able to disable the OS or flash your BIOS, but that would just require swapping out a motherboard or reloading the OS to fix.
Bricking implies a software problem that causes your device to be unfixable with conventional tools.
That would be utterly retarded. I'm sure the eventual plan is to just use heat/proximity sensors on the back.
The prototype in the video hardly even counts as "innovation" hardware-wise. It's just something they slapped together to use as a test platform for the software.
And Apple may have a patent on it, but I don't see them actually producing anything. So I think Microsoft wins here, in regards to exposure to the public.
Tell me about it. I switched to uTorrent awhile ago and now all of my RAM is just...sitting around. It's not even doing anything. I mean come on, where's the bloated interface and memory leaks I'd become so accustomed to? Hell, I don't even have to change processor priority on uTorrent when I want to play a game. I want a program I have to maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it *was* an original plot. Better love story than Twilight too.
That's really not what the article says at all. It says they decided to go with an ad supported model on Android because it pays better than selling the app. Which, as noted, not only proves the "Android users don't like to pay for apps" point, it doesn't mention a comparison to iOS at all. While I'm sure you could probably find an example of an app that has made more from Android than iOS, this isn't it.
I'm not sure if I should tell you to RTFM, or if you're just trolling.
At this point, I'm about to give up and reactivate my Facebook account. I just don't think Google is agile enough to run an evolving social networking site.
Good Photoshopping is worth at least as much as good photography. Look at any high quality professional photography these days, and a large portion of the quality and look comes from post-processing. The only people who would disagree with that are either delusional about the current state of photography, or desperately clinging to the last vestiges of the analog age. Obviously journalistic photos aren't edited to the degree in the article, but most things not explicitly documentarian in nature are.
It's also true that a lot of analog-age artists have trouble making the switch to Photoshop. It's a completely different skillset that allows people without traditional artistic ability to make art, and challenges traditional artists who have to develop entirely new technical skills. Makes me wonder how many other photographers out there are doing this, but are competent enough at Photoshop to get away with it. I certainly know how to clone things out without leaving telltale clone marks or other amateur mistakes. And I'm not even that good with Photoshop.
I think photographers keep getting away with this because people are gullible, and tend to believe what they see without listening to the quiet, nagging voice in the back of their mind telling them that something looks wrong. I'm a little surprised they caught him by spotting that the Lynx had the wrong season coat. When I looked at the pictures it was glaringly obvious that they were poorly-edited fakes, regardless of their content.
FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN is an incredibly popular SSID that comes up on every list of clever network names I've ever seen. A friend of mine even uses it, though hers has some numbers attached to make it look better.
And ICQ. But I think we already knew that the writers at Gizmodo are a) probably still in high school, and b) not really techies.
Vancouver is an awful example of this. I've been there several times, the most recently for the Olympics, and I have never enjoyed the trip. Vancouver is filthy, gridlocked with traffic, impossibly expensive, and laid out in an incredibly inconvenient way. I would never choose to live there, let alone have children there.
Game designers have this annoying kind of god complex about how they think you should play their games. That's not how it works. You make the game, I'll decide how it's going to get played. Just because a company is capable of creating a game doesn't mean they're capable of creating compelling gameplay.
You must be new here.
That sounds like "if your kids text, they'll start doing drugs!" to me. Which is sad, because usually the original study is well-intentioned, but is misquoted and turned into fearmongering bullshit by the media. In this case, it looks like the author intended for that from the beginning.
There is a large but quiet contingent of computer gamers who do play alone. I don't intend to play any SC2 multiplayer, for example. And I'm going to have to drag my gaming computer halfway through the house to get it an internet connection if I want to install SC2 and play the single player campaign. That's wrong. Period.
When Valve first started requiring an internet connection to install HL2, people treated it like the DRM end of the world. I certainly haven't bought anything from them since they started doing that. The fact that "restrictive DRM" now means that you're required to be connected to the internet to play is insane. Restrictive DRM is anything that makes it harder for a paying customer to play the game than a person who pirated it. Requiring me to register online when I install is more work than the pirates are going to have to do. And that's both ethically wrong and counterproductive.
The reason I'm not paying any attention to the U1 is because apparently Lenovo doesn't want me to. Around CES there was a bunch of buzz about it, but then Lenovo completely let it drop off the radar. No pricing, no release data, no live demo units at CES. It's like they were trying to kill it. Bummer too, because it's not a bad concept. I can only assume they had some kind of massive hardware or software problems, and decided to keep it under wraps a little while longer.
I'm amused by how little companies even try to not make it sound like they're lying. Shutting down XBL is good for XBL customers. Oh, of course, why didn't I think of that. Here I just assumed it was because subscription levels had reached a low enough point that it was no in Microsoft's financial interest to continue to support it. Too bad I and the gaming public are too dumb to understand things like that.
Here's how it would go.
Launch Day: Programmers are notified that they will have to rewrite their programs to work on the Nano. Everyone whines, bitches, moans, and claims that the Nano will fail within weeks without programmer support. A lot of them vow not to buy it or program for it.
Fifteen minutes later: The first fart app for the Nano is ported.
A week after launch day: Programmers of apps that make obscene amounts of money grudgingly announce that they're working on porting their apps.
Six months after launch day: The Nano 2nd generation is announced. All apps have either been ported, or portable equivalents have been written.
You know that's how it'll go down.
Congratulations, you've discovered Swedish.
I would venture a guess that the same goes for most of you.
Slashdot's demographic is clearly getting older. Yes seven is a little young (by the time you're 12-13 you should be on your own), but I don't see what harm can possibly come from it if she's properly educated.
If they were to release an Android phone they would need to wait for someone else to do so first, then slap their (according to this article, hideous) chunk of custom plastic on the front.
I'm sorry, but I think generally submitters and editors of Slashdot assume a certain level of informedness from the readers. If you're a technie, you should either know what HDMI is, or be able to look it up yourself. I don't complain when stuff gets posted about Linux that I don't get. I look it up.
The eeeeeeepc was supposed to be $200 too. That stupid OLED keyboard was supposed to be $500. I don't see this going for less than $600 by the time the bean counters get done with it. For $200-299 it's a toy, and everyone will buy one, but very few companies seem to understand that price point. I'll believe it when I see it.
If they don't, then should. All games should, and it would be great if it was a requirement for the platform. Save points are silly. I don't always have time for that kind of thing.
You can't brick a computer. They might be able to disable the OS or flash your BIOS, but that would just require swapping out a motherboard or reloading the OS to fix. Bricking implies a software problem that causes your device to be unfixable with conventional tools.
That would be utterly retarded. I'm sure the eventual plan is to just use heat/proximity sensors on the back. The prototype in the video hardly even counts as "innovation" hardware-wise. It's just something they slapped together to use as a test platform for the software. And Apple may have a patent on it, but I don't see them actually producing anything. So I think Microsoft wins here, in regards to exposure to the public.
Tell me about it. I switched to uTorrent awhile ago and now all of my RAM is just...sitting around. It's not even doing anything. I mean come on, where's the bloated interface and memory leaks I'd become so accustomed to? Hell, I don't even have to change processor priority on uTorrent when I want to play a game. I want a program I have to maintain.