Earnings out today. iPhone sales up 17% YoY. Like every quarter.
As I say, you're in fantasy land.
For kids, Apple products are something your mom has.
If that is so, what's the problem? Mom is the one with the money, not the kids. It's certainly true that iPhone is more popular with moms than Android is. Do you have something against women? Or just women with children?
Other things iPhone users are more likely to be:
Urban, graduates, liberal, more wealthy, optimists, extroverts, have travelled abroad, be early adopters, have used the internet since the early days, people who backup their data, less gullible to telephone marketers.
Right, better physics engines. Seems hard to argue with. But...
Take the Tomb raider series. Originally it was a map made of square columns. Sides of square columns for walls. Tops of square columns for floors. The square columns could have sloping tops. And there was the odd 3D model scenery for a statue. But apart from that, everything was square. And yet with this and textures they still managed to evoke different countries and environments.
The great thing was that you could nearly always see by looking which gaps you could leap from standing and which needed a running jump. Which ledges you could jump up to and which you couldn't. You could plan a route to solve a puzzle. And sliding block puzzles fitted in naturally.
As time went on they made the games of the series more realistic. And additions of motor vehicles sections did add fun activities. And higher resolutions made for better textures. But moving away from the square column architecture to arbitrary surfaces made the game worse. No longer was it clear which gaps you could jump, which ledges you could reach. And whilst there were still sliding block puzzles, each time you encountered one, it reminded you of the old square world and you wondered why the rest wasn't like that.
Essentially Tomb Raider is a 3D platformer. And it's just the same as with 2D platformers. Predictable blocks make for a predictable rules within which the game creator can make puzzles and the player can be expected to solve them by thinking or instinct, rather than trial and error. Make the environment more arbitrary and it tends to take away from the game.
Of course the are counter examples. Limbo is an incredibly good platformer that isn't built with blocks. But still, everything is predictable about a particular part of the environment. The giant spider doesn't ever behave differently it'll tap the ground X times. And then if you are past pixel Y, it will impale you.
Rather, "more realistic" would mean simulating the snow as a particle system so that the player could bend down, pick up the snow, form snowballs, build snow forts, and fun things like that.
You, like I, used that word "simulator" or a variant of it. For simulators, or toys, sure, lets simulate snow. But games are about stories and puzzles and progression. If that snow is part of the game, and enables you to progress, then great. But if it's just manipulating the scenery, what's the point?
I can't believe the "dimmer" argument has an real validity given that sapphire is widely used for camera lenses, where any significant dimming would be a problem.
No, Sapphire is certainly stronger than Gorilla Glass. It's the next best thing to diamond. That's the reason it's pretty unscratchable. And that's why it's used for lenses and watch glasses.
Sapphire may be more brittle than Gorilla Glass. But that's a different thing.
Why would they want to release their free-of-charge OS onto other PCs, when the money that's used to develop OSX comes from selling Macs?
Besides, licensing MacOS for other computers was one of the mistakes Apple was making in the years before Jobs came back. When they were heading towards bankruptcy. They won't be repeating that mistake.
These days you can't even say that Apple should follow Microsoft's model, as Windows is on it's way out.
Look at your own quote of the preceeding conversation. The profit margin answer is to the question "Where is Apple's future? It seems to be slowly eating itself". It's proof that Apple's business model is working very well for them, and they aren't going to go out of business anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Apple's earning releases show their own profits, but not those of the other companies in the industry, so unless they happen to have made a comment in the notes, they are not likely to answer this question. Which is why you need an industry analyst, such as the one The Register has quoted.
It's funny. In he intervening years, text adventure authoring has come a long way. It's now possible to create games in a near English functional programming language. http://inform7.com/
BUT the games compile down to the age old Infocom game file format, and so are limited to the ancient concepts of wandering between rooms and manipulating objects. And whilst the range of user input that can be understood has expanded, it's still just combinations of "verbing" and "object" or moving by compass directions.
Still, some authors have managed to be creative even within this limited game engine, and create games that don't APPEAR to be simple rooms and objects games.
I wonder, would a truly unlimited interactive novel be fun to play? It could be tested out by a kind of Turing test scenario. Have a player play such a game, and have a real novelist provide the "game" text. Of course such a thing would entail the player waiting a considerable time between "moves". But it would mean that their input would be boundless, they could do anything in the "game".
Considering how hard it is for most authors to get things published and make a living whilst they are writing, this might even be a feasible real way of gaming, allowing authors to make a small income whilst doing their chosen activity. Though it would need to be a pay-per-move system.
I don't think so. What makes a good simulation of real life doesn't tend to make for a good game. Real life is mostly boring, which is why people turn to games in the first place.
There are categories where maximum reality is desirable, but they tend to have "simulator" in the name. Flight Sim, Formula One Sim, Train Sim, Theme Park Sim.
But what people usually want in games is problems to solve, and/or skills to develop, to make progress, all at a level that tests their ability at nearly all times, but doesn't overcome them. And trying to be more realistic only limits the amount to which you can do these things.
Take the article's example of a door, and the question of how you can tell if it's a locked door or not. In reality, you can't tell whether a door is locked without trying to turn the handle and push it. But in games it's usually better if you can tell by looking whether a door is unlocked and openable. There are plenty of games that go for the reality route, and you have to try to open all the doors to find the openable ones. And it's a tedious task that rarely adds anything to the gameplay.
Another example is the concept of health levels, multiple lives, and re-spawning. Remember the US army created a game of their own called "America's Army". It was as realistic as the could make it, including the fact that you get shot once, and you are dead, and you couldn't rejoin the multi-player game until it was over. And that made it a dull game, as you typically spent half the time waiting rather than playing.
As you say, you like Metroid (I guess Metroid Prime?) which was far from realistic. But yes, a great game.
For sure, disguises to baffle algorithms differ from disguises to baffle humans. Here's a web site about disguises to baffle facial recognition systems. Probably not something anyone would want to wear outside a fashion event or a political demo, but interesting anyway. http://cvdazzle.com/
But Human's don't match faces based on the entire population either. Just on the faces they know.
I don't know how many people the average person can recognise, but my guess is that it will be less than 13,000.
This anthropologist seems to have worked in this area, and he puts the number of people you can recognise and put a name to as 1500. (You'll recognise more than that, but you won't have names to go with them.) http://spectrum.ieee.org/telec...
You're way off. The average person doing an average walking pace would take about 35-40 mins to do 2 miles. 30 mins at a brisk walking pace. 15 mins would be walking-race speed, and far beyond most people.
"Specific studies have found pedestrian walking speeds ranging from 4.51 kilometres per hour (2.80 mph) to 4.75 kilometres per hour (2.95 mph) for older individuals and from 5.32 kilometres per hour (3.31 mph) to 5.43 kilometres per hour (3.37 mph) for younger individuals;[3][4] a brisk walking speed can be around 6.5 kilometres per hour (4.0 mph).[5] Champion racewalkers can average more than 14 kilometres per hour (8.7 mph) over a distance of 20 kilometres (12 mi). An average human child achieves independent walking ability at around 11 months old.[6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
1000 times thank you. I've had to repeat the "Volt is a Prius" mantra far more than I care to.
The reason you are having to repeat it so often, is that you are mistaken.
The Volt is a serial hybrid. The ICE only powers a generator. The power from the generator can be fed both into the electric motor, or can be used to recharge the batteries.
This is unlike the Prius, where the motor has a mechanical linkage to the drive wheels.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. But apart from some kitchen stuff and toys, they tend to contain electronics, or at least metal parts.
MIR scanning will tear the piercings right out of people's ears and faces.
Earnings out today. iPhone sales up 17% YoY. Like every quarter.
As I say, you're in fantasy land.
For kids, Apple products are something your mom has.
If that is so, what's the problem? Mom is the one with the money, not the kids. It's certainly true that iPhone is more popular with moms than Android is. Do you have something against women? Or just women with children?
Other things iPhone users are more likely to be:
Urban, graduates, liberal, more wealthy, optimists, extroverts, have travelled abroad, be early adopters, have used the internet since the early days, people who backup their data, less gullible to telephone marketers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Right, better physics engines. Seems hard to argue with. But...
Take the Tomb raider series. Originally it was a map made of square columns. Sides of square columns for walls. Tops of square columns for floors. The square columns could have sloping tops. And there was the odd 3D model scenery for a statue. But apart from that, everything was square. And yet with this and textures they still managed to evoke different countries and environments.
The great thing was that you could nearly always see by looking which gaps you could leap from standing and which needed a running jump. Which ledges you could jump up to and which you couldn't. You could plan a route to solve a puzzle. And sliding block puzzles fitted in naturally.
As time went on they made the games of the series more realistic. And additions of motor vehicles sections did add fun activities. And higher resolutions made for better textures. But moving away from the square column architecture to arbitrary surfaces made the game worse. No longer was it clear which gaps you could jump, which ledges you could reach. And whilst there were still sliding block puzzles, each time you encountered one, it reminded you of the old square world and you wondered why the rest wasn't like that.
Essentially Tomb Raider is a 3D platformer. And it's just the same as with 2D platformers. Predictable blocks make for a predictable rules within which the game creator can make puzzles and the player can be expected to solve them by thinking or instinct, rather than trial and error. Make the environment more arbitrary and it tends to take away from the game.
Of course the are counter examples. Limbo is an incredibly good platformer that isn't built with blocks. But still, everything is predictable about a particular part of the environment. The giant spider doesn't ever behave differently it'll tap the ground X times. And then if you are past pixel Y, it will impale you.
Rather, "more realistic" would mean simulating the snow as a particle system so that the player could bend down, pick up the snow, form snowballs, build snow forts, and fun things like that.
You, like I, used that word "simulator" or a variant of it. For simulators, or toys, sure, lets simulate snow. But games are about stories and puzzles and progression. If that snow is part of the game, and enables you to progress, then great. But if it's just manipulating the scenery, what's the point?
Apple already uses transparent aluminium on their MacBook Pro cased for where the power LED is.
(Well it's actually a line of laser cut holes, so small you have to look very closely to see them - until the light comes on.)
I can't believe the "dimmer" argument has an real validity given that sapphire is widely used for camera lenses, where any significant dimming would be a problem.
No, Sapphire is certainly stronger than Gorilla Glass. It's the next best thing to diamond. That's the reason it's pretty unscratchable. And that's why it's used for lenses and watch glasses.
Sapphire may be more brittle than Gorilla Glass. But that's a different thing.
That guy sitting in the oval office is Barack Obama. We know quite a lot about him. We even have his birth cert!
Now who is that person trading as "The Silk Road"? And where is he?
understand what a free society truely looks like (except for those that have been to Burning Man).
Burning man is a festival and a holiday. It's not a free society.
The reality of this free-as-in-libre currency Bitcon appears to be that people are ripping other people off left right and centre.
For sure it's more memory hungry. I'm considering upgrading my 4GB to 8GB.
How big?
Haven't noticed that either. Is that another huge file thing?
Why would they want to release their free-of-charge OS onto other PCs, when the money that's used to develop OSX comes from selling Macs?
Besides, licensing MacOS for other computers was one of the mistakes Apple was making in the years before Jobs came back. When they were heading towards bankruptcy. They won't be repeating that mistake.
These days you can't even say that Apple should follow Microsoft's model, as Windows is on it's way out.
What's not stable about Mavericks? (10.9)
Look at your own quote of the preceeding conversation. The profit margin answer is to the question "Where is Apple's future? It seems to be slowly eating itself". It's proof that Apple's business model is working very well for them, and they aren't going to go out of business anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Apple's earning releases show their own profits, but not those of the other companies in the industry, so unless they happen to have made a comment in the notes, they are not likely to answer this question. Which is why you need an industry analyst, such as the one The Register has quoted.
The story in smartphones is even better for Apple. There they take 62% of the entire industry's profits.
http://bgr.com/2014/03/18/appl...
It's funny. In he intervening years, text adventure authoring has come a long way. It's now possible to create games in a near English functional programming language.
http://inform7.com/
BUT the games compile down to the age old Infocom game file format, and so are limited to the ancient concepts of wandering between rooms and manipulating objects. And whilst the range of user input that can be understood has expanded, it's still just combinations of "verbing" and "object" or moving by compass directions.
Still, some authors have managed to be creative even within this limited game engine, and create games that don't APPEAR to be simple rooms and objects games.
I wonder, would a truly unlimited interactive novel be fun to play? It could be tested out by a kind of Turing test scenario. Have a player play such a game, and have a real novelist provide the "game" text. Of course such a thing would entail the player waiting a considerable time between "moves". But it would mean that their input would be boundless, they could do anything in the "game".
Considering how hard it is for most authors to get things published and make a living whilst they are writing, this might even be a feasible real way of gaming, allowing authors to make a small income whilst doing their chosen activity. Though it would need to be a pay-per-move system.
I don't think so. What makes a good simulation of real life doesn't tend to make for a good game. Real life is mostly boring, which is why people turn to games in the first place.
There are categories where maximum reality is desirable, but they tend to have "simulator" in the name. Flight Sim, Formula One Sim, Train Sim, Theme Park Sim.
But what people usually want in games is problems to solve, and/or skills to develop, to make progress, all at a level that tests their ability at nearly all times, but doesn't overcome them. And trying to be more realistic only limits the amount to which you can do these things.
Take the article's example of a door, and the question of how you can tell if it's a locked door or not. In reality, you can't tell whether a door is locked without trying to turn the handle and push it. But in games it's usually better if you can tell by looking whether a door is unlocked and openable. There are plenty of games that go for the reality route, and you have to try to open all the doors to find the openable ones. And it's a tedious task that rarely adds anything to the gameplay.
Another example is the concept of health levels, multiple lives, and re-spawning. Remember the US army created a game of their own called "America's Army". It was as realistic as the could make it, including the fact that you get shot once, and you are dead, and you couldn't rejoin the multi-player game until it was over. And that made it a dull game, as you typically spent half the time waiting rather than playing.
As you say, you like Metroid (I guess Metroid Prime?) which was far from realistic. But yes, a great game.
The second link is to the article. It's available as a PDF. Only use it for good.
Exactly the same technology would be very useful for salesmen.
For sure, disguises to baffle algorithms differ from disguises to baffle humans. Here's a web site about disguises to baffle facial recognition systems. Probably not something anyone would want to wear outside a fashion event or a political demo, but interesting anyway.
http://cvdazzle.com/
But Human's don't match faces based on the entire population either. Just on the faces they know.
I don't know how many people the average person can recognise, but my guess is that it will be less than 13,000.
This anthropologist seems to have worked in this area, and he puts the number of people you can recognise and put a name to as 1500. (You'll recognise more than that, but you won't have names to go with them.)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telec...
I stand corrected.
You're way off. The average person doing an average walking pace would take about 35-40 mins to do 2 miles. 30 mins at a brisk walking pace. 15 mins would be walking-race speed, and far beyond most people.
"Specific studies have found pedestrian walking speeds ranging from 4.51 kilometres per hour (2.80 mph) to 4.75 kilometres per hour (2.95 mph) for older individuals and from 5.32 kilometres per hour (3.31 mph) to 5.43 kilometres per hour (3.37 mph) for younger individuals;[3][4] a brisk walking speed can be around 6.5 kilometres per hour (4.0 mph).[5] Champion racewalkers can average more than 14 kilometres per hour (8.7 mph) over a distance of 20 kilometres (12 mi). An average human child achieves independent walking ability at around 11 months old.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
1000 times thank you. I've had to repeat the "Volt is a Prius" mantra far more than I care to.
The reason you are having to repeat it so often, is that you are mistaken.
The Volt is a serial hybrid. The ICE only powers a generator. The power from the generator can be fed both into the electric motor, or can be used to recharge the batteries.
This is unlike the Prius, where the motor has a mechanical linkage to the drive wheels.