It must modernise its methods to win the minds of Muslims in the "war on terror", as "enemies had skilfully adapted" to the media age, [Rumsfeld] said.
I'm sure that would only happen if the other babies shouted "Throw him! Throw him!" when the toddler picked one up... Real babies just don't possess such a sharp wit.
Let me clarify the point that I was trying to make with my one sentence question (i'm the story submitter).
I feel that you are lumping demand for a specific functionality with demand for a specific bit of technology. In your HDD example, people may not have wanted slower hard drives with less capacity, but they clearly liked the idea of smaller drives, which is why the drives took off. Likewise, portable music players didn't sell well before the iPod, *NOT* because people didn't want to have portable music (they very much did), but because all the players were crap in some way.
On the other hand, in the "TV on mobiles" case, here we potentially have research indicating that people may not even want the underlying functionality at all, no matter how well implemented, and potentially no amount of product maturation will make people want it.
If you're like Einstein, you respond to some e-mails immediately and let others wait. And, of course, some you never answer.
In other news, if you're like Einstein, you eat breakfast early sometimes, sometimes you eat breakfast late. And, of course, sometimes you don't eat breakfast at all.
How many guys, when given a choice between an average-looking woman, (specifically one that is much less likely to cheat on them or dump them) and a hot saucepot (who'll probably get bored by next month), would honestly choose the former "non-idiotic from our technical viewpoint" option?
Plain fact: design sells, design is desirable. Design is something tangible, as in "look, my iPod's really slick" where as good technical work is much more passive and less immediate
I'm not really convinced that the distinction that you are making (i.e. between understanding and behaviour memorisation) really exists. In my opinion, understanding is a kind of encoding, meaning you take a kernel of knowledge and can deduce the rest from it. However the kernel still needs to be memorised.
For instance, a mathematician can do great things with a Euler's equation, but if he/she cannot remember the formula in the first place, they are not going to get anywhere.
My point is that what you call understanding is for you, a "dumb you trick", for me a "dumb me trick", same as for the parrot and autistic kids. It's just that non-autistic people may be able to encode more and remember less.
To be honest, I think that a lot of people like older games because these they evoke memories from a more innocent/carefree time in the player's life (e.g. teen-age years, or college), rather than better gameplay.
Dude, if you're unsatisfied with getting $2200 a year for doing eight hours of voice-over work in a year, maybe you need another job. Take some other acting gigs, drive a truck for UPS, learn a trade. Hell, flip burgers if you're that hard up for cash.
Do you really think that actors only have to do one hour's work for that $275? How about the tens of auditions that actors go to, and fail to get, on their own time and money, just to get that one job? And what about preparation time?
After you take all that into account, you'll find the rate of $275/hour dwindles down a lot...
I really don't understand people's reaction to this news. Would people rather have Microsoft press different CDs for the two products and charge users more?
Chip makers produce underclocked chips which they sell for less; how is this any different?
In a gym (for those don't know what this is, a gym is a place where you go to work off the donuts, you lardass), just because there is a sauna (which costs extra) under the same roof, doesn't mean that you should jimmy the lock to the door without paying, now does it?
It is stupid to compare this to a desktop ViaVoice. Because ViaVoice desktop edition has a vocabulary of 200,000 words, it requires training and results are not always accurate. However a device such as this voice remote control has a very limited vocabulary. Simply put, it has a smaller subset of words to choose from, so accuracy goes up. The limited-vocab systems can be very robust, as long as the software interface itself is well written, and the grammars are constructed correctly.
These types of systems have been around for yonks, mainly used in telephone booking systems, customer support call centres for various big organisations, etc
This is great...
Let's compare:
-Movies: Bad Boys 2, Batman 3/4, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc etc
-Games: EA
Pattern: big budget unoriginality/downright banality that's eaten up by the public
-Movies: Lord of the Rings trilogy, Star Wars
-Games: the Sims, GTA franchise
Pattern: big-budget "pop" which has wide appeal and is well received
-Movies: Lost in Translation, Charlie Kaufman movies
-Games: early Lucasarts/Sierra adventure games
Pattern: "indie" stuff, moderately well received, but high in artistic value
-Movies: Tarantino, Spielberg
-Games: Wright, Miyamoto, Molyneux
Pattern: superstar directors/developers whose work is lapped up
-Movies: the pavement-pounding actor who fills the "Waiting room patient #5" role in ER
-Games: the programmer who spends 4 years of his life on "Generic Squad Shooter 3"
Pattern: I think that what we're seeing here is that the games industry is becoming more like the movie industry (at least Hollywood). Hollywood is very conservative; the game industry is becoming likewise. In Hollywood every actor wants to be in the groundbreaking, timeless-quality lead role; in the games industry, every developer wants to be in the new genre buster/setter.
I don't think that anything is "broken" at all; it's just changing. Great games are still getting produced. Original things are still getting produced (both in hollywood and in the games industry). The fact that each new FIFA or Madden gets sold means that the demand is there, and that somebody has to be out there to "manufacture" that stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really see your point. That's much better value than you get at the cinema (and the game is replayable), so what's the big deal?
Is this the same Rumsfeld that doesn't use email?
I'm sure that would only happen if the other babies shouted "Throw him! Throw him!" when the toddler picked one up... Real babies just don't possess such a sharp wit.
Let me clarify the point that I was trying to make with my one sentence question (i'm the story submitter).
I feel that you are lumping demand for a specific functionality with demand for a specific bit of technology. In your HDD example, people may not have wanted slower hard drives with less capacity, but they clearly liked the idea of smaller drives, which is why the drives took off. Likewise, portable music players didn't sell well before the iPod, *NOT* because people didn't want to have portable music (they very much did), but because all the players were crap in some way.
On the other hand, in the "TV on mobiles" case, here we potentially have research indicating that people may not even want the underlying functionality at all, no matter how well implemented, and potentially no amount of product maturation will make people want it.
From TFA:
In other news, if you're like Einstein, you eat breakfast early sometimes, sometimes you eat breakfast late. And, of course, sometimes you don't eat breakfast at all.
Yep, i totally agree. There's nothing like crucial government tax software written by students...
Don't underestimate design
How many guys, when given a choice between an average-looking woman, (specifically one that is much less likely to cheat on them or dump them) and a hot saucepot (who'll probably get bored by next month), would honestly choose the former "non-idiotic from our technical viewpoint" option?
Plain fact: design sells, design is desirable. Design is something tangible, as in "look, my iPod's really slick" where as good technical work is much more passive and less immediate
.What is this "war on terror" that you speak of? Ahhh... I bet you mean the "struggle against violent extremism"...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/26/news/terror .php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/27/opinion/ smith/main712317.shtml
Ah, my friend, you have much cultural knowledge to glean...
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F13.html/"Oh no, not another boring space launch. Change the channel. Change the channel!"
Their next product: a home-built device that downloads the entire Internet for you to browse at your leisure...
I'm not really convinced that the distinction that you are making (i.e. between understanding and behaviour memorisation) really exists. In my opinion, understanding is a kind of encoding, meaning you take a kernel of knowledge and can deduce the rest from it. However the kernel still needs to be memorised.
For instance, a mathematician can do great things with a Euler's equation, but if he/she cannot remember the formula in the first place, they are not going to get anywhere.
My point is that what you call understanding is for you, a "dumb you trick", for me a "dumb me trick", same as for the parrot and autistic kids. It's just that non-autistic people may be able to encode more and remember less.
To be honest, I think that a lot of people like older games because these they evoke memories from a more innocent/carefree time in the player's life (e.g. teen-age years, or college), rather than better gameplay.
Do you really think that actors only have to do one hour's work for that $275? How about the tens of auditions that actors go to, and fail to get, on their own time and money, just to get that one job? And what about preparation time?
After you take all that into account, you'll find the rate of $275/hour dwindles down a lot...
I really don't understand people's reaction to this news. Would people rather have Microsoft press different CDs for the two products and charge users more?
Chip makers produce underclocked chips which they sell for less; how is this any different?
In a gym (for those don't know what this is, a gym is a place where you go to work off the donuts, you lardass), just because there is a sauna (which costs extra) under the same roof, doesn't mean that you should jimmy the lock to the door without paying, now does it?
It is stupid to compare this to a desktop ViaVoice. Because ViaVoice desktop edition has a vocabulary of 200,000 words, it requires training and results are not always accurate. However a device such as this voice remote control has a very limited vocabulary. Simply put, it has a smaller subset of words to choose from, so accuracy goes up. The limited-vocab systems can be very robust, as long as the software interface itself is well written, and the grammars are constructed correctly.
These types of systems have been around for yonks, mainly used in telephone booking systems, customer support call centres for various big organisations, etc
Yes.
Mplayer http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/news.html
This is great... Let's compare: -Movies: Bad Boys 2, Batman 3/4, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc etc -Games: EA Pattern: big budget unoriginality/downright banality that's eaten up by the public -Movies: Lord of the Rings trilogy, Star Wars -Games: the Sims, GTA franchise Pattern: big-budget "pop" which has wide appeal and is well received -Movies: Lost in Translation, Charlie Kaufman movies -Games: early Lucasarts/Sierra adventure games Pattern: "indie" stuff, moderately well received, but high in artistic value -Movies: Tarantino, Spielberg -Games: Wright, Miyamoto, Molyneux Pattern: superstar directors/developers whose work is lapped up -Movies: the pavement-pounding actor who fills the "Waiting room patient #5" role in ER -Games: the programmer who spends 4 years of his life on "Generic Squad Shooter 3" Pattern: I think that what we're seeing here is that the games industry is becoming more like the movie industry (at least Hollywood). Hollywood is very conservative; the game industry is becoming likewise. In Hollywood every actor wants to be in the groundbreaking, timeless-quality lead role; in the games industry, every developer wants to be in the new genre buster/setter. I don't think that anything is "broken" at all; it's just changing. Great games are still getting produced. Original things are still getting produced (both in hollywood and in the games industry). The fact that each new FIFA or Madden gets sold means that the demand is there, and that somebody has to be out there to "manufacture" that stuff.