Or at the very least it would need to come with a significant enough processor jump that no one notices the drop in responsiveness from any earlier device. I briefly switched on FDE on a Nexus 5 and it only took a few days to decide the trade-off was (for me) unacceptable. Had I jumped to the Nexus 6 at the same time, however, that may not have been an issue.
Is it density of flights or density of destinations? I though the colouring was only based on short or longhaul flights, not the number of flights along a particular route. So an airport connected to a large number of destinations would presumably appear brighter that one with higher traffic but fewer available destinations.
GP is presumably referring to copyright in the sound recording which is 50 years from the time of recording. Copyright in the underlying work (i.e. the text of the speech) is longer.
As others have mentioned, being free doesn't mean not monetised. For example, I remember Rovio a while back announcing that it was making more money through ad revenue from the free versions of its games on Android than the paid versions on iPhone.
No, they're patting themselves on the back for rendering as fast as the fastest rendering browser.
Benchmarking should always be against the best candidate in any given category, irrespective of the competition's relative marketshare overall. Anything else is disingenuous (not that it stops companies from doing it). Complaining that they're NOT comparing themselves to IE is just absurd.
I think it's borderline: "Blogger" a generic term for people who blog, but not generic as a platform for blogging. Provided the usage is unusual, you can trademark some otherwise generic terms. Such a trademark wouldn't prevent anyone from continuing to use the word to describe people who blog.
Yeah, that strategy was a huge flop for Google Wave. . .;)
FTFY. Wave is far more comparable where the platform is closed off from non-users, unlike Gmail that interacted just fine with every other email service. Google does need to learn that just because the strategy was so successful for Gmail, that doesn't mean it's the right fit for any new project they launch.
Actually this is essentially how Kickstarter fundraising works, but admittedly on a much larger scale. The budget for the project a deadline for the money to be raised are set and anyyone can pledge money, but no one is actually charged unless the funding goal is reached. If it is, everyone's money is automatically debited; if not, the project has failed to meet its target and none of the backers lose out.
Now, this presupposes that merely raising the $50m will actually guarantee the film gets made - which it doesn't - but with a large number of small backers, the risk to each is limited. And when it's made they all get a free digital version of the finished product. The only guarantee of quality is whatever pre-production artwork and other information can be used to entice people to contribute.
Obviously backers that way are not traditional investors and don't get a share in profits. Instead they have rewards based on their contribution. $30 might get a DVD version of the completed film, $50 the blu-ray, $100 signed artwork, $1000 some set piece memorabilia, etc.
Do I think you can actually, workably scale this kind of idea up to the level of Hollywood film production? Probably not, but it's not entirely ridiculous either.
While EA was continually (and rightly) blasted for putting profits before quality, Mirror's Edge represented them delivering on a surprising promise to invest in new IP, alongside Dead Space that year. Sadly they felt stung by the move with lower sales than anticipated despite a sizeable marketing push unusual for a new IP. Meanwhile Dead Space (great but less interesting to me) is becoming a new gaming heavyweight franchise.
I absolutely view Mirror's Edge as a success and think there's plenty of room for strong sales with a sequel now that it has a recognizable name. It's not a game for everyone, but the exhilarating feeling of freedom in first person will be missed. For me the game only struggled in its closing levels when it started throwing too many enemies at the player so that fight (intentionally its most limited mechanic) overtook flight.
Actually I think Google is trying to work around this, albeit under the guise of solving the "problem" of fragmentation and update delays with heavily customised Android builds. Their stated aim is to move most updates away from the OS and into apps via the market. In most cases this should allow them to make upgrades manufacturer and carrier independent, except where the Android market has been blocked in favour of an alternative (and this is exactly why I flatly refuse to buy a phone where that is the case).
Or we could write "virii" and pronounce it like "viruses".
This surely meets both the basic requirements for a fusion language like English: it looks kinda cool on paper and totally confuses everyone by being nonsensical in application.
I think we can all agree this makes the [most/least] sense.
Agreed. The ideal scenario is for Google to support the protocols for something like Diaspora so that it plugs in the Google userbase without the Google control. Google's incentive would be reducing facebook's influence in the advertising sphere, naturally.
Although this ignores the fact the Tab comes preloaded with Swype as its keyboard. Most who have tried it view Swype's mechanic as the future of touchscreen text input (and it will no doubt migrate in some for to the iPhone at some point). However it would actually be worse suited to a larger screen because the swiping motions would need to be significantly longer/larger to reach across a larger keyboard.
Given the chosen input method, the 7" form factor appears to be a better decision, not a worse one.
This is exactly what I hope SeeSaw develops into in the UK. It's new but I really hope it takes off as it's a great example of how cooperating sensibly together (combining the previously fractured per-channel online distribution systems) benefits the consumer. I know, who'd have thought, right?
The bigger danger is that children may start to understand terrorism as an expected element of conflict, one that has existed for centuries, one that should be expected, planned for where it can be anticipated, but not allowed to disrupt real life. Then they would learn to have a measured response to this touchy buzzword, and we've lost fear as a tool to control them.
If your comment was serious, I think it's just a misunderstanding: they're not suggesting the patent would prevent split-screen gaming, but rather that companies may choose to implement full-screen 2-player rather than split-screen if the technology takes off, leading to the death of the latter.
Whether or not that constitutes progress I leave to the reader.
This puts me in a difficult position and represents my least favourite aspect of the UK electoral system (and a party political system in general, I suppose). I absolutely want to get rid of the Labour Government, but locally I am most inclined to re-elect the Labour candidate. She argued (and voted) against the Bill, responded to my letter on the subject in an intelligent and reasoned manner and is routinely willing to go against the party line.
First off, broadly speaking, I agree with you. Latency is going to be too much of an issue for most people to jump on board without an (inevitable and arguably overdue) infrastructure upgrade.
However there are two types of latency OnLive is dealing with. The first is the obvious one from transmitting data back and forth over the internet. The second is the actual video encoding process server-side. That is where OnLive seems to have come up with a novel "technobabble solution" that actually works. It is, in all honesty, probably where their value lies rather than the service they are trying to offer which is almost certainly before its time.
I think there is a valid point underneath which is that he has shown off some great effects skills and thoroughly deserves a chance at a high-end effects job in Hollywood. That doesn't necessarily mean he should be given $30m to *direct* a film...
I think two things affected the modding community: one is, as you said, definitely the tightening reins in an attempt to monetise additional content post-release.
The other, which I think had begun to take effect well before the propagation of paid-for DLC, is simply the spirally complexity and cost of game development. The chief time expenditure for any major mod has always been asset creation (while I fully admit what separates good mods from bad is still overall game design). In the past, a couple of talented individuals could roll out a mod in a couple of months that looked as polished as the original game. Now as engines allow for far more detailed graphics, high quality asset creation takes significantly longer. Thus the dev cycle for mods has increased just as for the original game.
For a handful of bedroom coders, putting together larger teams has generally been found impractical so the result is that the best-looking and most promising mods still have smallish teams and end up in limbo for years, during which many falter and disappear. The alternative is a cheap-looking mod which is unlikely to garner significant interest.
While I generally decry DRM as crippling digital data that ought to be freely movable, I am less concerned here. Primarily because it is essentially FREE access to programming (license fee notwithstanding) which is still only available for a short time outside its allocated broadcast slot. The need to move a file between machines during the short grace period is unlikely.
Although this prevents you transferring shows to portable devices it is only intended as an alternative TV system and so is playable on appropriate devices like PCs and Media Centre/Xbox 360 connected TVs. Portable shows are a separate concern.
Slashdot Mirror
Or at the very least it would need to come with a significant enough processor jump that no one notices the drop in responsiveness from any earlier device. I briefly switched on FDE on a Nexus 5 and it only took a few days to decide the trade-off was (for me) unacceptable. Had I jumped to the Nexus 6 at the same time, however, that may not have been an issue.
Is it density of flights or density of destinations? I though the colouring was only based on short or longhaul flights, not the number of flights along a particular route. So an airport connected to a large number of destinations would presumably appear brighter that one with higher traffic but fewer available destinations.
GP is presumably referring to copyright in the sound recording which is 50 years from the time of recording. Copyright in the underlying work (i.e. the text of the speech) is longer.
As others have mentioned, being free doesn't mean not monetised. For example, I remember Rovio a while back announcing that it was making more money through ad revenue from the free versions of its games on Android than the paid versions on iPhone.
No, they're patting themselves on the back for rendering as fast as the fastest rendering browser.
Benchmarking should always be against the best candidate in any given category, irrespective of the competition's relative marketshare overall. Anything else is disingenuous (not that it stops companies from doing it). Complaining that they're NOT comparing themselves to IE is just absurd.
I think it's borderline: "Blogger" a generic term for people who blog, but not generic as a platform for blogging. Provided the usage is unusual, you can trademark some otherwise generic terms. Such a trademark wouldn't prevent anyone from continuing to use the word to describe people who blog.
Yeah, that strategy was a huge flop for Google Wave. . . ;)
FTFY. Wave is far more comparable where the platform is closed off from non-users, unlike Gmail that interacted just fine with every other email service. Google does need to learn that just because the strategy was so successful for Gmail, that doesn't mean it's the right fit for any new project they launch.
No, a person is a very clever animal.
People are still pretty stupid.
And even then it'll only be the second most-pirated Cookbook in the world...
Actually this is essentially how Kickstarter fundraising works, but admittedly on a much larger scale. The budget for the project a deadline for the money to be raised are set and anyyone can pledge money, but no one is actually charged unless the funding goal is reached. If it is, everyone's money is automatically debited; if not, the project has failed to meet its target and none of the backers lose out.
Now, this presupposes that merely raising the $50m will actually guarantee the film gets made - which it doesn't - but with a large number of small backers, the risk to each is limited. And when it's made they all get a free digital version of the finished product. The only guarantee of quality is whatever pre-production artwork and other information can be used to entice people to contribute.
Obviously backers that way are not traditional investors and don't get a share in profits. Instead they have rewards based on their contribution. $30 might get a DVD version of the completed film, $50 the blu-ray, $100 signed artwork, $1000 some set piece memorabilia, etc.
Do I think you can actually, workably scale this kind of idea up to the level of Hollywood film production? Probably not, but it's not entirely ridiculous either.
While EA was continually (and rightly) blasted for putting profits before quality, Mirror's Edge represented them delivering on a surprising promise to invest in new IP, alongside Dead Space that year. Sadly they felt stung by the move with lower sales than anticipated despite a sizeable marketing push unusual for a new IP. Meanwhile Dead Space (great but less interesting to me) is becoming a new gaming heavyweight franchise.
I absolutely view Mirror's Edge as a success and think there's plenty of room for strong sales with a sequel now that it has a recognizable name. It's not a game for everyone, but the exhilarating feeling of freedom in first person will be missed. For me the game only struggled in its closing levels when it started throwing too many enemies at the player so that fight (intentionally its most limited mechanic) overtook flight.
Actually I think Google is trying to work around this, albeit under the guise of solving the "problem" of fragmentation and update delays with heavily customised Android builds. Their stated aim is to move most updates away from the OS and into apps via the market. In most cases this should allow them to make upgrades manufacturer and carrier independent, except where the Android market has been blocked in favour of an alternative (and this is exactly why I flatly refuse to buy a phone where that is the case).
I totally agree with you, but I wouldn't expect kids to be screwing around with crayons and paste in a maths lesson either...
Or we could write "virii" and pronounce it like "viruses".
This surely meets both the basic requirements for a fusion language like English: it looks kinda cool on paper and totally confuses everyone by being nonsensical in application.
I think we can all agree this makes the [most/least] sense.
Agreed. The ideal scenario is for Google to support the protocols for something like Diaspora so that it plugs in the Google userbase without the Google control. Google's incentive would be reducing facebook's influence in the advertising sphere, naturally.
Funny, but seriously, it was missing 1 letter in "form". You probably could have picked a better post for this... ;)
Although this ignores the fact the Tab comes preloaded with Swype as its keyboard. Most who have tried it view Swype's mechanic as the future of touchscreen text input (and it will no doubt migrate in some for to the iPhone at some point). However it would actually be worse suited to a larger screen because the swiping motions would need to be significantly longer/larger to reach across a larger keyboard.
Given the chosen input method, the 7" form factor appears to be a better decision, not a worse one.
This is exactly what I hope SeeSaw develops into in the UK. It's new but I really hope it takes off as it's a great example of how cooperating sensibly together (combining the previously fractured per-channel online distribution systems) benefits the consumer. I know, who'd have thought, right?
The bigger danger is that children may start to understand terrorism as an expected element of conflict, one that has existed for centuries, one that should be expected, planned for where it can be anticipated, but not allowed to disrupt real life. Then they would learn to have a measured response to this touchy buzzword, and we've lost fear as a tool to control them.
Naturally this must be prevented.
If your comment was serious, I think it's just a misunderstanding: they're not suggesting the patent would prevent split-screen gaming, but rather that companies may choose to implement full-screen 2-player rather than split-screen if the technology takes off, leading to the death of the latter. Whether or not that constitutes progress I leave to the reader.
This puts me in a difficult position and represents my least favourite aspect of the UK electoral system (and a party political system in general, I suppose). I absolutely want to get rid of the Labour Government, but locally I am most inclined to re-elect the Labour candidate. She argued (and voted) against the Bill, responded to my letter on the subject in an intelligent and reasoned manner and is routinely willing to go against the party line.
First off, broadly speaking, I agree with you. Latency is going to be too much of an issue for most people to jump on board without an (inevitable and arguably overdue) infrastructure upgrade. However there are two types of latency OnLive is dealing with. The first is the obvious one from transmitting data back and forth over the internet. The second is the actual video encoding process server-side. That is where OnLive seems to have come up with a novel "technobabble solution" that actually works. It is, in all honesty, probably where their value lies rather than the service they are trying to offer which is almost certainly before its time.
I think there is a valid point underneath which is that he has shown off some great effects skills and thoroughly deserves a chance at a high-end effects job in Hollywood. That doesn't necessarily mean he should be given $30m to *direct* a film...
I think two things affected the modding community: one is, as you said, definitely the tightening reins in an attempt to monetise additional content post-release. The other, which I think had begun to take effect well before the propagation of paid-for DLC, is simply the spirally complexity and cost of game development. The chief time expenditure for any major mod has always been asset creation (while I fully admit what separates good mods from bad is still overall game design). In the past, a couple of talented individuals could roll out a mod in a couple of months that looked as polished as the original game. Now as engines allow for far more detailed graphics, high quality asset creation takes significantly longer. Thus the dev cycle for mods has increased just as for the original game. For a handful of bedroom coders, putting together larger teams has generally been found impractical so the result is that the best-looking and most promising mods still have smallish teams and end up in limbo for years, during which many falter and disappear. The alternative is a cheap-looking mod which is unlikely to garner significant interest.
While I generally decry DRM as crippling digital data that ought to be freely movable, I am less concerned here. Primarily because it is essentially FREE access to programming (license fee notwithstanding) which is still only available for a short time outside its allocated broadcast slot. The need to move a file between machines during the short grace period is unlikely.
Although this prevents you transferring shows to portable devices it is only intended as an alternative TV system and so is playable on appropriate devices like PCs and Media Centre/Xbox 360 connected TVs. Portable shows are a separate concern.