Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not just iPhone (Score 1) 421

by Quarters (#47983323) Attached to: Users Report Warping of Apple's iPhone 6 Plus

Sapphire would not have prevented this. It would have made it worse. Sapphire is much more brittle than glass, which is actually quite flexible. With sapphire people would have bent phones with shattered screens. Luckily you'll probably never see a phone with a sapphire face:

* It's brittle
* It has to be milled to shape, increasing costs over glass due to manufacturing and lack of quick scalability in the manufacturing process.
* It is less transparent than glass, so battery life will suffer due to increased screen brightness requirements to be on par with glass phones

Apple bought that sapphire factory for the high-end apple watches. Sapphire is common on high end watches and Apple wants to hit all of the checkboxes necessary to be able to sell into that market.

Comment: Re:Ugh (Score 1) 112

by Quarters (#47937327) Attached to: An Open Source Pitfall? Mozilla Labs Closed, Quietly

For Pete's sake, read and comprehend before being incorrectly righteously indignant!

September 2013 comes before December 2013 by any reasonable reckoning. If the last post on the blog was December 2013 and the one from September 2013 is referred to as the penultimate post it's a fairly safe assumption that the author is correctly stating that the September 2013 post was the second to last post made.

Comment: Re:OS Lock In (Score 3, Insightful) 173

by Quarters (#47235765) Attached to: Dell Exec Calls HP's New 'Machine' Architecture 'Laughable'

Do you truly, honestly, I mean...REALLY believe that Microsoft expends any time at all even thinking about ReactOS or WINE, let alone worrying about the .00000000000001 of a fraction of a portion of a negligible amount of a percent effect it might, MIGHT have on their bottom line?

Seriously, answer seriously, please.

Comment: Re:Look for skid marks (Score 1) 436

by Quarters (#46494897) Attached to: Malaysian Flight Disappearance 'Deliberate'

You're not going to just put a 777 down on some rural 2 lane road. You need a clear 1 mile (or more) straight reinforced runway. Not only is a 777's wheel track too wide for an average road the gross weight of the plane would crush the asphalt (or dirt or gravel) under the wheels. Bare minimum you'd need a fairly modern multi-lane highway. Something like that would be traveled enough that someone would notice a large commercial airliner attempting to land on it.

Comment: Re:Yet another story... (Score 1) 124

by Quarters (#44908921) Attached to: Work Halted On Neal Stephenson's Kickstarted Swordfighting Video Game
Sales are not profit. R* didn't make a billion dollars in one day. GTA V sold $1B worth of copies in a day. At best R* will see about 40% of that. Even then, VCs aren't going to just jump at game development. GTA is the exception, not the rule. It cost over $265M and took somewhere in the neighborhood of five years to make GTA V. During development *every* R* studio was involved with it. There were no other games in production. There was no fallback plan, essentially. GTAV was risky every way you look at it. Mitigating that risk was the fact that it was GTA and that R* has a proven record of being able to deliver. While that's great for them it's only great for them. Take an extremely large random collection of game developers, give them $265M and five years to make a game. You won't see $1B in sales on the first day. Chances are depressingly better than average that you won't break even. Except for the large well established studios (studios, not publishers) it's a very risky industry. VCs are generally risk averse.

Comment: Re:another futurama? (Score 4, Interesting) 390

by Darth_brooks (#43517893) Attached to: Futurama Cancelled (Again)

Cute Kid: Hubert (who was added explicitly as the annoying 'cute' kid.)

Wedding: That's the last episode, according to the rag sheets

Inexplicable actor replacement: WELSHIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (ok, granted, it was a guest star, and was done only because James Doohan politely declined to do the Star Trek episode)

So other than that you've got Jumping the Shark, which most folks would call the movies. I'd fine with the show either way. It had a nice run, even if the comedy central episodes didn't quite have that mind blowing awesomeness (which, who knows, maybe after a few years in reruns they'll develop.)

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Working...