Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Nintendo Exec Says Phone Games Are Dying (Score 2) 350

"Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata went on the offensive today against his smartphone counterparts, arguing that the model pursued by individuals like Peter Vesterbacka is 'dying.' In a panel discussion at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, Iwata said that innovation wasn't coming from independent game coders, but from large and established companies like his own. Iwata also pointed to the major concern over the price model for smartphone games. Compared to games on established consoles, which hover around fifty dollars, mobile titles like Angry Birds run for 99 cents and make their developers little money due to the policies of online app stores. At these price points, "there's no motivation [for] high-value video games," Iwata said. Still, the executive did admit that the business model for console games had yet to be completely figured out."

Okay, not exactly, but Iwata-san did say something against smartphones at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, a mere 13 days ago.

Comment Re:Miking up 'open' and 'standard' (Score 1) 663

There's a mistaken assumption here: Google doesn't save $6.5 million as long as Youtube is still encoding H.264 video. This is a purely political move on Google's part.

That is right, but if Google and Mozilla get their way, Google will have saved themselves $6.5 million a year by not needing to encode H.264 anymore for YouTube, and everyone else for not needing to put in support anymore. I seem to have tripped up in my explanations again.

Comment Re:Miking up 'open' and 'standard' (Score 1) 663

The other side of that coin is that, if Google decided to include H.264 support in Chrome, other browser makers, without or with little money, could have been unable to pay the royalties needed to be paid to patent owners to support it in their browsers. Does Google saving itself $6.5 million annually pale in comparison to Google saving itself and everyone else up to $6.5 million annually?

The Web does not need H.264 to function, so if everyone drops support for it preemptively, then even the small browser makers (I'm thinking of Flock here, which is based on Chromium but has a user base of its own) won't need to pay royalties to anyone.

This is like the GIF patents by Unisys* driving adoption of the PNG format, except that the patents are being assessed now because we know of a few formats that are** suitable for the job but unencumbered already. For instance, WebM can, like H.264, be implemented by anyone, but in addition to that, WebM intentionally doesn't require that royalties be paid. It can become a standard, like PNG originally wasn't a standard but then became an ISO/IEC standard 8 years later.

* = As well as other factors such as the lack of true-color support, alpha and ICC in a lossless format, but that's off-topic.
** = May not be for now, due to lack of hardware acceleration, but could become in the future. Some people don't really care about power usage or CPU usage, so it's already suitable for them.

Comment Re:And in other news... (Score 1) 382

That's because you can't really use HTML 5 to make an ad that is going to be served to users of IE below version 9, in all of which support for HTML 5 does not exist.

So what do you use to advertise IE 9? Either Flash, or Java, or HTML 4 + JavaScript, or some other solution.

Java is bulky. HTML 4 + JavaScript is not that fast in IE 8 and earlier, so it's liable to freeze IE up and disrupt page navigation. Other solutions may mess up even further. You're left with Flash.

Comment Re:Sorry, Slashdot doesn't understand APIs. (Score 1) 95

Slight inaccuracy, you can't DM a user on Twitter unless you're following that user and they also follow you back. You can still @reply to them, and they'll see it in their Mentions tab, which I don't know how many people check and how often.

You're entirely right about it being easy to search for keywords the company is interested in, so that it can know who is talking about it, though. Even more so with the new Streaming API... :)

Comment Re:Arrrrr! (Score 4, Informative) 260

Just for future reference,

33,000 USD of hard drives, currently at about 1.5 TiB for 80 USD, is 633,600 GiB.

633,600 GiB can store 158,400,000 songs, at 4 MiB apiece.

The second trial of Jammie Thomas awarded the RIAA 1,920,000 USD for 24 songs, which comes out to 80,000 USD apiece.

For 158,400,000 songs, the RIAA would be awarded 12,672,000,000,000 USD (12 trillion short scale). That's only a bit less than the national US debt, which is 13,208,593,598,669 USD (13 trillion short scale) as of this comment!

Comment Re:The other problem posed in TFA (Score 1) 981

It simply means that there is a 50% chance that Peter has a brother. Peter's sex is not given and it has 50% chance that it may be a girl. :)

It is given. "At least one of whom is a boy" means that the number of boys is guaranteed to be greater than 0. Therefore, one child is a boy, and I pinpointed him as being the given of the problem, and gave him a name to differentiate him from the other unspecified child. If the problem had stated "Exactly one of whom is a boy", then the probability of both children being boys is 0 (0%), because the number of boys is guaranteed to be greater than 0 and less than 2.

Assuming that all families have exactly 2 children with random sex distribution:

1. Is at least one of your children a boy? - Yes, it is. Then the possibility that your other child is a son is 1/3.

Because 75% of families have at least one boy and 25% have two boys.

You gave the right probability here, but for the wrong reason. "Is at least one of your children a boy?" answered in the affirmative means that you can now answer the question as if one boy was a given. The question now is, "Given that I have at least one son, what is the probability that I have 2 sons?"

Per this page, this can be written as P(2 sons | at least 1 son) = P(2 sons and at least 1 son) / P(at least 1 son) = (1/4) / (3/4) = 1/3.

And I just invalidated all of my other comments on this thread... Ouch!

*takes a huge bite of humble pie*

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling