by Christopher Paul on September 20, 2012 In 1955, the US started what could arguably be the most important nuclear research since the discovery of fission and the Manhattan Project: they studied the effects of nuclear weapons on beer.
Both cans and bottles were tested in different proximities to two bomb blasts (one equivalent to 20 kilotons of TNT, the other to 30 kilotons). No surprise, the cans fared better, but both did surprisingly well overall. The closest beverages were just over 1,000 feet away from the blast; the farthest were two miles back. The irradiating effects on both were minimal, and the scientists claimed it would be drinkable for “emergency use,” which Wellerstein points out means OK “in the short term.”
You’ll be happy to know that our tax dollars and radioactive experiments showed that taste was minimally affected but, since it was probably Budweiser or Miller, no one would have noticed anyway.
via
by Christopher Paul on September 20, 2012 The Discovery Channel is running a three-part series on how booze built America. A teaser is embedded above and I’m hooked. Unfortunately, I just discovered this today so I missed the first episode and will have to catch it online.
via Devour
by Christopher Paul on September 20, 2012 Pretty much what it says. It’s a time lapse video depcticting all the wars of the last 1000 years. Notice how many wars take place from 1900 on.
via Kottke
by Christopher Paul on September 20, 2012 My favorite WordPress blogging app just got better. Poster 1.3 is now a universal app and compatible with iOS 6 and the iPhone 5. Other enhancements include enhanced sharing.
This app is only $3.99 – a bargain for what it does and how well it does it. There isn’t a better iOS blogging app out there and I challenge anyone to debate me. It’s one of those iOS apps that make me want to ditch my laptop for good.
by Christopher Paul on September 19, 2012 There must be something in the air because this morning, I read two articles debating (and not in favor of) in-app game purchaes. The first comes from Adii Pienaar where he becaume frustrated that the only way to improve their in-game character was through an in-app purchase. He had this to say in the end:
The best games will not need in-app purchases to "enhance" the gamer's experience and will rely on the tried & tested methods of engagement: make the game challenging & fun enough that I want to pour hours into perfecting my skills & execution.
The second comes from Zachary Knight writing for TechDirt where he covers the concept of a hard paywall – where you can only continue playing the game through an in-app purchase. In this case career progression isn't held back but level progression and/or game time is. Knight quotes several sources that I wouldn't want to take away from so be sure to read them all. Still, he does a good job highlighting challenges to monitoring games. Here's how he ends his post:
…variation in the marketplace would then allow for many different ideas of monetization both good and bad, both successful and unsuccessful. However, putting barriers between the consumer and your goods makes it more difficult for that consumer to buy… Because of external circumstances at the time of hitting the paywall, that potential customer was not able to process a transaction. That delay then led him to rethink the idea of purchase and, as far as we know, he has not made a purchase, even though he enjoyed the part of the game he played.
Business models and paywalls are not easy decisions and never simple. And while I'm generally against IAPs, I'll do it when they make sense to me. Angry Birds comes to mind where you could get past a difficult level by paying $1.99 or something. Even though the game cost $2.99 or $4.99 or whatever (I forget what it cost but it didn't matter. I got my enjoyment out of it), the IAP was worth it to me; I was able to enjoy the game more because I reduced my frustration and a natural barrier to continued game play. And finding that balance is key. Gamers must be engaged and playing to pay. Anything that disengages them (by preventing them from growing in Adii's case or the hard stop that TechDirt discussed) isn't going to net developers a good reputation or income.