View allAll Photos Tagged graph
This is a graph sampling all the photos I have ever taken (and have stored in JPG format) using my D70. Interesting trends.
(0mm is MF lenses mounted on my D70)
Tool used: www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html
Die komplexe graphisch visualisierte Webseitenstruktur von
www.scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex
Aufnahmedatum: 06.12.2011
Webseiten - Visualisierung über Graphen mit: www.aharef.info/static/htmlgraph/
The standard host view mode is a 24 hour period showing all the graphs on that switch of that graph type. Here we're showing bandwidth in bits/sec.
The filters in the top right allow you to adjust your view to find exactly the graph you're looking for quickly and easily.
Another snapshot of the relationships shown earlier. This is about five hours later, after the UK has had time to wake up and chat with each other.
I've started playing Defense Grid recently (I'm quite late to the party, but it was on steep discount on Steam recently), and I've been enjoying it a lot. This is a map of the final level of the main story campaign of the game. I drew it out because I want to get this level right, and it's a testament to the Tower Defense genre that that's something games like this make me want to do: not just scrape up a win, but to think through how to really exploit the games mechanics to win elegantly.
Tower Defense is a genre spawned to the best of my knowledge (and exploded into popularity in any case) by the cutesy-but-deep flash classic Desktop Tower Defense; you play by spending resources to place various kinds of defense towers (e.g. assault towers like guns, lasers, or flamethrowers, plus support towers that slow enemies down or improve overall efficiency) in order to try and kill off the enemy before it can sneak back off the map. In Defense Grid, the bad guys specifically want to sneak off the map with your valuable "energy cores". If they make off will all 24 of them, you lose. There are a lot more than 24 enemies.
So, the map: there's two entrance/exits points in the bottom left; any given bad guy is going to come in through one of those two gates, and then leave (if he's still alive) through the same gate, carrying (if I don't do my job right) one or more of my energy cores. The cores are stored in the upper right of the map, where I've drawn a couple of concentric circles.
The dark-outlined squares of the map are where the action will take place; the dotted bridges between them are roads the enemy can march from square to square on, and to which I can do nothing. In the large squares, black holes are gaps in the map where the enemy can't walk (and where I can't build anything); dotted tiles are bits of terrain where the enemy can walk but where I can't build anything.
That leaves the white tiles: those are the spots where I can build towers. Enemies can't walk through a tower, nor can they sneak between two adjacent towers, even if they're only adjacent at a diagonal. By placing towers, I can force the enemy to go in one direction instead of the other.
This is what makes Tower Defense games interesting: the game is as much about redefining the map as it is about shooting the bad guys. If I were to willfully allow the bad guys to march unfettered across the map, they'd take a fairly direct route to the cores and then back out again. That'd be more or less true even if I threw up a lot of defense towers but did so without a plan.
And it may well be possible to win without a good plan. But a good plan is the whole attraction. I don't just want to manage to blow up some bad guys; I want to exploit the geography of this map to make the reshaped map itself do the work of dooming the invaders, and to do it elegantly. I want to lay out my gun towers just so, so the enemy has to take a long, winding march around the map, so that I can accomplish as much defense with as few resources as possible.
A game that can get me excited about planning -- to the point of pulling out some graph paper and drawing up a map by hand as step one -- is a game that's doing something right.
This graphic shows the Twitter activity of NYTimes editor Patrick LaForge (@palafo)
The yellow line shows the average first tweet. The grey graph line shows how that first tweet varies over time.
For more infromation, see my blog:
blog.blprnt.com/blog/blprnt/twitter-privacy-and-lawrence-...
The blue graph shows Wired Magazine's page count (I couldn't find a few, hence the gaps, but they should be in boxes somewhere). The red is the Nasdaq composite index. Notice Wired tracks the Nasdaq. (recently changed the Nasdaq chart for accuracy, and now it doesn't lag but tracks).
I'm not suggesting it's an accurate indicator. But it's fun.
Monthly from November 1996 to December 2005, combining Wired's page count and the Nasdaq Composite.
More at The Gadget Show.