I know time travel has been overdone but when it's done well I think it's a lot of fun. For example, Back to the Future I and III were fun movies (II was a mess), and time-traveling in SG1 has been done pretty darn well (in particular, I'm thinking of the one where the team went back to 1969 - I believe titled "1969" - which was played for fun, and the one where they had to send a message back in time to avert Earth's depopulation which is one of my all-time favorite episodes). The plot for the second SG1 movie sounds like they'll be playing it for action, and as long as they don't do anything too lame (like spending a lot of time trying to convince people that "this is just wrong" - just about ruined the TNG finale) it should be a fun ride. Then again, I'm perfectly willing to accept these movies as, essentially, good three-part TV episodes. I've reached the point with Stargate that I've liked it for so long that I can't get too critical about it.:)
Where's the line, though? If a radio station held a contest to see who could go the longest without eating or drinking, would a simple waiver be enough to indemnify them?
I guess without a judge and/or jury, we can't be sure of the legal consequences, but I think it's easy to agree that the radio station exercised piss-poor (sorry) judgement and that such contests shouldn't be encouraged, waivers or not. Again, consulting a doctor should have been the station management's first consideration. The fact that they didn't, to me at least, would seem to indicate a sort of willful ignorance that shouldn't be tolerated.
Say it twice. A lot of early players had trouble switching between two DVD layers (long pauses, sometimes complete crashes), and many of those choked completely on DVDs that came along later (pre-2000 versus post-2000). Of course, relatively few people are even aware that this is the case since DVD only really started taking off in 2000.
The entire HD DVD versus Blu-ray discussion is academic for this very reason. Both formats are still firmly in early-adopter territory and will continue to be so for at least another couple years. This is why I consider dumb all the talk about how expensive it is to buy an HDTV, and how HDTV penetration is so low that the formats don't matter - as a Magic 8-Ball might say, "Ask again later."
The capacity argument is pointless, too, since the primary purpose for the formats (at least in the eyes of the founding consortium members and the content providers) is to eventually replace DVD for watching pre-recorded content. Since both formats can easily accommodate an HD movie and extras in two layers, worrying about higher capacities is only an issue for the low-margin world of computer hardware (which even DVD only very recently took over). The only pre-recorded area where there would be a "cool factor" is in TV shows where it might only take two of the Blu-ray "mega discs" to accommodate an entire season of an HD show - but, then again, I haven't heard people up in arms over 5-disc season sets, complaining about having to get up every 2-3 hours to change discs...
1) The capacity issue is a complete non-starter. The battle they're looking to win isn't for the next computer backup format - that's purely hardware and media which always ends up in small profit margins. The battle is for selling movies and capacity just isn't an issue in that fight since both formats can accommodate an HD movie plus extras. Capacity only becomes an issue in putting HD television shows on disc, and the market seems quite happy with multiple discs (which, BTW, is an advantage for HD DVD until Blu-ray production costs can come down). 2) HD DVD and Blu-ray use the same DRM (AACS, HDCP). The only reason HD DVD has been cracked early is because there's a relatively inexpensive, commonly available device that can be used with PCs (the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on). So, Blu-ray can't use their DRM as a selling point over HD DVD when wooing content providers because as soon as more people have Blu-ray drives in their PCs (assuming that happens), the protection on those discs will be cracked rapidement.
Okay, here's the problem with what you say about Vivid being "Blu-ray exclusive": They still haven't released a disc. On the other hand, Wicked has already released an HD DVD movie and Digital Playground (which was also supposedly going the Blu-ray route) has 5 on the way. The entire basis for Vivid being "Blu-ray exclusive" is a statement from the boss over there that they were leaning toward Blu-ray because the PS3 would have it and they expected that community to be open to buying Blu-ray porn. Of course, that statement was made before a single PS3 had been sold and before Microsoft hit the market with their HD DVD add-on. In short, it was a speculative statement as opposed to a true commitment.
Right at this second, I don't care either way since I don't have either player yet (though I'm leaning towards HD DVD based on the price factor and the fact that there is more content available on HD DVD right now). However, when people claim superiority of one format over the other on anything besides the technical merits, it should be based on facts as opposed to statements of intent.
Wrong again, Sparky. Nobody in porn has released a single Blu-ray Disc yet and at least one studio that had previously planned to go Blu-ray (Digital Playground) has switched to HD-DVD because none of the duplicators would take their business, supposedly thanks to discouragement from on high (Sony and the other rulers of the BD consortium).
Here's the thing: Guinness doesn't run around trying to get people to do dangerous things to make the book. The people who get in the Guinness book tend to be people who want to do so and contact Guinness so that they can go through the appropriate hoops for inclusion.
As for Jackass and Mythbusters, well, those shows feature people who make their own calls and, for the most part, make up their own stunts. In addition, they actually do have insurance and the appropriate waivers in place. As for people copying what they might do on Jackass and similar shows, well, the warnings provided are reasonable and people who SEE other people get hurt (often badly) and still want to do the stunts really are just plain stupid.
All this radio station would have had to do is talk to a competent internal medicine physician before the contest, who would have told them that the thing was a lousy idea - a VERY reasonable precaution before subjecting anyone to a contest in which the goal is to deny natural body functions for a stunt. If they didn't do so, then they were negligent. If they did so, were told it was a bad idea, and still went ahead without medical supervision (and post-contest examinations including labs) then they were willfully negligent. Either way, the station deserves to pay for this mistake.
It was still a freak accident that would not have occurred but for the encouragement of the radio station. Maybe if radio content didn't suck so hard, they wouldn't have to resort to unhealthy stunts in order to increase their ratings. In any case, while the contestants could certainly be smarter, the idiots who organized the event should have known better. How long does it take to consult a doctor who would tell them it was a shitty idea, anyway?
Again, the "real" HD-DVD releae of Pirates hasn't happened yet (it's coming soon), and the only porn currently available on that format is the Wicked release I already mentioned. The HD version of Pirates that is currently available is, as I noted, a DVD with HD content on it (this is very doable with high compression and 720p resolution, but no true standard was ever created/adopted so that it could become a common feature of DVD players). The way to tell is to take that disc, put it into a Windows PC (with the appropriate CODEC - I'm not sure if it's standard or comes on the disc) DVD-ROM drive and play it. It'll play, you'll do "your thing" and, as Dave Chappelle (as Rick James) wisely said, "enjoy yourself.":)
It can be a bit confusing since they may have put "HD" and "DVD" too close together on the packaging, and it's probably a good thing that "real" HD optical formats are here so that this confusion won't last long.
Nope, the disc you're referring to isn't HD-DVD format. It's a DVD containing an HD version of the moviet encoded with WMV. If you want to play it, just stick it in your PC.
For the record, the first true porn HD-DVD is (seriously) "Camp Cuddly Pines Powertool Massacre" from Wicked Pictures. The next one looks like it will be "Island Fever 3" from Digital Playground.
Standalone players are half the price of Blue Ray and the quality is the same, to the naked eye. Anyone who can tell the difference between 1080i/p is full of it and it's more dependent on the tv, cable, etc., than which HD format you're using.
There are two big reasons for this:
1. The frame rate of film is 24 fps. At that rate, the potential artifacts and loss of resolution in interlacing are reduced to nada. It's just a matter of doing the proper "pulldown" of frames to adjust to the display's refresh rate. The interlacing problems should only become a big factor over 30 fps.
2. HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs both store movies at 1080p. So once the players output the "true" 1080p signal (and that's happening with HD-DVD now - the 360's implementation can output 1080p via VGA), the only factor left is the level of compression used. Unless Blu-ray discs use significantly less compression (which they theoretically can do with the increased potential space), HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies are going to look exactly the same. At that point, Blu-ray's only real advantage (as far as prerecorded movies) is that they can stick in more extras, a factor which is really only important to the movie nerds. Personally, I only utilize the commentary tracks (and those only occasionally), and I know that my parents and grandmother have never looked at DVD extras - anecdotal, grain of salt, etc.
All that being said, the price differential really only exists because some companies are subsidizing HD-DVD hardware in an effort to get increased early penetration. And, even when compared to $1,000 players, $500 players are still too expensive for most people, even if they have an HDTV. This race won't start clearing up until someone starts selling standalone units for less than $300 (though Sony's apparent decision to have tight control on BD content doesn't bode well for them).
Amen. It was all about recording (buying tapes just wasn't affordable at the time and rentals were a bigger hassle at first) and Beta was inferior in that regard thanks to VHS's longer recording times. Now, the situation is reversed in that people are less likely to care about the increased storage on Blu-ray because they'd rather do their TV recording on a hard drive (be it Tivo, their satellite/cable box or a PC media center).
I don't know that porn will be a deciding factor in this format war (especially considering how much "free" porn people can grab off the Interwebs) but it's not a good sign if Sony and company are taking that kind of control over what gets published on their format.
Nintendo simply tries to project the image you describe, whether or not its true, and you've bought into it. The real truth is that, like any other corporation, nothing would make Nintendo happier than dominating the console market and driving the gaming divisions of their competitors out of the business. What, you think they don't remember how great it was when the word "Nintendo" was a synonym for videogames?
Just because they're not trying to outmuscle PS3 and 360 in terms of graphics, don't mistake that for not trying to compete directly with both. That's just a myth that Nintendo's perpetuating in order to put a shine on their image and, again, win the market.
As for Sony's desire to be number one, if all it took was wanting it really bad then Microsoft would already have driven Sony and Nintendo out of the market. Sony (the company as a whole) has been getting worse and worse results over the past several years. Even their gaming division, despite the runaway success of the PS2, has had problems with the PS3's development costs dragging it down. If PS3 doesn't come on strong this year, considering the amount of money they've committed - both in development and in subsidizing the sales of the hardware - I think they're going to be forced out of the game.
It's a very safe assumption considering that they mentioned exclusivity with Cingular. Believing that they're going to sell it without service right now is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.
I suspect that the defense for that would be thus: Since Apple itself never announced an iPhone product, Cisco (and any other company in a similar situation) shouldn't be locked out of their trademark by consumer rumors. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't trademark words unless you actually do "trade" in a particular name.
Actually, as has been stated several times (and is indicated in the link), you WILL have to subscribe to service to get the thing. There was no indication of a price without service, only prices with 2-year Cingular contracts.
They won't back such a game because such games just don't sell very well anymore. Dreamfall: The Longest Journey (to use a recent example) was hailed by critics as an excellent game but did little in sales. Even great "adventure platformers" that focus more on action (like Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil) don't manage to get the sales performance that they should based on their quality.
You can blame publishers and licensors if you want, but the real culprits are the gamers themselves who apparently won't buy a game unless it gets a huge marketing push and/or is a sequel to a game that they liked last year.
There are also "quite a few" absolutely forgettable, often atrocious, Star Wars video games...and there are more Star Wars games overall. I suspect (I won't take the time myself) that if you expressed the number of good Star Wars games as a percentage of the total number of Star Wars games, it would match up pretty closely with a similar calculation of Star Trek games.
In other words, the question is bogus. Look at the review and it doesn't even mention the Starfleet Command series of games. That omission is startling to me since it seems like it would be very useful to compare/contrast that series with Legacy given that they both focus on Star Trek starship combat. While I'm aware that SFC was based on a board game based on Star Trek (some people would break it out into its own niche genre for that reason), it was a solid series of games deserving of attention.
There are already open protocols for what you describe, as well as devices that will do what this Apple product is reported to do (even my modded Xbox has no trouble streaming NTSC/480p TV). Yet, over-the-air, satellite and cable TV have gone nowhere. Okay, it's not so odd because as much as broadband Internet adoption is increasing it doesn't have nearly the level of penetration of those three methods of delivering televised content. Even amongst those who do have broadband, they're unlikely (at best) to have the bandwidth necessary to, for example, instantly change between two live HDTV streams (or, in most cases, even receive one), nor would most be able to have simultaneous, different, high-quality live streams going to two or more TVs - OTA, cable and satellite can do all of those things. In my case, with DishNetwork, I've got hundreds of channels slamming into my dish constantly, requiring just a click to switch instantly between them. OTA, satellite and cable transmission have advantages that the Internet (as it is today, at least) just can't match.
In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.
The problem there is that Sony would then be abandoning the market they've already created. While that market isn't matching up to the DS, it's still a significant population, and a population that has been "loyal" to Sony in buying their handheld. Considering that at least part of the magic of the DS is the ability to play the back-catalog of GBA titles, it seems like people would consider it another strike against Sony if they released a new handheld that wasn't backward compatible with the first PSP's games.
Personally, I'm just about ready to jump on the PSP because they've finally got enough games that I wouldn't consider it a ripoff (I'm not the "homebrew" type) - maybe after I finish Final Fantasy III. Of course, that's after a year with the DS and buying many titles for that system.:)
Well, one thing that they may not have taken into consideration is that the feds (along with many local government agencies and the major US exchanges) have declared tomorrow a holiday as a day of mourning for Gerald Ford. So, this particular downtime is probably a bit uglier to those people than others as they might have hoped to get in a lot of extra time on their 4-day weekend. Me, I'm in the medical business so I don't get "extra" holidays.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I know time travel has been overdone but when it's done well I think it's a lot of fun. For example, Back to the Future I and III were fun movies (II was a mess), and time-traveling in SG1 has been done pretty darn well (in particular, I'm thinking of the one where the team went back to 1969 - I believe titled "1969" - which was played for fun, and the one where they had to send a message back in time to avert Earth's depopulation which is one of my all-time favorite episodes). The plot for the second SG1 movie sounds like they'll be playing it for action, and as long as they don't do anything too lame (like spending a lot of time trying to convince people that "this is just wrong" - just about ruined the TNG finale) it should be a fun ride. Then again, I'm perfectly willing to accept these movies as, essentially, good three-part TV episodes. I've reached the point with Stargate that I've liked it for so long that I can't get too critical about it. :)
Where's the line, though? If a radio station held a contest to see who could go the longest without eating or drinking, would a simple waiver be enough to indemnify them?
I guess without a judge and/or jury, we can't be sure of the legal consequences, but I think it's easy to agree that the radio station exercised piss-poor (sorry) judgement and that such contests shouldn't be encouraged, waivers or not. Again, consulting a doctor should have been the station management's first consideration. The fact that they didn't, to me at least, would seem to indicate a sort of willful ignorance that shouldn't be tolerated.
Say it twice. A lot of early players had trouble switching between two DVD layers (long pauses, sometimes complete crashes), and many of those choked completely on DVDs that came along later (pre-2000 versus post-2000). Of course, relatively few people are even aware that this is the case since DVD only really started taking off in 2000.
The entire HD DVD versus Blu-ray discussion is academic for this very reason. Both formats are still firmly in early-adopter territory and will continue to be so for at least another couple years. This is why I consider dumb all the talk about how expensive it is to buy an HDTV, and how HDTV penetration is so low that the formats don't matter - as a Magic 8-Ball might say, "Ask again later."
The capacity argument is pointless, too, since the primary purpose for the formats (at least in the eyes of the founding consortium members and the content providers) is to eventually replace DVD for watching pre-recorded content. Since both formats can easily accommodate an HD movie and extras in two layers, worrying about higher capacities is only an issue for the low-margin world of computer hardware (which even DVD only very recently took over). The only pre-recorded area where there would be a "cool factor" is in TV shows where it might only take two of the Blu-ray "mega discs" to accommodate an entire season of an HD show - but, then again, I haven't heard people up in arms over 5-disc season sets, complaining about having to get up every 2-3 hours to change discs...
1) The capacity issue is a complete non-starter. The battle they're looking to win isn't for the next computer backup format - that's purely hardware and media which always ends up in small profit margins. The battle is for selling movies and capacity just isn't an issue in that fight since both formats can accommodate an HD movie plus extras. Capacity only becomes an issue in putting HD television shows on disc, and the market seems quite happy with multiple discs (which, BTW, is an advantage for HD DVD until Blu-ray production costs can come down).
2) HD DVD and Blu-ray use the same DRM (AACS, HDCP). The only reason HD DVD has been cracked early is because there's a relatively inexpensive, commonly available device that can be used with PCs (the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on). So, Blu-ray can't use their DRM as a selling point over HD DVD when wooing content providers because as soon as more people have Blu-ray drives in their PCs (assuming that happens), the protection on those discs will be cracked rapidement.
Actually, I was just making what I thought was a cute little joke based on OP's use of positive and negative integers. :)
Okay, here's the problem with what you say about Vivid being "Blu-ray exclusive": They still haven't released a disc. On the other hand, Wicked has already released an HD DVD movie and Digital Playground (which was also supposedly going the Blu-ray route) has 5 on the way. The entire basis for Vivid being "Blu-ray exclusive" is a statement from the boss over there that they were leaning toward Blu-ray because the PS3 would have it and they expected that community to be open to buying Blu-ray porn. Of course, that statement was made before a single PS3 had been sold and before Microsoft hit the market with their HD DVD add-on. In short, it was a speculative statement as opposed to a true commitment.
Right at this second, I don't care either way since I don't have either player yet (though I'm leaning towards HD DVD based on the price factor and the fact that there is more content available on HD DVD right now). However, when people claim superiority of one format over the other on anything besides the technical merits, it should be based on facts as opposed to statements of intent.
Wrong again, Sparky. Nobody in porn has released a single Blu-ray Disc yet and at least one studio that had previously planned to go Blu-ray (Digital Playground) has switched to HD-DVD because none of the duplicators would take their business, supposedly thanks to discouragement from on high (Sony and the other rulers of the BD consortium).
Here's the thing: Guinness doesn't run around trying to get people to do dangerous things to make the book. The people who get in the Guinness book tend to be people who want to do so and contact Guinness so that they can go through the appropriate hoops for inclusion.
As for Jackass and Mythbusters, well, those shows feature people who make their own calls and, for the most part, make up their own stunts. In addition, they actually do have insurance and the appropriate waivers in place. As for people copying what they might do on Jackass and similar shows, well, the warnings provided are reasonable and people who SEE other people get hurt (often badly) and still want to do the stunts really are just plain stupid.
All this radio station would have had to do is talk to a competent internal medicine physician before the contest, who would have told them that the thing was a lousy idea - a VERY reasonable precaution before subjecting anyone to a contest in which the goal is to deny natural body functions for a stunt. If they didn't do so, then they were negligent. If they did so, were told it was a bad idea, and still went ahead without medical supervision (and post-contest examinations including labs) then they were willfully negligent. Either way, the station deserves to pay for this mistake.
Geez, are you really expecting that people aren't even going to RTFS? Find something interesting to argue about so that my IQ stops dropping.
It was still a freak accident that would not have occurred but for the encouragement of the radio station. Maybe if radio content didn't suck so hard, they wouldn't have to resort to unhealthy stunts in order to increase their ratings. In any case, while the contestants could certainly be smarter, the idiots who organized the event should have known better. How long does it take to consult a doctor who would tell them it was a shitty idea, anyway?
So, let me see if I understand you...We need a Star Wars Zero?
The DVD has been out. The HD-DVD is on the way.
Again, the "real" HD-DVD releae of Pirates hasn't happened yet (it's coming soon), and the only porn currently available on that format is the Wicked release I already mentioned. The HD version of Pirates that is currently available is, as I noted, a DVD with HD content on it (this is very doable with high compression and 720p resolution, but no true standard was ever created/adopted so that it could become a common feature of DVD players). The way to tell is to take that disc, put it into a Windows PC (with the appropriate CODEC - I'm not sure if it's standard or comes on the disc) DVD-ROM drive and play it. It'll play, you'll do "your thing" and, as Dave Chappelle (as Rick James) wisely said, "enjoy yourself." :)
It can be a bit confusing since they may have put "HD" and "DVD" too close together on the packaging, and it's probably a good thing that "real" HD optical formats are here so that this confusion won't last long.
Nope, the disc you're referring to isn't HD-DVD format. It's a DVD containing an HD version of the moviet encoded with WMV. If you want to play it, just stick it in your PC.
For the record, the first true porn HD-DVD is (seriously) "Camp Cuddly Pines Powertool Massacre" from Wicked Pictures. The next one looks like it will be "Island Fever 3" from Digital Playground.
There are two big reasons for this:
1. The frame rate of film is 24 fps. At that rate, the potential artifacts and loss of resolution in interlacing are reduced to nada. It's just a matter of doing the proper "pulldown" of frames to adjust to the display's refresh rate. The interlacing problems should only become a big factor over 30 fps.
2. HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs both store movies at 1080p. So once the players output the "true" 1080p signal (and that's happening with HD-DVD now - the 360's implementation can output 1080p via VGA), the only factor left is the level of compression used. Unless Blu-ray discs use significantly less compression (which they theoretically can do with the increased potential space), HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies are going to look exactly the same. At that point, Blu-ray's only real advantage (as far as prerecorded movies) is that they can stick in more extras, a factor which is really only important to the movie nerds. Personally, I only utilize the commentary tracks (and those only occasionally), and I know that my parents and grandmother have never looked at DVD extras - anecdotal, grain of salt, etc.
All that being said, the price differential really only exists because some companies are subsidizing HD-DVD hardware in an effort to get increased early penetration. And, even when compared to $1,000 players, $500 players are still too expensive for most people, even if they have an HDTV. This race won't start clearing up until someone starts selling standalone units for less than $300 (though Sony's apparent decision to have tight control on BD content doesn't bode well for them).
Amen. It was all about recording (buying tapes just wasn't affordable at the time and rentals were a bigger hassle at first) and Beta was inferior in that regard thanks to VHS's longer recording times. Now, the situation is reversed in that people are less likely to care about the increased storage on Blu-ray because they'd rather do their TV recording on a hard drive (be it Tivo, their satellite/cable box or a PC media center).
I don't know that porn will be a deciding factor in this format war (especially considering how much "free" porn people can grab off the Interwebs) but it's not a good sign if Sony and company are taking that kind of control over what gets published on their format.
Nintendo simply tries to project the image you describe, whether or not its true, and you've bought into it. The real truth is that, like any other corporation, nothing would make Nintendo happier than dominating the console market and driving the gaming divisions of their competitors out of the business. What, you think they don't remember how great it was when the word "Nintendo" was a synonym for videogames?
Just because they're not trying to outmuscle PS3 and 360 in terms of graphics, don't mistake that for not trying to compete directly with both. That's just a myth that Nintendo's perpetuating in order to put a shine on their image and, again, win the market.
As for Sony's desire to be number one, if all it took was wanting it really bad then Microsoft would already have driven Sony and Nintendo out of the market. Sony (the company as a whole) has been getting worse and worse results over the past several years. Even their gaming division, despite the runaway success of the PS2, has had problems with the PS3's development costs dragging it down. If PS3 doesn't come on strong this year, considering the amount of money they've committed - both in development and in subsidizing the sales of the hardware - I think they're going to be forced out of the game.
It's a very safe assumption considering that they mentioned exclusivity with Cingular. Believing that they're going to sell it without service right now is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.
I suspect that the defense for that would be thus: Since Apple itself never announced an iPhone product, Cisco (and any other company in a similar situation) shouldn't be locked out of their trademark by consumer rumors. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't trademark words unless you actually do "trade" in a particular name.
Actually, as has been stated several times (and is indicated in the link), you WILL have to subscribe to service to get the thing. There was no indication of a price without service, only prices with 2-year Cingular contracts.
They won't back such a game because such games just don't sell very well anymore. Dreamfall: The Longest Journey (to use a recent example) was hailed by critics as an excellent game but did little in sales. Even great "adventure platformers" that focus more on action (like Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil) don't manage to get the sales performance that they should based on their quality.
You can blame publishers and licensors if you want, but the real culprits are the gamers themselves who apparently won't buy a game unless it gets a huge marketing push and/or is a sequel to a game that they liked last year.
There are also "quite a few" absolutely forgettable, often atrocious, Star Wars video games...and there are more Star Wars games overall. I suspect (I won't take the time myself) that if you expressed the number of good Star Wars games as a percentage of the total number of Star Wars games, it would match up pretty closely with a similar calculation of Star Trek games.
In other words, the question is bogus. Look at the review and it doesn't even mention the Starfleet Command series of games. That omission is startling to me since it seems like it would be very useful to compare/contrast that series with Legacy given that they both focus on Star Trek starship combat. While I'm aware that SFC was based on a board game based on Star Trek (some people would break it out into its own niche genre for that reason), it was a solid series of games deserving of attention.
There are already open protocols for what you describe, as well as devices that will do what this Apple product is reported to do (even my modded Xbox has no trouble streaming NTSC/480p TV). Yet, over-the-air, satellite and cable TV have gone nowhere. Okay, it's not so odd because as much as broadband Internet adoption is increasing it doesn't have nearly the level of penetration of those three methods of delivering televised content. Even amongst those who do have broadband, they're unlikely (at best) to have the bandwidth necessary to, for example, instantly change between two live HDTV streams (or, in most cases, even receive one), nor would most be able to have simultaneous, different, high-quality live streams going to two or more TVs - OTA, cable and satellite can do all of those things. In my case, with DishNetwork, I've got hundreds of channels slamming into my dish constantly, requiring just a click to switch instantly between them. OTA, satellite and cable transmission have advantages that the Internet (as it is today, at least) just can't match.
In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.
The problem there is that Sony would then be abandoning the market they've already created. While that market isn't matching up to the DS, it's still a significant population, and a population that has been "loyal" to Sony in buying their handheld. Considering that at least part of the magic of the DS is the ability to play the back-catalog of GBA titles, it seems like people would consider it another strike against Sony if they released a new handheld that wasn't backward compatible with the first PSP's games.
:)
Personally, I'm just about ready to jump on the PSP because they've finally got enough games that I wouldn't consider it a ripoff (I'm not the "homebrew" type) - maybe after I finish Final Fantasy III. Of course, that's after a year with the DS and buying many titles for that system.
Well, one thing that they may not have taken into consideration is that the feds (along with many local government agencies and the major US exchanges) have declared tomorrow a holiday as a day of mourning for Gerald Ford. So, this particular downtime is probably a bit uglier to those people than others as they might have hoped to get in a lot of extra time on their 4-day weekend. Me, I'm in the medical business so I don't get "extra" holidays. :)