Persistent "keep unread" feature (when browsing in expanded view): being able to scroll within a topic (represented as a feed or folder) to an arbitrary entry without—on every visit—having to mark anew as unread every intermediate post of interest, or having to worry about the one month expiry date.
Strictly speaking, DVB-T defines only the transmission aspects. As such, DVB-T2 may introduce notable changes but it seems to still use the MPEG-2 transport stream and thus will likely refer to the same specifications as DVB-T. It is true that as far as codecs are concerned it was not until 2005 (publication date of ETSI TS 101 154 V1.6.1) that optional support for improved AV codecs was introduced (H.264/AVC and HE AAC, with VC-1 added in version 1.8.1). However, aside from the resulting chicken-or-egg problem, this does not preclude DVB-T stations from using the newer codecs, and some are already doing so.
I too feel that the deployment is somewhat shoddy, but the theory is that there is no need to wait for a big change because buying a new decoder is relatively inexpensive. I don't quite agree because apart from being wasteful it is consumer-unfriendly to discover that an HD TV set sold as DVB-capable doesn't support some (HD) content because of the codec (beside the fact that it might not support HD DVB-T streams at all depending on whether it is HD ready, HD TV, Full HD or whatever the current marketspeak is), and that after somehow upgrading to get over that deficiency one is bound to learn that the system still doesn't support MHP or whatever technology under the DVB umbrella gets highlighted in the following months.
The concept of having only two transmission windows at 1300 and 1500 is getting outdated with better manufacturing processes (that lead to the so called dry-fibers) that do a better job of minimizing the presence of those disruptive water ions that peaked the attenuation between those two windows. One now hears about transmission bands, which span the range between and including the two "classical" transmission windows.
Some instructions have been updated to recommend uploading at a resolution of 640x480, while others still have remnants of the 320x240 recommendation. If they keep the originals and one has bandwidth to spare, it might be best to just upload at the maximum quality and let them reencode, specially if the decide to offer different quality streams.
Slashdot Mirror
Persistent "keep unread" feature (when browsing in expanded view): being able to scroll within a topic (represented as a feed or folder) to an arbitrary entry without—on every visit—having to mark anew as unread every intermediate post of interest, or having to worry about the one month expiry date.
Strictly speaking, DVB-T defines only the transmission aspects. As such, DVB-T2 may introduce notable changes but it seems to still use the MPEG-2 transport stream and thus will likely refer to the same specifications as DVB-T. It is true that as far as codecs are concerned it was not until 2005 (publication date of ETSI TS 101 154 V1.6.1) that optional support for improved AV codecs was introduced (H.264/AVC and HE AAC, with VC-1 added in version 1.8.1). However, aside from the resulting chicken-or-egg problem, this does not preclude DVB-T stations from using the newer codecs, and some are already doing so.
I too feel that the deployment is somewhat shoddy, but the theory is that there is no need to wait for a big change because buying a new decoder is relatively inexpensive. I don't quite agree because apart from being wasteful it is consumer-unfriendly to discover that an HD TV set sold as DVB-capable doesn't support some (HD) content because of the codec (beside the fact that it might not support HD DVB-T streams at all depending on whether it is HD ready, HD TV, Full HD or whatever the current marketspeak is), and that after somehow upgrading to get over that deficiency one is bound to learn that the system still doesn't support MHP or whatever technology under the DVB umbrella gets highlighted in the following months.
The concept of having only two transmission windows at 1300 and 1500 is getting outdated with better manufacturing processes (that lead to the so called dry-fibers) that do a better job of minimizing the presence of those disruptive water ions that peaked the attenuation between those two windows. One now hears about transmission bands, which span the range between and including the two "classical" transmission windows.
Some instructions have been updated to recommend uploading at a resolution of 640x480, while others still have remnants of the 320x240 recommendation. If they keep the originals and one has bandwidth to spare, it might be best to just upload at the maximum quality and let them reencode, specially if the decide to offer different quality streams.
I wonder if Maxtor's influence is beginning to show up.