Hmm. Interesting. Good point. I can see the confusion with soundtracks and music videos definitely.
But in the future this will continue to be an issue, since with digital recordings the media doesn't matter so long as it does the job. I guess a good first step would be for devices to at least tell you why your thing won't play. And further on, I would think that multifunctional discs would make sense. (The music album also contains the videos and related media, and the movie includes the soundtrack album as well as being able to play a commented version of the soundtrack itself, and it is assumed everyone has the appropriate devices for both modes.)
Well what do you expect? There are tons of high-quality SciFi anime already made and relatively cheap, yet all they've picked up are a handful of movies. I mean if SF doesn't show Serial Experiments Lain, who will?
Look on the plus side - if you DID get those nuke plates, I can guarantee you wouldn't have them for long before some activist pulled them off your car, or some kid stole it to put on his wall.
Reminds me of the bad old days when CDs came in enormous boxes that were the heights of records so they'd fit on the newly repurposed shelves. Somewhere along the way they switched over to just the jewel cases, because the boxes were wasteful (i.e. environmentally unfriendly). Now I see VHS height (actually larger) boxes for DVDs and can't help wondering why they don't switch to ordinary jewel boxes, except to slap more graphics on the front.
Local networks a partial solution
on
P2P Television?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes, I agree. Unless bandwidth becomes real big and real cheap real fast, I don't expect p2p TV to go anywhere soon.
However, local networks (including wireless neighborhood mesh networks) are another matter. They can be very cheap to build and run and very fast because the data doesn't have to be shipped across the country. With a wireless mesh, you just have to setup the antenna and power it, and you're in. Thus a neighborhood can easily share shows, allow people to know what they're watching in a neighborly way, and even actively pool resources for efficient storage without breaking the bank. As long as shows are initially autosaved off the regular broadcasts, it won't put too much stress on the on-demand mechanisms.
This would be enough for popular shows, while less popular and more obscure ones could be piped over the internet individually. A smart filesharing network could handle all of this with a little effort, provided the files are compressed and you aren't living in some super-eclectic neighborhood.
Good article though. Interesting data on 360 hours per day/ million total. Unfortunately, it also raises the spectre of pay-per-view-over-pay-per-get.
Growth of any living organism is ultimately limited by the growth requirement in shortest supply. Algal growth in the ocean is typically limited by the availability of soluble iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, or silicon, wheras carbon dioxide is readily available. Also, pumping up the CO2 level in seawater will a) increase the acidity of the water, b) decrease the partial pressure of oxygen. All of these factors can adversely affect the balance of the ecosystems in a variety of ways.
P.S. They've tried (expensive) fertilization of the ocean in the hopes that all that fixed carbon would end up in the sea floor eventually - but there was no evidence that it did end up there.
Beat it, Troll. That's a spectacularly dumb and irrelevant arguement.
People lived without all of those things for a long time, and even when they were invented can't get them when they can't afford them. You don't get an unlimited supply of food, or as much power as you can burn, or whatever car you want for the same price (nor whatever salary you want for your work). At best, the prices may be negligibly low for your level of consumption and your salary. But there is no consumption maximum on bandwidth. There's always a flashier website, or a bigger higher quality media file, or a rapidly expanding p2p network to file serve on and carelessly browse. And more network traffic means more cable has to be laid and maintained and powered, and more workers have to be hired and so on. And suddenly the costs are no longer negligible, until someone comes up with a cheaper way of doing it. But no matter how much they expand, and how much cheaper it gets, some people will still be sending and getting as much as their connection allows, which is generally more than the broadband provider can afford at the prices they offer for flat rate. A classic tragedy of the commons.
Perhaps I phrased things a bit wrong. Obviously you don't HAVE to pay any more than you feel like. If dialup is good enough for you then feel free to switch. Consequently broadband companies, being businesses, will offer plans at prices people will accept at bandwidth volumes acceptable to their expenses, because no business is bad business. Exactly what those expenses are, whether wire or executives, is their business, not yours. If anything, you should gripe about the lack of competition due to local broadband monopolies. Regardless, my statement still stands - unlimited flat-rate broadband is untenable.
Universities have to pay for that internet too, and you bet they're starting to cap student use. They just don't get as much press over it and do so in a slower, more beauracratic manner.
I am one of those people that shares gigabytes per day, primarily through the anime fansub scene. For those of you who may not follow it, two years ago, a 25 minute anime episode was about 50mb in size, and was in 320x240 realplayer format. Then broadband and DivX came along, and suddenly everything is DVD quality and over 200mb in size at 640x480. The catch was, despite more broadband actually getting it has become much harder. Downloading takes forever. Connections are quickly saturated. ISPs are capping like crazy. All the fansubbers and primary distributors are so obsessed with high quality that they failed to appreciate the tradeoffs.
The point it, the internet is neither unlimited nor free. There are costs, but we weren't directly paying for them, so we pretend they don't exist. The P2P networks were a manifestation like this. They don't even make a distinction between the guy next door and someone halfway across the world.
We're all going to have to get used to working with a lot less bandwidth, and paying for our fair share. Unlimited flat-rate broadband was untenable. It should have been this way from the beginning.
The storage medium itself is just Plexiglass. It should be very cheap. However I would speculate that it would have to be encased somehow because if the surface was contaminated (by particulates or liquid) it would close the holes, which may raise the cost quite a bit. Indeed because of this the technology may be unsuitable for removable storage entirely, and can only be used when the medium and read/write heads are securely sealed together inside the case.
The p2p tactics that are evolving to combat these unwelcome file spoofing ads will also help combat the other scourge of p2p networks - file corruption. In the process it'll also make multi-source downloading a viable reality.
I don't study theology formally, but I certainly haven't lacked for having people trying to teach me to accept The Lord. But broad "you can't explain it (now) so it must be God" explanations don't convince me, and the circular logic frequently vetted with all sincerity by those sorts of people (over and over again) does little for my opionion of them as reasonable individuals.
I've yet to hear of ANY definitive or even semi-suggestive evidence for God, despite plenty of opportunities for believers to enlighten me. Of course, from what I hear you're not supposed to believe in God based on evidence, you're supposed to believe based on faith, even if confronted with evidence contrary to His existence. Which frankly isn't good enough for me.
But of course, science has produced no empirical evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God Himself, though it is explaining most everything previously attributed to His divine will. Ironically enough, to me the most convincing evidence against God is religion itself. Despite attempts like Vedaism or Baha'i to reconcile the great religions (as if the number of a religion's adherents could be an accurate measure of it's validity), common ground is reduced to a few humanist principles (mainly, "don't kill people"). Amongst all known cultures, the only universal seems to be the incest taboo - a practical matter which biology explains quite well. Religion encompasses a broad scope of mythologies characterized by the presence - and abscence - of the supernatural, gods, demigods, sprits, primal forces, prophets, and culture heroes. It encompasses laws, rules, principles, and taboos both divine and mundane of astonishing and contradictory variety.
Against all these myriad options and explanations, I am somehow expected to believe that the religious tradition I grew up in - the large but clearly tribe-rooted Judeo-Christian tradion - is the only correct one, whilst the rest are all lies and myth. That there is indeed a God who was inordinately fond of a tiny tribe in the desert, and these billions of other people in the world who don't think so are misled or worse. I don't buy it. I think beyond their moral, ethical, and cultural relevance, religion - including the one most common in this part of the world - is nothing more than stories, and frequently fictious ones for a limited audience. Mythos laced with morality.
In other words, I've as much reason to believe in God as I do in the Force. Although of course, science has found no evidence for midichlorians either.
"In this case, God would be a lot simpler than a lot of the physics we have pulled out of our ass to explain the world, just remember that;)"
Hardly. God is an excuse, not an explanation. It's passing the buck to a poorly (or perhaps I should say convieniently poorly) defined supernatural entity which itself needs even more explanation than the natural world it supposedly explains. More importantly, the explanation(s) for God and his actions are confined to (a particular) human culture (along with a whole hell of a lot of other explanations for the same things from cultures all over the world, many of which don't even involve god(s)), wheras the explanations of science are based on inference and experiment of the natural world, subject to provability and falsification. Modern physics is built around explanations difficult for anyone to comprehend but which are nonetheless extremely accurate and reproducible. Physics was not pulled out of anyones ass. Can't say the same for God.
Paris == YES, therefore !Paris == NO. Neither God or !God is proveable, which is a different sort of answer entirely.
However in cases like that one generally resorts to Occam's razor, which says that all things being equal we should work on the assumption that the simpler explanation is the correct one. The simpler assumption in this case is that since Humans have always been ignorant about a great many things (a fact if there ever was one), and have a long history of coming up with supernatural explanations for just about all of them (and all of which have been disproven and replaced where science and technology had advanced to the point that they could be studied), then the patently supernatural God probably falls in this category.
So, the music industry is succumbing to the inevitable. It's not really a big deal - music will still be made, and musicians will still be able to make money by performing live.
The bigger issue is that the same things that made the music industry unprofitable are already starting to make the TV and Video industries unprofitable. Ad-skipping PVRs are gutting television's revenue stream as fast as they are sold, and file-sharing is slowly making inroads on any recorded video. But unlike music, there is no "live performance" option, local content is largely irrelevant, and real costs are much higher.
The situation for the withered book and publishing industry is even more dire. The inavailability of a screen comfortable to read off of is all that stands between it and its total collapse.
The point is this - the notoriously rotten music industry may be down for now, but they are not alone in their troubles. Their ultimate fate will not be sealed until the greater "content" industry either gains control over the distribution of their works once and for all, or loses it entirely and is reduced to patronage and selling their content at costs comparable to copying it yourself.
The idea that Digital Is Superior to analog technologies has been badly overblown, and ultimately I think people will realize this with film (comparing 70mm to digital's piddling resolution should do the trick). Digital's advantage comes from it being reliable, flexible, and (relatively) insanely simple to create, edit, copy, and distribute.
Celluloid film copies are fragile and expensive to make, and contribute to high cost at the theater. To save money, they are designed to be used over time - a print will be shipped around between theaters - which is why we have staggered releases worldwide, which is why we have DVD region codes, which is why we have limited numbers of screens to show on, which is why we have many people in one theater when a smaller theater could work as well or better. And so forth.
Point is, the money saved on distribution alone could allow higher profit margins to BOTH studios and theaters. Factoring in other factors (such as how movies make most of their money in the first weekend, but the number of screens is limited by prints made), it could be a lot more. The big caveat is that a cheap distribution process could help independent films way more than the major studios, thus posing a threat to their control over the industry.
P.S. There was a MEMS article a few days ago which directly relates to this topic. Digital projectors could be much cheaper and higher resolution than they are.
Contrary to popular perception, the primary problem with DivX support on macs is not lack of the proper codecs. There are actually three different DivX codecs for mac (the 3ivx, DivX, and ffmpeg projects - however windows media audio, which some files use, is only indirectly supported via DivX doctor). The real problem is quicktime's inability to read AVI files with variable bitrate audio encoded into them (vbr support was not part of the original official spec, and microsoft has since declared the format "obsolete" in favor of windows media). This has been a problem with quicktime for years, and they STILL haven't fixed it in QT6 preview, despite rumors to the contrary. The only solution is to extract the audio and video tracks and stick them together in quicktime format, using one of a variety of tools (see the sites above). DivX.com claims to have come up with an elegant hack around the issue, but they have yet to release it. Video LAN client claims to be able to play back DivX avis without doctoring, but doesn't work well at all yet.
The good news is you can play back just about any DivX file out there. The bad news is you're going to have to do a little more work than just downloading Quicktime and expecting it to play - You have to go get and install the DivX codecs yourself, and turn all your DivX AVIs into MOVs with the proper tools. I can only assume the Quicktime crew could have fixed this vbr AVI problem if they wanted to a long time ago, and possibly did - but for undisclosed reasons, they choose not to or aren't allowed to release or work on it.
I don't know that much about it. Audio and Video are constrained to use only a few different compression algorithms (the decompressors on most DVD players are hardware not software). As for the menu format, I'm not sure what it is, but most likely nobody's bothered to make a "ripping" program for it because then what would you do with it? With the possible exceptions of Quicktime/MPEG 4 or flash or maybe SMIL, there's no standard multimedia format that can handle that kind of functionality, at least not exactly. But you could do something like it. I think MPEG4 will be sufficiently flexible.
Data on a disk is of course no different from data on a drive (Apple's DVD player software can play DVDs stored on the drive, for one).
True. I knew that all 4 colors weren't set, just didn't mention it because pretty much all subtitles should be using the clear, and without a black (or rather high-contrast) border they're usually impossible to read at some point during the show. In any case, it's very limiting, and tends to produce aliased text that clashes with the video.
I didn't know they could appear anywhere on the screen. I've never seen them outside the bottom strip, myself, even when translating signs. I suppose that just means they don't usually bother.
DVD has always been light on capacity (and certain features could have been implemented better). In particular, one of the big advantages to DVD over VHS is being able to use multiple scriptable audio and text tracks, thus allowing you to subtitle and/or overdub for multiple languages. Not something we think of much here in the US, but in China/Taiwan, pretty much every release should have Mandarin, Cantonese, English, and if necessary whatever language it was originally recorded in. At least. The problem is even worse in Europe because with so many languages to cover, they're forced to skimp on audio and video quality, to say nothing of the bells and whistles we're accustomed to here. The "subtitle" tracks are not text but actually pictures of text to accomodate any font, but are limited to only four colors (two of which are are black and clear) and only to a certain sector of the screen. And there's no way to use post-press modifications(such as fan translations not available on the original).
Beyond that, DVD quality is way below that of HDTV (not that there's much of that yet). So, we really could use more space - a LOT more (FMDs and FMCs sounded promising). And a much more flexible format (allowing simple outside scripting and track replacement/overlays as well as modern compression algorithms and file formats like MPEG-4) with smarter options (like a real UTF-8 text track coupled to an on-disk vector-type font library, and full-color compressed RGB-alpha sprite/video overlay tracks). But even a 10% or so increase in capacity could make a big difference in much of the world.
In order for the bacteria to eat their fuel and ammo it has to get to it first, and its' growth can't be limited by other factors. The former would keep them from eating all those self-contained, sealed bullets, and the latter would keep them from eating fuel in the tank.
Degrading stuff out in the open is another matter. Coatings, lubricants, seals, etc. Asphalt roads would be a good target (In theory an environmentalist's dream too - except it probably means more gas-guzzling off-roaders) as would lubrication oils. But there are simple ways around this with synthetic lubricants and alternative fuels.
People have attempted to use genetically engineered bugs to clean up oil spills before. What they found is that these GE bugs don't perform any better than the naturally occurring organisms already there. In fact, they seem to do worse, probably because a bacterial monoculture is less capable than the complex natural polyculture.
All you need to get bugs to eat an oil spill is fertilizer and time. That's pretty much it.
Tivo raises a whole host of problems for the existing revenue scheme for television of all kinds. Most of the problems (related to ignoring advertising) can be made up for in other ways (i.e. charging money). But the hardest to address is that people who only watch what they've set their Tivo to record aren't catching on to new shows nearly as much!
Which is why the option to record suggested programs on Tivo is actually the most important one. And the one that would be co-opted by people pushing their new shows. As Tivos become more widespread expect to see more of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Interesting. Good point. I can see the confusion with soundtracks and music videos definitely.
But in the future this will continue to be an issue, since with digital recordings the media doesn't matter so long as it does the job. I guess a good first step would be for devices to at least tell you why your thing won't play. And further on, I would think that multifunctional discs would make sense. (The music album also contains the videos and related media, and the movie includes the soundtrack album as well as being able to play a commented version of the soundtrack itself, and it is assumed everyone has the appropriate devices for both modes.)
Well what do you expect? There are tons of high-quality SciFi anime already made and relatively cheap, yet all they've picked up are a handful of movies. I mean if SF doesn't show Serial Experiments Lain, who will?
Look on the plus side - if you DID get those nuke plates, I can guarantee you wouldn't have them for long before some activist pulled them off your car, or some kid stole it to put on his wall.
Reminds me of the bad old days when CDs came in enormous boxes that were the heights of records so they'd fit on the newly repurposed shelves. Somewhere along the way they switched over to just the jewel cases, because the boxes were wasteful (i.e. environmentally unfriendly). Now I see VHS height (actually larger) boxes for DVDs and can't help wondering why they don't switch to ordinary jewel boxes, except to slap more graphics on the front.
Yes, I agree. Unless bandwidth becomes real big and real cheap real fast, I don't expect p2p TV to go anywhere soon.
However, local networks (including wireless neighborhood mesh networks) are another matter. They can be very cheap to build and run and very fast because the data doesn't have to be shipped across the country. With a wireless mesh, you just have to setup the antenna and power it, and you're in. Thus a neighborhood can easily share shows, allow people to know what they're watching in a neighborly way, and even actively pool resources for efficient storage without breaking the bank. As long as shows are initially autosaved off the regular broadcasts, it won't put too much stress on the on-demand mechanisms.
This would be enough for popular shows, while less popular and more obscure ones could be piped over the internet individually. A smart filesharing network could handle all of this with a little effort, provided the files are compressed and you aren't living in some super-eclectic neighborhood.
Good article though. Interesting data on 360 hours per day/ million total. Unfortunately, it also raises the spectre of pay-per-view-over-pay-per-get.
Growth of any living organism is ultimately limited by the growth requirement in shortest supply. Algal growth in the ocean is typically limited by the availability of soluble iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, or silicon, wheras carbon dioxide is readily available. Also, pumping up the CO2 level in seawater will a) increase the acidity of the water, b) decrease the partial pressure of oxygen. All of these factors can adversely affect the balance of the ecosystems in a variety of ways.
P.S. They've tried (expensive) fertilization of the ocean in the hopes that all that fixed carbon would end up in the sea floor eventually - but there was no evidence that it did end up there.
Beat it, Troll. That's a spectacularly dumb and irrelevant arguement.
People lived without all of those things for a long time, and even when they were invented can't get them when they can't afford them. You don't get an unlimited supply of food, or as much power as you can burn, or whatever car you want for the same price (nor whatever salary you want for your work). At best, the prices may be negligibly low for your level of consumption and your salary. But there is no consumption maximum on bandwidth. There's always a flashier website, or a bigger higher quality media file, or a rapidly expanding p2p network to file serve on and carelessly browse. And more network traffic means more cable has to be laid and maintained and powered, and more workers have to be hired and so on. And suddenly the costs are no longer negligible, until someone comes up with a cheaper way of doing it. But no matter how much they expand, and how much cheaper it gets, some people will still be sending and getting as much as their connection allows, which is generally more than the broadband provider can afford at the prices they offer for flat rate. A classic tragedy of the commons.
To the various folks replying here -
Perhaps I phrased things a bit wrong. Obviously you don't HAVE to pay any more than you feel like. If dialup is good enough for you then feel free to switch. Consequently broadband companies, being businesses, will offer plans at prices people will accept at bandwidth volumes acceptable to their expenses, because no business is bad business. Exactly what those expenses are, whether wire or executives, is their business, not yours. If anything, you should gripe about the lack of competition due to local broadband monopolies. Regardless, my statement still stands - unlimited flat-rate broadband is untenable.
Universities have to pay for that internet too, and you bet they're starting to cap student use. They just don't get as much press over it and do so in a slower, more beauracratic manner.
I am one of those people that shares gigabytes per day, primarily through the anime fansub scene. For those of you who may not follow it, two years ago, a 25 minute anime episode was about 50mb in size, and was in 320x240 realplayer format. Then broadband and DivX came along, and suddenly everything is DVD quality and over 200mb in size at 640x480. The catch was, despite more broadband actually getting it has become much harder. Downloading takes forever. Connections are quickly saturated. ISPs are capping like crazy. All the fansubbers and primary distributors are so obsessed with high quality that they failed to appreciate the tradeoffs.
The point it, the internet is neither unlimited nor free. There are costs, but we weren't directly paying for them, so we pretend they don't exist. The P2P networks were a manifestation like this. They don't even make a distinction between the guy next door and someone halfway across the world.
We're all going to have to get used to working with a lot less bandwidth, and paying for our fair share. Unlimited flat-rate broadband was untenable. It should have been this way from the beginning.
The storage medium itself is just Plexiglass. It should be very cheap. However I would speculate that it would have to be encased somehow because if the surface was contaminated (by particulates or liquid) it would close the holes, which may raise the cost quite a bit. Indeed because of this the technology may be unsuitable for removable storage entirely, and can only be used when the medium and read/write heads are securely sealed together inside the case.
The p2p tactics that are evolving to combat these unwelcome file spoofing ads will also help combat the other scourge of p2p networks - file corruption. In the process it'll also make multi-source downloading a viable reality.
I don't study theology formally, but I certainly haven't lacked for having people trying to teach me to accept The Lord. But broad "you can't explain it (now) so it must be God" explanations don't convince me, and the circular logic frequently vetted with all sincerity by those sorts of people (over and over again) does little for my opionion of them as reasonable individuals.
I've yet to hear of ANY definitive or even semi-suggestive evidence for God, despite plenty of opportunities for believers to enlighten me. Of course, from what I hear you're not supposed to believe in God based on evidence, you're supposed to believe based on faith, even if confronted with evidence contrary to His existence. Which frankly isn't good enough for me.
But of course, science has produced no empirical evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God Himself, though it is explaining most everything previously attributed to His divine will. Ironically enough, to me the most convincing evidence against God is religion itself. Despite attempts like Vedaism or Baha'i to reconcile the great religions (as if the number of a religion's adherents could be an accurate measure of it's validity), common ground is reduced to a few humanist principles (mainly, "don't kill people"). Amongst all known cultures, the only universal seems to be the incest taboo - a practical matter which biology explains quite well. Religion encompasses a broad scope of mythologies characterized by the presence - and abscence - of the supernatural, gods, demigods, sprits, primal forces, prophets, and culture heroes. It encompasses laws, rules, principles, and taboos both divine and mundane of astonishing and contradictory variety.
Against all these myriad options and explanations, I am somehow expected to believe that the religious tradition I grew up in - the large but clearly tribe-rooted Judeo-Christian tradion - is the only correct one, whilst the rest are all lies and myth. That there is indeed a God who was inordinately fond of a tiny tribe in the desert, and these billions of other people in the world who don't think so are misled or worse. I don't buy it. I think beyond their moral, ethical, and cultural relevance, religion - including the one most common in this part of the world - is nothing more than stories, and frequently fictious ones for a limited audience. Mythos laced with morality.
In other words, I've as much reason to believe in God as I do in the Force. Although of course, science has found no evidence for midichlorians either.
"In this case, God would be a lot simpler than a lot of the physics we have pulled out of our ass to explain the world, just remember that ;)"
Hardly. God is an excuse, not an explanation. It's passing the buck to a poorly (or perhaps I should say convieniently poorly) defined supernatural entity which itself needs even more explanation than the natural world it supposedly explains. More importantly, the explanation(s) for God and his actions are confined to (a particular) human culture (along with a whole hell of a lot of other explanations for the same things from cultures all over the world, many of which don't even involve god(s)), wheras the explanations of science are based on inference and experiment of the natural world, subject to provability and falsification. Modern physics is built around explanations difficult for anyone to comprehend but which are nonetheless extremely accurate and reproducible. Physics was not pulled out of anyones ass. Can't say the same for God.
Paris == YES, therefore !Paris == NO. Neither God or !God is proveable, which is a different sort of answer entirely.
However in cases like that one generally resorts to Occam's razor, which says that all things being equal we should work on the assumption that the simpler explanation is the correct one. The simpler assumption in this case is that since Humans have always been ignorant about a great many things (a fact if there ever was one), and have a long history of coming up with supernatural explanations for just about all of them (and all of which have been disproven and replaced where science and technology had advanced to the point that they could be studied), then the patently supernatural God probably falls in this category.
So, the music industry is succumbing to the inevitable. It's not really a big deal - music will still be made, and musicians will still be able to make money by performing live.
The bigger issue is that the same things that made the music industry unprofitable are already starting to make the TV and Video industries unprofitable. Ad-skipping PVRs are gutting television's revenue stream as fast as they are sold, and file-sharing is slowly making inroads on any recorded video. But unlike music, there is no "live performance" option, local content is largely irrelevant, and real costs are much higher.
The situation for the withered book and publishing industry is even more dire. The inavailability of a screen comfortable to read off of is all that stands between it and its total collapse.
The point is this - the notoriously rotten music industry may be down for now, but they are not alone in their troubles. Their ultimate fate will not be sealed until the greater "content" industry either gains control over the distribution of their works once and for all, or loses it entirely and is reduced to patronage and selling their content at costs comparable to copying it yourself.
This'll make it easier for the neighborhood kids to climb to the top and electrocute themselves. I smell a lawsuit.
I've heard rumors about 10.1.6, so that's not entirely true. Presumably the usual mix of bug fixes and driver additions.
And semanticly, I'm sure there will be plenty of free updates beyond 10.2 (such as 10.2.1).
The idea that Digital Is Superior to analog technologies has been badly overblown, and ultimately I think people will realize this with film (comparing 70mm to digital's piddling resolution should do the trick). Digital's advantage comes from it being reliable, flexible, and (relatively) insanely simple to create, edit, copy, and distribute.
Celluloid film copies are fragile and expensive to make, and contribute to high cost at the theater. To save money, they are designed to be used over time - a print will be shipped around between theaters - which is why we have staggered releases worldwide, which is why we have DVD region codes, which is why we have limited numbers of screens to show on, which is why we have many people in one theater when a smaller theater could work as well or better. And so forth.
Point is, the money saved on distribution alone could allow higher profit margins to BOTH studios and theaters. Factoring in other factors (such as how movies make most of their money in the first weekend, but the number of screens is limited by prints made), it could be a lot more. The big caveat is that a cheap distribution process could help independent films way more than the major studios, thus posing a threat to their control over the industry.
P.S. There was a MEMS article a few days ago which directly relates to this topic. Digital projectors could be much cheaper and higher resolution than they are.
Contrary to popular perception, the primary problem with DivX support on macs is not lack of the proper codecs. There are actually three different DivX codecs for mac (the 3ivx, DivX, and ffmpeg projects - however windows media audio, which some files use, is only indirectly supported via DivX doctor). The real problem is quicktime's inability to read AVI files with variable bitrate audio encoded into them (vbr support was not part of the original official spec, and microsoft has since declared the format "obsolete" in favor of windows media). This has been a problem with quicktime for years, and they STILL haven't fixed it in QT6 preview, despite rumors to the contrary. The only solution is to extract the audio and video tracks and stick them together in quicktime format, using one of a variety of tools (see the sites above). DivX.com claims to have come up with an elegant hack around the issue, but they have yet to release it. Video LAN client claims to be able to play back DivX avis without doctoring, but doesn't work well at all yet.
The good news is you can play back just about any DivX file out there. The bad news is you're going to have to do a little more work than just downloading Quicktime and expecting it to play - You have to go get and install the DivX codecs yourself, and turn all your DivX AVIs into MOVs with the proper tools. I can only assume the Quicktime crew could have fixed this vbr AVI problem if they wanted to a long time ago, and possibly did - but for undisclosed reasons, they choose not to or aren't allowed to release or work on it.
I don't know that much about it. Audio and Video are constrained to use only a few different compression algorithms (the decompressors on most DVD players are hardware not software). As for the menu format, I'm not sure what it is, but most likely nobody's bothered to make a "ripping" program for it because then what would you do with it? With the possible exceptions of Quicktime/MPEG 4 or flash or maybe SMIL, there's no standard multimedia format that can handle that kind of functionality, at least not exactly. But you could do something like it. I think MPEG4 will be sufficiently flexible.
Data on a disk is of course no different from data on a drive (Apple's DVD player software can play DVDs stored on the drive, for one).
True. I knew that all 4 colors weren't set, just didn't mention it because pretty much all subtitles should be using the clear, and without a black (or rather high-contrast) border they're usually impossible to read at some point during the show. In any case, it's very limiting, and tends to produce aliased text that clashes with the video.
I didn't know they could appear anywhere on the screen. I've never seen them outside the bottom strip, myself, even when translating signs. I suppose that just means they don't usually bother.
DVD has always been light on capacity (and certain features could have been implemented better). In particular, one of the big advantages to DVD over VHS is being able to use multiple scriptable audio and text tracks, thus allowing you to subtitle and/or overdub for multiple languages. Not something we think of much here in the US, but in China/Taiwan, pretty much every release should have Mandarin, Cantonese, English, and if necessary whatever language it was originally recorded in. At least. The problem is even worse in Europe because with so many languages to cover, they're forced to skimp on audio and video quality, to say nothing of the bells and whistles we're accustomed to here. The "subtitle" tracks are not text but actually pictures of text to accomodate any font, but are limited to only four colors (two of which are are black and clear) and only to a certain sector of the screen. And there's no way to use post-press modifications(such as fan translations not available on the original).
Beyond that, DVD quality is way below that of HDTV (not that there's much of that yet). So, we really could use more space - a LOT more (FMDs and FMCs sounded promising). And a much more flexible format (allowing simple outside scripting and track replacement/overlays as well as modern compression algorithms and file formats like MPEG-4) with smarter options (like a real UTF-8 text track coupled to an on-disk vector-type font library, and full-color compressed RGB-alpha sprite/video overlay tracks). But even a 10% or so increase in capacity could make a big difference in much of the world.
In order for the bacteria to eat their fuel and ammo it has to get to it first, and its' growth can't be limited by other factors. The former would keep them from eating all those self-contained, sealed bullets, and the latter would keep them from eating fuel in the tank.
Degrading stuff out in the open is another matter. Coatings, lubricants, seals, etc. Asphalt roads would be a good target (In theory an environmentalist's dream too - except it probably means more gas-guzzling off-roaders) as would lubrication oils. But there are simple ways around this with synthetic lubricants and alternative fuels.
People have attempted to use genetically engineered bugs to clean up oil spills before. What they found is that these GE bugs don't perform any better than the naturally occurring organisms already there. In fact, they seem to do worse, probably because a bacterial monoculture is less capable than the complex natural polyculture.
All you need to get bugs to eat an oil spill is fertilizer and time. That's pretty much it.
Tivo raises a whole host of problems for the existing revenue scheme for television of all kinds. Most of the problems (related to ignoring advertising) can be made up for in other ways (i.e. charging money). But the hardest to address is that people who only watch what they've set their Tivo to record aren't catching on to new shows nearly as much!
Which is why the option to record suggested programs on Tivo is actually the most important one. And the one that would be co-opted by people pushing their new shows. As Tivos become more widespread expect to see more of this.