As usual, Slashdot is a source of misinformation for people who do not read the comments. The argument is that these films were actually shot with 1.33:1 aspect ratio, and then cut down to widescreen for the cinema (whether anything is lost in this process is a matter of definition - the viewfinder on the camera will mark what is visible when cut, so the director is fully aware when he chooses his shots).
When these movies are transfered to 4:3 it is done by expanding the image, not pan-and-scan. The lawsuit is because MGM claimed the opposite - that information was lost. (Perhaps "see it as intended" would have been a better pitch.)
If we're not talking about pro applications like Shake or Maya, I can think of exactly one thing that requires a control-click. And I'm fairly certain that it's not something most people use very often.
Good thing you back on the flame, or it would have been time to hammer a little perspective into you. Anyone who will get upset about a consumer electronics device needs serious help (and that includes the apple fanboys).
But the fact remains that the software for the H300 series sucks balls. I could have written a better interface with my hands tied behind my back: and sure, you learn which buttons to use after a while, but it simply makes for an inferior user experience. For a geek like me it isn't a big deal, but I would recommend an iPod over this device for most users (who won't have much value of USB host or playing Vorbis anyways).
I have an H320, and it certainly has all the features one might ask for, but compared to the iPod is certainly also full of usability annoyances. While the iPod uses a single, easy to navigate menu structure, the iRiver has a bunch of buttons and things have to be accessed by completely illogical button choices.
For example: Want to change the shuffle and repeat mode? You have to learn to press the record button while playing (not kidding). And you have to learn that "Directory" means shuffle all the tracks in the directory, and "Directory All" means shuffle all the tracks and repeat (sound logical - there is another icon for repeat, only used when you aren't shuffling!). And with six shuffle modes, not a single one is shuffle BETWEEN directories, the natural choice for those of us who like to hear whole albums!
Want to access the menu to change mode to radio, recording, photo, etc? You now have to know to hold down the same record button. Think you can view a photo file you find while navigating music? No, you have to go to photo navigator and find the file again. There is a button called A-B which is used for segment repeat (a rather obscure function to deserve it's own button): to change equalizer settings you need to know to hold this down while playing. Otherwise, it is used to access menus in the file browser, change the seek mode for FM radio, etc etc. The list goes on and on.
My H320 is a great piece of hardware, but I had no idea when I bought it that the software could be so shoddy. The only thing to do is really to wait for the rockbox port to be finished...
Skype uses other users as proxies to allow people to talk even when both parties are behind a NAT/firewall that doesn't allow incoming connections. The reason you are seeing those connections to strange places is probably that you are being used as a proxy for somebody located there. Conversations are end-to-end encrypted, so it should not be possible for the proxy to intercept the discussion (I say should because I have not reviewed there security, and I have questions about how well there distributed index system could stand up to MITM attacks).
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better if it was a standardized open system, but in this case you are just being paranoid.
Since this is already being moderated up, I want to note that poster is wrong.
The system that the grandparent describes is based on VASCO "Digipass" devices, that work just like the RSA secureid tokens, only that they also support PINs and challenge/response authentication. That means that if everything is done correctly (which I can't swear to) these tokens, which SEB have been using for more than five years, are considerably more secure than the normal RSA SecureID.
Basically (very simplified) your normal SecureID will create a checksum from a secret and the current time, so the server can verify that person logging in is holding the token at this time. The Digipass, on the other hand, creates a checksum of the secret, the time, and the challenge from the server. This verifies that the person logging in has access to the token at this time, and created a checksum for this particular log in. And the fact that it also requires a personalized PIN to access the device means that stealing it will do you little good.
Moore's law says that the speed of processors should double every 18 months. At that rate, 24% is the increase in speed of a little more than 5 months.
This is not necessarily true- if they never distribute the software, they are under no obligations to share any changes that they made to the software. You can modify and use GPL'd software to your hearts content without sharing a thing. The only time you are obligated to make any changes you have made to the code available to someone else is if you give them a copy of the software.
Except that this argument doesn't hold because:
a) They end up with a version that cannot be distributed. This may work fine for a while, but if you actually use a piece of software within a company you will wish to give it to consultants, freelancers, etc.
b) If you do this, your changes will not make it back to the public tree. So you will need to put in labor to port your changes into every new version, or backport the bug fixes from the public tree to your own. Practice has shown us that this is simply not worth it.
. If company A hires me to write some software for them that gives them a competitive advantage why would they want to release it as open source? Company A footed the bill for development, so they reap the rewards. What is the arugment for releasing the software as open source so that competitors B, C, etc... get to use the software for free?
The point is that you are in the business of maximizing the returns for your stockholders, not trying to punish the stockholders of your competitors. If you can increase the profitability of the entire sector by 20%, you have done a better job then if you increase your market share by 10%.
So yes, your competitors get reap the rewards of your work, but because you released it under the GPL, you will get paid back by reaping the rewards of their additions, modifications, and bugfixes. As has been seen by many companies, the advantage of having the in-house knowledge and the software developed around your needs, more than compensates you for the extra expense of having the started it.
That everybody else benefits as well does not dilute your benefit. Stockholders are not paid in percentage points!
The very definition of a country means that some people end up "footing the bill" for others less fortunate than them.
No, the very definition of government is that people get together to guarantee eachother their fundamental freedoms. What you describe, that those who work harder should "foot the bill" for those complain louder, is called looting and mooching.
It seems reasonable to fund 911 services per phone number. It seems more fair and visible than taxing everyone's wage income by another $3 per year. I think this kind of use fee is fair and reasonable and should be encouraged because it does bring visibility to real expenses.
You might think it makes things more clear for this specific item, but many such taxes make it much more difficult to tell exactly how much tax you are actually paying. If you know exactly how much tax you are paying, and it all enters the government the same way, you can easily find out how much you pay for submarines, just find the percentage of the national budget spent on them an multiply.
And the bigger problem remains. As soon as government starts getting its icy fingers involved in micromanaging and drawing revenue from particular things, it begins to hinder progress. There is no longer something as simple as a single telephone system, there are many ways of speaking remotely, and some of them do not involve payments on which fees can readily applied.
local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service.
Almost everybody agrees that 911 service is necessary, but it is far from obvious why this cannot be paid for by properly visible government spending, rather then trying to sneak it in like a backdoor tax on a specific service. Governments love to add little taxes here and there so as to make it opaque how much they are actually spending, leading a government with it's fingers everywhere hindering progress with useless regulation aimed only at preserving dying industries and the revenue government derives from them. Which is exactly what our "progressive" friend is saying should happen to VoIP.
As for Universal Service, give me a break. People who live in rural areas don't pay special taxes so that I can get clean air, silence, and nice natural surroundings in the middle of the city. Why the hell should they? After all I chose to live here, which it's upsides (like 8 megabit broadband to the apartment) and its downsides. The same goes for people who want to live in rural areas: they chose to live where they do, and that means taking the benefits as well as the consquences, instead of crying that others should have to pay for your luxuries.
Perhaps one day when I am older I will begin to understand how a human mind can work that calls itself progressive, and then attacks progress because it might get in the way large governments clectrocractic systems. I certainly don't now...
What the article does not point out is why this something important. For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.
Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!
I am not the one who drew up the semantic separation between belief and reasoned conviction: the religious people are. I have never run into anybody who could honestly claim a reasoned conviction in the existance of a god: rather it always ends up coming down to "Belief" with a capital B, which stands for some kind of conviction that cannot be attained or questioned with reason.
I do not believe in any god in exactly the same manner as I do not believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, a flat earth, or that the moon is made of cheese. I am convinced that I had Kebab for dinner because I remember it and I can still taste the sauce, but neither of those things is proof positive. To claim that it is necessarily dogmatic to be convinced to about something leads to a reality where you have to claim agnostism to every fact, which is hopeless.// oskar
No "atheist" means "not a believer", rather than, as you claim, "a believer in nothing". An atheist rejects the idea of religious belief entirely, and judges the world according to reason rather than dogma.
If anybody wants a good discussion of this, they should read this remarkable interview with Douglas Adams (which is also printed in "A Salmon of Doubt").
For an atheist belief does not enter into the picture. If asked whether there is a god, he will most probably answer, as Adams does, that he is convinced that there isn't. It requires neither belief, faith, nor dogma to be convinced about something you cannot know for sure (you cannot know ANYTHING for sure).
Come on, you can't just search for somebody with Google image and assume that it is them. Did you think the woman in the second picture was him as well?
In fact, google miss-identified the pictures in the source page (names were above the pictures, google assumes they are under.)
This is the real picture of Brandon Routh on that page.
The saddest thing is that I am a big fan of Jon Stewart - but I don't think that ra-ra-ra is the right way to be a fan of anybody. The moderation system here has pretty much gone from broken to pathetic.
What point is that? That a supposed real news show like crossfire should be held to a real journalistic standard? Like Stewart said, how can you compare Crossfire with the DS? The daily show is a comedy show, and if he doesn't feel like making fun of Kerry then so what.
The point that complaining and telling people off is not in any way constructive.
Stewart is in a position where he knows he has a lot of viewers, and that many of them have him as their main source for news and world events. If he really cared about this problem, and wanted to be constructive in helping solve it rather than just attacking others, he has the perfect platform. He doesn't have to stop being funny in order to start asking his guests the real questions: he is smart enough to pull off both.
But Stewart doesn't want to do that. Instead he makes himself impervious to criticism with the cover-all answer that his show does not purport to be serious, and the same time he attacks the media. I'm glad that he is saying these things, but I would be happier if he was using his position to do something about them. The fact that he doesn't do this undermines his point.
Now, I don't know if that was exactly what Carlson wanted to say, or if he was just being defensive, so perhaps this thread is mistitled, but all the same I think point stands.
Yes, Stewart only runs a comedy show, but if he is so serious about the media asking the candidates real questions, why did he make his Kerry interview so lame and softballish? He had the opportunity to really ask, not the set-up-and-trap-em type questions, but to make him say clearly all the things they want to avoid.
I guess he thought it was unfair when Bush obviously wasn't showing, or he was just afraid to scare off political guests. But I still think he could have been tougher. I tuned into that episode hoping to see Stewart using his unique position to cut through some of the bullshit, but he didn't even try.
So while I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, I do think that his treatment of Kerry really does undermine his point: comedy show or not.
History will be the judge, but I think if you rolled back the clock to the eighties, you would say exactly the same thing about technologies that we take for granted now, as standards.
The difference is, though, that except with regards to patents, those protocols were open and implementable by anyone. (In fact, I would imply that shakeout you period you discuss is largely the time it takes for patents to expire). The situation is different today, with closed, encrypted protocols that change by day for auto-updating clients, and for which you are likely to get prosecuted if you reverse engineer.
In the that period it was largely a question of waiting to see who won: but now, when AOL and Microsoft fight over whose proprietary, encrypted, closed, DMCA-guarded network protocol becomes dominant, it is all AvP: Whoever wins, we lose. And the winner is no more a standard becuase it won (for one thing, it will keep changing to keep other implementations away).
I think it is a frightening thing, but very much worth noting, that since the Internet left academia in the early ninetees, not a single new protocol or application has a widely accepted standard. Every single new application that has come along since then has been a hodge-podge of incompatible solutions.
Case in point:
IM - ICQ came first with a proprietary protocol, similiar applications were made AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft all using incompatible, opaque protocols. Industry talk of standardising is a joke, and free software standards like Jabber have no market share to speak of.
Audio: Real, WMV, AAC, etc etc all fighting for acceptance. The only existing standard is MP3, but that is only because it was used by hobyist copiers and never got any corporate attention until it was entrenched.
Video: How many times have you seen this: "Please choose video format: Real - Quicktime - Windows Media". I wonder how much it costs web publishers extra to encode everything in three different codecs, and when the end result is still that you are tied to proprietary players in Windows (and maybe Mac).
Voip: At least here there is some effort, and we have a whole host of different standards, H323 and SIP etc etc. But mostly different companies services are incompatible, and most users use proprietary game chatting software, or Skype.
P2P: Lots of different vendors developing incompatible programs with as opaque and complicated protocols as possible.
Vector animations: Flash...
The only applications for which we have standardized protocols, email, the web, ftp, etc, are those that were around before the Internet became mainstream. I cannot think of a single credible counterexample. I think that is pretty safe to say that Internet standardization is not rare or difficult: it is dead!
Slashdot Mirror
As usual, Slashdot is a source of misinformation for people who do not read the comments. The argument is that these films were actually shot with 1.33:1 aspect ratio, and then cut down to widescreen for the cinema (whether anything is lost in this process is a matter of definition - the viewfinder on the camera will mark what is visible when cut, so the director is fully aware when he chooses his shots).
When these movies are transfered to 4:3 it is done by expanding the image, not pan-and-scan. The lawsuit is because MGM claimed the opposite - that information was lost. (Perhaps "see it as intended" would have been a better pitch.)
For a good illustration of this stuff, see here.
If we're not talking about pro applications like Shake or Maya, I can think of exactly one thing that requires a control-click. And I'm fairly certain that it's not something most people use very often.
Open link in new window / tab?
M. Joint Development Association.
Well, haven't we been asking what the consumer electronics companies have been smoking with regards digital distribution for some time?
I guess we have our answer...
Good thing you back on the flame, or it would have been time to hammer a little perspective into you. Anyone who will get upset about a consumer electronics device needs serious help (and that includes the apple fanboys).
But the fact remains that the software for the H300 series sucks balls. I could have written a better interface with my hands tied behind my back: and sure, you learn which buttons to use after a while, but it simply makes for an inferior user experience. For a geek like me it isn't a big deal, but I would recommend an iPod over this device for most users (who won't have much value of USB host or playing Vorbis anyways).
I have an H320, and it certainly has all the features one might ask for, but compared to the iPod is certainly also full of usability annoyances. While the iPod uses a single, easy to navigate menu structure, the iRiver has a bunch of buttons and things have to be accessed by completely illogical button choices.
For example: Want to change the shuffle and repeat mode? You have to learn to press the record button while playing (not kidding). And you have to learn that "Directory" means shuffle all the tracks in the directory, and "Directory All" means shuffle all the tracks and repeat (sound logical - there is another icon for repeat, only used when you aren't shuffling!). And with six shuffle modes, not a single one is shuffle BETWEEN directories, the natural choice for those of us who like to hear whole albums!
Want to access the menu to change mode to radio, recording, photo, etc? You now have to know to hold down the same record button. Think you can view a photo file you find while navigating music? No, you have to go to photo navigator and find the file again. There is a button called A-B which is used for segment repeat (a rather obscure function to deserve it's own button): to change equalizer settings you need to know to hold this down while playing. Otherwise, it is used to access menus in the file browser, change the seek mode for FM radio, etc etc. The list goes on and on.
My H320 is a great piece of hardware, but I had no idea when I bought it that the software could be so shoddy. The only thing to do is really to wait for the rockbox port to be finished...
Skype uses other users as proxies to allow people to talk even when both parties are behind a NAT/firewall that doesn't allow incoming connections. The reason you are seeing those connections to strange places is probably that you are being used as a proxy for somebody located there. Conversations are end-to-end encrypted, so it should not be possible for the proxy to intercept the discussion (I say should because I have not reviewed there security, and I have questions about how well there distributed index system could stand up to MITM attacks).
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better if it was a standardized open system, but in this case you are just being paranoid.
Since this is already being moderated up, I want to note that poster is wrong.
The system that the grandparent describes is based on VASCO "Digipass" devices, that work just like the RSA secureid tokens, only that they also support PINs and challenge/response authentication. That means that if everything is done correctly (which I can't swear to) these tokens, which SEB have been using for more than five years, are considerably more secure than the normal RSA SecureID.
Basically (very simplified) your normal SecureID will create a checksum from a secret and the current time, so the server can verify that person logging in is holding the token at this time. The Digipass, on the other hand, creates a checksum of the secret, the time, and the challenge from the server. This verifies that the person logging in has access to the token at this time, and created a checksum for this particular log in. And the fact that it also requires a personalized PIN to access the device means that stealing it will do you little good.
Moore's law says that the speed of processors should double every 18 months. At that rate, 24% is the increase in speed of a little more than 5 months.
This is not necessarily true- if they never distribute the software, they are under no obligations to share any changes that they made to the software. You can modify and use GPL'd software to your hearts content without sharing a thing. The only time you are obligated to make any changes you have made to the code available to someone else is if you give them a copy of the software.
Except that this argument doesn't hold because:
a) They end up with a version that cannot be distributed. This may work fine for a while, but if you actually use a piece of software within a company you will wish to give it to consultants, freelancers, etc.
b) If you do this, your changes will not make it back to the public tree. So you will need to put in labor to port your changes into every new version, or backport the bug fixes from the public tree to your own. Practice has shown us that this is simply not worth it.
. If company A hires me to write some software for them that gives them a competitive advantage why would they want to release it as open source? Company A footed the bill for development, so they reap the rewards. What is the arugment for releasing the software as open source so that competitors B, C, etc... get to use the software for free?
The point is that you are in the business of maximizing the returns for your stockholders, not trying to punish the stockholders of your competitors. If you can increase the profitability of the entire sector by 20%, you have done a better job then if you increase your market share by 10%.
So yes, your competitors get reap the rewards of your work, but because you released it under the GPL, you will get paid back by reaping the rewards of their additions, modifications, and bugfixes. As has been seen by many companies, the advantage of having the in-house knowledge and the software developed around your needs, more than compensates you for the extra expense of having the started it.
That everybody else benefits as well does not dilute your benefit. Stockholders are not paid in percentage points!
The very definition of a country means that some people end up "footing the bill" for others less fortunate than them.
No, the very definition of government is that people get together to guarantee eachother their fundamental freedoms. What you describe, that those who work harder should "foot the bill" for those complain louder, is called looting and mooching.
It seems reasonable to fund 911 services per phone number. It seems more fair and visible than taxing everyone's wage income by another $3 per year. I think this kind of use fee is fair and reasonable and should be encouraged because it does bring visibility to real expenses.
You might think it makes things more clear for this specific item, but many such taxes make it much more difficult to tell exactly how much tax you are actually paying. If you know exactly how much tax you are paying, and it all enters the government the same way, you can easily find out how much you pay for submarines, just find the percentage of the national budget spent on them an multiply.
And the bigger problem remains. As soon as government starts getting its icy fingers involved in micromanaging and drawing revenue from particular things, it begins to hinder progress. There is no longer something as simple as a single telephone system, there are many ways of speaking remotely, and some of them do not involve payments on which fees can readily applied.
local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service.
Almost everybody agrees that 911 service is necessary, but it is far from obvious why this cannot be paid for by properly visible government spending, rather then trying to sneak it in like a backdoor tax on a specific service. Governments love to add little taxes here and there so as to make it opaque how much they are actually spending, leading a government with it's fingers everywhere hindering progress with useless regulation aimed only at preserving dying industries and the revenue government derives from them. Which is exactly what our "progressive" friend is saying should happen to VoIP.
As for Universal Service, give me a break. People who live in rural areas don't pay special taxes so that I can get clean air, silence, and nice natural surroundings in the middle of the city. Why the hell should they? After all I chose to live here, which it's upsides (like 8 megabit broadband to the apartment) and its downsides. The same goes for people who want to live in rural areas: they chose to live where they do, and that means taking the benefits as well as the consquences, instead of crying that others should have to pay for your luxuries.
Perhaps one day when I am older I will begin to understand how a human mind can work that calls itself progressive, and then attacks progress because it might get in the way large governments clectrocractic systems. I certainly don't now...
Cmdr Taco's homepage was just Slashdotted! There is justice in the world!
What the article does not point out is why this something important. For just about forever google's store has been coverging on 2**32 documents. Some people have speculated that Google simply could not update their 100,000+ servers with a new system that allowed more. Apparently they have now done the necessary architecture changes to allow for identifying documents by 64 bit (or more identifiers) and back in the business of making their search for comprehensive.
Good timing to conincide with MSN attempt to start a new searchengine too!
I am not the one who drew up the semantic separation between belief and reasoned conviction: the religious people are. I have never run into anybody who could honestly claim a reasoned conviction in the existance of a god: rather it always ends up coming down to "Belief" with a capital B, which stands for some kind of conviction that cannot be attained or questioned with reason.
I do not believe in any god in exactly the same manner as I do not believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, a flat earth, or that the moon is made of cheese. I am convinced that I had Kebab for dinner because I remember it and I can still taste the sauce, but neither of those things is proof positive. To claim that it is necessarily dogmatic to be convinced to about something leads to a reality where you have to claim agnostism to every fact, which is hopeless.
No "atheist" means "not a believer", rather than, as you claim, "a believer in nothing". An atheist rejects the idea of religious belief entirely, and judges the world according to reason rather than dogma.
If anybody wants a good discussion of this, they should read this remarkable interview with Douglas Adams (which is also printed in "A Salmon of Doubt").
For an atheist belief does not enter into the picture. If asked whether there is a god, he will most probably answer, as Adams does, that he is convinced that there isn't. It requires neither belief, faith, nor dogma to be convinced about something you cannot know for sure (you cannot know ANYTHING for sure).
Come on, you can't just search for somebody with Google image and assume that it is them. Did you think the woman in the second picture was him as well?
In fact, google miss-identified the pictures in the source page (names were above the pictures, google assumes they are under.)
This is the real picture of Brandon Routh on that page.
The saddest thing is that I am a big fan of Jon Stewart - but I don't think that ra-ra-ra is the right way to be a fan of anybody. The moderation system here has pretty much gone from broken to pathetic.
What point is that? That a supposed real news show like crossfire should be held to a real journalistic standard? Like Stewart said, how can you compare Crossfire with the DS? The daily show is a comedy show, and if he doesn't feel like making fun of Kerry then so what.
The point that complaining and telling people off is not in any way constructive.
Stewart is in a position where he knows he has a lot of viewers, and that many of them have him as their main source for news and world events. If he really cared about this problem, and wanted to be constructive in helping solve it rather than just attacking others, he has the perfect platform. He doesn't have to stop being funny in order to start asking his guests the real questions: he is smart enough to pull off both.
But Stewart doesn't want to do that. Instead he makes himself impervious to criticism with the cover-all answer that his show does not purport to be serious, and the same time he attacks the media. I'm glad that he is saying these things, but I would be happier if he was using his position to do something about them. The fact that he doesn't do this undermines his point.
Now, I don't know if that was exactly what Carlson wanted to say, or if he was just being defensive, so perhaps this thread is mistitled, but all the same I think point stands.
Yes, Stewart only runs a comedy show, but if he is so serious about the media asking the candidates real questions, why did he make his Kerry interview so lame and softballish? He had the opportunity to really ask, not the set-up-and-trap-em type questions, but to make him say clearly all the things they want to avoid.
I guess he thought it was unfair when Bush obviously wasn't showing, or he was just afraid to scare off political guests. But I still think he could have been tougher. I tuned into that episode hoping to see Stewart using his unique position to cut through some of the bullshit, but he didn't even try.
So while I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, I do think that his treatment of Kerry really does undermine his point: comedy show or not.
History will be the judge, but I think if you rolled back the clock to the eighties, you would say exactly the same thing about technologies that we take for granted now, as standards.
The difference is, though, that except with regards to patents, those protocols were open and implementable by anyone. (In fact, I would imply that shakeout you period you discuss is largely the time it takes for patents to expire). The situation is different today, with closed, encrypted protocols that change by day for auto-updating clients, and for which you are likely to get prosecuted if you reverse engineer.
In the that period it was largely a question of waiting to see who won: but now, when AOL and Microsoft fight over whose proprietary, encrypted, closed, DMCA-guarded network protocol becomes dominant, it is all AvP: Whoever wins, we lose. And the winner is no more a standard becuase it won (for one thing, it will keep changing to keep other implementations away).
I think it is a frightening thing, but very much worth noting, that since the Internet left academia in the early ninetees, not a single new protocol or application has a widely accepted standard. Every single new application that has come along since then has been a hodge-podge of incompatible solutions.
Case in point:
IM - ICQ came first with a proprietary protocol, similiar applications were made AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft all using incompatible, opaque protocols. Industry talk of standardising is a joke, and free software standards like Jabber have no market share to speak of.
Audio: Real, WMV, AAC, etc etc all fighting for acceptance. The only existing standard is MP3, but that is only because it was used by hobyist copiers and never got any corporate attention until it was entrenched.
Video: How many times have you seen this: "Please choose video format: Real - Quicktime - Windows Media". I wonder how much it costs web publishers extra to encode everything in three different codecs, and when the end result is still that you are tied to proprietary players in Windows (and maybe Mac).
Voip: At least here there is some effort, and we have a whole host of different standards, H323 and SIP etc etc. But mostly different companies services are incompatible, and most users use proprietary game chatting software, or Skype.
P2P: Lots of different vendors developing incompatible programs with as opaque and complicated protocols as possible.
Vector animations: Flash...
The only applications for which we have standardized protocols, email, the web, ftp, etc, are those that were around before the Internet became mainstream. I cannot think of a single credible counterexample. I think that is pretty safe to say that Internet standardization is not rare or difficult: it is dead!
My point is that I don't think that Bush would be able to write anything decent without tremendious help from others.
People said the same thing about Ronald Reagan, and yet since his presidency they have turned out to be completely wrong.
It does, but the remote does not have a display. However, the old remote from the 120 or 140 can be used if one needs a display.