"Since when are consumer protection laws forced speech? Are you against the warning labels on cigarettes also? How about the anal leakage warning on Olean products?"
There's a fine line between "warning" and "declaration." The products you mentioned that had genuine warning labels had real detrimental side effects.
On the other hand, labels on food that say "genetically modified" or "irradiated" are not warnings because there are no real detrimental side-effects to using these foods (or at least no claims of side-effects that can hold water). Forcing these groups to put declarations on their products only serves one purpose: to breed unfounded prejudice against those labeled products.
Now, I don't feel that folks who sell genetically modified and/or irradiated food should be able to hide what they do to their food, because there are people who want to make a political choice (or, in the case of irradiated food, they're just stupid*). However, public disclosure is a far way away from putting a neon label that's essentially designed to bias those that would not otherwise care.
*You know you're just going to take it home and microwave it anyway!
"Why are we bitching at the Democrats? Oh, because it was on slashdot and the genius editor posted it "from the compromising-freedom dept","
Um... it is a compromise. The legislation says "thou shalt label thy copy protection schemes," not "thou shalt not use copy protection schemes that deprive consumers of their fair use rights."
"Bill Duxbury says, "At that point you're taking this beautiful high resolution image and you're scrunching it down so that your TV can view it in a standard format which is a waste.""
Sorry, but I'm not an audiophile. To be honest, HDTV doesn't do a damn thing for me. What's the point of high-resolution pictures if it's still the same old "reality television" crap as always? HD crap is still crap, just more expensive.
What has me drooling on the idea of getting a digital tuner is the SDTV offerings. Over the air, I'm able to get two PBS stations pretty well, and the concept of turning those two into four or six seriously piques my interest. And even then (especially because it's SDTV), I have no qualms against plugging that tuner into the S-video or component inputs on my "old" TV, despite what the Best Buy guy says about the "waste."
Of course, I suppose you can't expect anything different from a Best Buy employee. Heck, I even have more respect for Radio Shack employees than Best Buy.
"Nintendo has LOST the home war. They will soon lose the portable war if they don't come up with something better than cartridges."
Nah, they're still in the fight. If anything, Microsoft is losing the home war.
Besides, the GameCube's big selling point right now (other than its library, that is) is its ability to tie in with the Game Boy Advance. PlayStation 2 may be outselling GameCubes, but GBAs are outselling PS2s by a comfortable margin.
Bandai just announced that the WonderSwan Color has officially joined the long, long list of handheld platforms bitch-slapped by Nintendo. And "bitch-slap" may be too mild a term.
When all is said and done, technology doesn't count as much as games. If technology were all that mattered, the 2600 would have died with the advent of ColecoVision and Intellivision, we would have all been saying "Zelda who?" as we played our Sega Master Systems, and Square would have never jumped ship to side with Sony.
"ETimes about this; a total "optical game" package costs even after royalty for about $4-$7 US. A cart costs up to $15 to produce."
Cart storage capacities go up without requiring a new media interface, an advantage cartridges have over optical media. That's why cart production prices don't go down the same way as optical media. Comparing the two is like comparing the prices of CD-Rs and RAM. Super Mario 64 was on a 64 Mbit cartridge, Majora's Mask was 256 Mbit, and I recall hearing of a 512 Mbit N64 cartridge. Tiny GBA cartridges started at 32 Mbit and are already hovering around 128 Mbit (if they aren't there already).
Will you still be jumping up and down about the wonders of optical media once cartridge capacities start to outstrip them? Between the constant effort to squeeze more transistors on a chip and the way it takes several years for a new optical standard to get out of the gate, I don't see the size gap between the two lasting much longer.
"The limitation of D-VHS in recording is that you're depending on a tuner to give you signals. 8VSB-broadcast-only (OTA or "over the air") tuners may never be DRM-crippled by the proposed broadcast flag,"
JVC Announces Copy Protection System for Digital VHS; Company to Issue Technical Specifications for Prerecorded D-VHS Video Content
WAYNE, N.J., April 10/PRNewswire/ -- Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC) has developed a new copyright protection system for prerecorded D-VHS content as well as in-home analog and digital recording. The superior copyright protection feature will be included within the D-VHS standard.
(...)
The system will include Intel's recently announced HDCP* (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) digital connection for both standard and high definition digital viewing experiences. The Intel system offers protection for uncompressed digital signals (baseband signal) over DVI* (digital visual interface). Additionally, the system will include several IEEE1394 compatible technologies including DV*, DTCP* (Digital Transmission Content Protection) and a JVC proprietary RDA (Related Device Authentication) System to react according to source obligations.
Since JVC is the one responsible for the D-VHS standard to begin with, I now consider D-VHS to be dead in the water as far as DRM is concerned.
"HDTV's still do not have digital outputs, and VCR's & DVD's do not have completely digital output yet."
You're funny. I mean, really. You expect this to be "straightened out?"
Let me spell it out for you:
HDTV's will have digital inputs. Only. HD VC"R"'s and DVD's will have digital inputs. Only. These digital connections will be designed in such a way that you can only view (not "record") what the media companies deign to let you view or record. Right now it seems i.Link will be the default digital standard.
"Right on the money. I'm sorry, but if you don't shower and wear Pokemon t-shirts, you are going to be intimate with the inner workings of public toiletry."
So I should shower before putting on my Pokemon t-shirts. Check!
"True, they didn't take some of the ridiculous college math courses that we nerds did. However they did get straight-As and took AP courses in the natural sciences, history, calculus, languages, etc. They were usually involved in some kind of varsity sport that had a low jock-factor (like tennis or soccer). While they were popular, they seemed to float above the social hierarchy, never taking part in the beatings or humiliation but never exactly seeking a nerd with whom to hang out. They generally got ridiculous scores on their SATs and went on to the Ivy League."
I think it depends on your viewpoint. I never really saw them as "smart" as much as "success oriented." They didn't get their grades because they enjoyed the materiel, they got them because they views their grades as some sort of status symbol (which is why they went off to ivy league schools). You'll also notice they came to school in business casual. They were in the "low-jock factor" sports because they "needed" extracurricular activities to put on their college applications.
And they weren't "floating above the heierarchy," they were just another social clique. They didn't really participate in either "the beatings" or "hanging out with nerds" because they were too busy showing off their GPAs to their "friends."
While I admit I only had one experience with an AP course (and an extremely negative one at that), from what I saw they were more memorization than learning. And ultimately the tests are on your memorization skills than anything else. Reminds me of MCSEs.
"They were popular because they weren't pretentious,"
They weren't "popular," at least outside their clique. The jock types left them alone because they could see the common thread: the focus on intra-clique competition . We're scorned by both groups (each in their own way) because of our ambivalence about competition (or at least about their competitions). And it wasn't because of our grades, it was because of how easily we got those grades.
"they knew how to talk to somebody without scaring or boring the shit out of them."
Same with the jocks. But they both looked down their noses at those that were "different" just the same.
"nerds feel it necessary to lord their supposedly superior intellect over others"
You're confusing intellectuals with intellectual elitists. Big difference. Genuine intellectuals are able to equate "showing off" with "stuffed into a locker."
Think about it: How many true intellectuals do you know of that were participating members of the NHS?
"And don't give me that innocence crap, you KNOW you're guilty of looking down your nose at whomever because you thought you were smarter than they...."
Um, no. I may have been able to ace math and history tests in my sleep, but the "ditzy" girls I always ended up helping with their homework had the whole social interaction thing figured out. I could never see tutoring as anything but a symbiotic relationship. Heck, she was even able to admit her faults to others (she asked for help, didn't she?).
I wouldn't hold my breath about TiVo being everything you always loved about it. I've looked at HDTV hardware just to see what's out there now, and already newer equipment has DRM built-in.
For example, the only thing you can record HD broadcasts on right now (short of a PC with a tuner card) is a digital VCR. It has all sorts of bells and whistles, like being able to record 24 hours of standard resolution video on one tape. They'll set you back $1000 or so right now. But they won't let you record things that don't "want" to be recorded. You can't even record from one D-VCR to another, at least not without having to use old analog connections (MiniDisc, anyone?)
And I wouldn't hold my breath for HD-DVD recorders, either. We've already seen what the DVD Consortium has done with the original medium. Do you actually expect the new format to be more consumer-friendly than the current one?
At this time, I don't see an HD TiVo coming out that won't be crippled by DRM. If nothing else the manufacturers of the tuner hardware for the boxes won't be allowed (*cough* DMCA *cough*) to make DRM-free chips.
I'm considering looking for a used, older HDTV receiver. It may or may not be able to view DRM-protected broadcasts, but at the very least I won't be supporting the DRM standards. Of course, I'm a loon that refuses to own a DVD player...
"Yet the HDTV doesn't have PIP (I do)"
PiP is accomplished by putting two separate tuners in a TV. You want HD PiP? Buy two HD tuners.
"It doesn't have Channel naming (I don't use that, but oh well;)"
They're digital. They name themselves. Heck, even analog stations do that nowadays (Guide+, from the folks that brought you VCR+).
"I doesn't have Firewire/i.Link (something that I'm going to want in an HDTV)."
That's exactly what you want to avoid! How do you think they're able to enforce DRM to begin with? Super VGA and component video are standards that are already set in stone, but HDTV-over-1394 is still new and amorphous and what the DRM is aiming for. That crippled digital VCR I was talking about? The crippling is accomplished by having only one digital input: 1394.
"I'm worried that the FTC is going to change standards soon,"
I don't think they will. I don't believe there's anything else that needs to be changed for DRM. DRM is more easily enforced through connections and wires than through the radio spectrum.
"when they'll move adoption up to 2009 next,"
Congressman Tauzin, (in)famous for his support of "deregulating" DSL, is pushing to have 2006 written in stone (if he hasn't gotten it already).
" tvs these days... are little more than a monitor,"
A decent VHF/UHF receiver (especially with stereo sound) is a heck of a lot more than what you're implying. Saying that a TV should cost the same as a monitor of equal quality is like saying a 802.11b NIC should cost as much as a FastEthernet one ("But the wired LAN is faster!"). Hell, look how much a decent AM/FM tuner can set you back.
A monitor doesn't need to worry about that, all its signals are carried on separate physical wires, and all the signals that come over those wires are predictable. The monitor doesn't have to worry about finding the wires or making sure the wires don't overlap or anything beyond flinging electrons at phosphorous. On the other hand, a VHF/UHF tuner has a huge swath of the electromagnetic spectrum to grope around blindly through. And not only that, it has to find the right channel as well, not to broad and not too narrow. A little too wide can get you overlapping picture or sound, and a little too narrow can seriously degrade the quality. Hell, you can't even get something as "simple" as color unless everything is juuuust right.
"the sound and tuning is usually done seperately by a reciever."
No, the receiver decodes the signal. That's the easy part. It's the tuner that has to find the damn signal to begin with. It would be like the receiver groping around on the floor to find the right wire to plug in to itself.
The PSX got where it was because of the games, which is exactly why the Game Boy is in the lead. I'm tempted to say that all their success relies on Nintendo's decision not to make the N64 a CD-based system. Aside from battery life, size and price issues, the Game Boy is where it is today because of its library alone.
Beyond that, compared to the Genesis, the SNES was the technilogically superior platform.
Man... maintaing monopoly control not through extortion but by improving your product so that your customers continue to buy it... Why can't the Baby Bells and the cable companies pay more attention to Nintendo?
"I don't see why Sony... could make something with a 3 inch screen and mini DVD and integrated controls."
Because maybe Game Boy has been eating technilogically superior handhelds for breakfast for the better part of a decade now and Sony isn't dumb enough to spend all that R & D money on cannon fodder?
"I believe battery technology is where it would need to be for a unit like this as well."
This new Game Boy uses a Li-ion battery. What more do you want?
"I honestly don't know if that proposal is the best solution, but if it comes down to splitting the Bells versus local governments seizing control of the last mile...as a customer, I'd prefer the former over the latter."
We've already in the middle of former. AT&T and Bell were the same company, but the courts split them up between multiple local carriers and multiple long-distance carriers. Here's what's happened so far:
AT&T: "Hey, this long-distance stuff is great! Even with the new competition, we're still making money hand over fist! I'm glad I don't have to deal with money-losing local service any more!"
Baby Bells: "Damn! I want in on that long-distance stuff, too!"
Government: "Too bad. There was a reason we split you up."
Baby Bells: "Please?"
Government: "No."
Baby Bells: "Pretty please?"
Government: "No."
Baby Bells: "Fine. I'll just hold my breath and not upgrade anything, leaving the country using decades-old technology on the local loops. See if I care."
Government: "Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "UPGRADE!"
Baby Bells: "Only if you let us get in on the long-distance action. Alas, we're afraid that it's just too expensive otherwise..."
Government: "... Oh, alright. But on one condition: You have to let other businesses compete with you on the local loops. By leasing them your equipment."
Baby Bells: "Huh? What the heck are you smoking?"
Government: "Take it or leave it."
Baby Bells: "Fine. But we won't like it!"
(a few years pass)
Baby Bells: "This whole leasing business sucks ass. Why the hell do we have to let the competition use our stuff, anyway? The worst is that we have to do this crap with the new 'internet access' thing as well. Every time we upgrade the network, our competition gets access to the same upgraded network we do. To hell with it, we'll just not upgrade."
Government: "Europe is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "Canada is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "South Korea is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade now, dammit! Hell, you haven't even upgraded from the last time we had this argument!"
Baby Bells: "Only if you let us keep a monoply on the broadband services. Alas, we're afraid that it's just too expensive otherwise...
Government: "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? What part of 'Telecommunications Act of 1996' are you having trouble with?"
Baby Bells: "Oh, we know we need to be opening ourselves up to competition. And we're really trying, too! But do you think there's a way where we can open ourselves up to competition and... well... you know... not?"
Government: "I don't know... Will you really hold up your end of the bargain this time?"
And that's where we are today. The problem with the model you're suggesting is that the two monopoliess you'd end up with would still be corporations and still be beholden to shareholders more than their customers, and it's always more profitable for them to extort their customers than to cater to their customers' needs. One of the ventures will be more profitable than the other, and the loser will lie, cheat and steal until they're able to compete in the more profitable areas without relinquishing their existing monopolies. You can go ahead and split ILECs into hardware ownership and service providing corporations, but that division of functions between the two will be all but gone in thirty years, leaving us exactly where we started back in the 1960's: A corporation abusing it's monopoly powers in one field to stifle competition in another, with the ultimate losers being the customers.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's times like this I thank GOD I'm a a secret agent man."
Could be worse. You could be a sequined Asian man.
"Since when are consumer protection laws forced speech? Are you against the warning labels on cigarettes also? How about the anal leakage warning on Olean products?"
There's a fine line between "warning" and "declaration." The products you mentioned that had genuine warning labels had real detrimental side effects.
On the other hand, labels on food that say "genetically modified" or "irradiated" are not warnings because there are no real detrimental side-effects to using these foods (or at least no claims of side-effects that can hold water). Forcing these groups to put declarations on their products only serves one purpose: to breed unfounded prejudice against those labeled products.
Now, I don't feel that folks who sell genetically modified and/or irradiated food should be able to hide what they do to their food, because there are people who want to make a political choice (or, in the case of irradiated food, they're just stupid*). However, public disclosure is a far way away from putting a neon label that's essentially designed to bias those that would not otherwise care.
*You know you're just going to take it home and microwave it anyway!
"This technology should never be called anti-piracy technology;"
Dammit, I want real anti-piracy technology! Where's my revenue cutter? I want my deck gun!
"Why are we bitching at the Democrats? Oh, because it was on slashdot and the genius editor posted it "from the compromising-freedom dept","
Um... it is a compromise. The legislation says "thou shalt label thy copy protection schemes," not "thou shalt not use copy protection schemes that deprive consumers of their fair use rights."
Ah, but if it's copy protected, shouldn't the store be more willing to accept opened returns? After all, it's not like you could have copied it...
"But if the restricted CD were say $5 less, well then I'd consider it."
You know, DivX movies were quite a bit cheaper than normal DVDs...
"Bill Duxbury says, "At that point you're taking this beautiful high resolution image and you're scrunching it down so that your TV can view it in a standard format which is a waste.""
Sorry, but I'm not an audiophile. To be honest, HDTV doesn't do a damn thing for me. What's the point of high-resolution pictures if it's still the same old "reality television" crap as always? HD crap is still crap, just more expensive.
What has me drooling on the idea of getting a digital tuner is the SDTV offerings. Over the air, I'm able to get two PBS stations pretty well, and the concept of turning those two into four or six seriously piques my interest. And even then (especially because it's SDTV), I have no qualms against plugging that tuner into the S-video or component inputs on my "old" TV, despite what the Best Buy guy says about the "waste."
Of course, I suppose you can't expect anything different from a Best Buy employee. Heck, I even have more respect for Radio Shack employees than Best Buy.
"But either way, none of Sonys products are competing with the Gameboy"
The sad thing is GBA's are even outselling PlayStation 2s.
"Nintendo has LOST the home war. They will soon lose the portable war if they don't come up with something better than cartridges."
Nah, they're still in the fight. If anything, Microsoft is losing the home war.
Besides, the GameCube's big selling point right now (other than its library, that is) is its ability to tie in with the Game Boy Advance. PlayStation 2 may be outselling GameCubes, but GBAs are outselling PS2s by a comfortable margin.
Bandai just announced that the WonderSwan Color has officially joined the long, long list of handheld platforms bitch-slapped by Nintendo. And "bitch-slap" may be too mild a term.
When all is said and done, technology doesn't count as much as games. If technology were all that mattered, the 2600 would have died with the advent of ColecoVision and Intellivision, we would have all been saying "Zelda who?" as we played our Sega Master Systems, and Square would have never jumped ship to side with Sony.
"ETimes about this; a total "optical game" package costs even after royalty for about $4-$7 US. A cart costs up to $15 to produce."
Cart storage capacities go up without requiring a new media interface, an advantage cartridges have over optical media. That's why cart production prices don't go down the same way as optical media. Comparing the two is like comparing the prices of CD-Rs and RAM. Super Mario 64 was on a 64 Mbit cartridge, Majora's Mask was 256 Mbit, and I recall hearing of a 512 Mbit N64 cartridge. Tiny GBA cartridges started at 32 Mbit and are already hovering around 128 Mbit (if they aren't there already).
Will you still be jumping up and down about the wonders of optical media once cartridge capacities start to outstrip them? Between the constant effort to squeeze more transistors on a chip and the way it takes several years for a new optical standard to get out of the gate, I don't see the size gap between the two lasting much longer.
Too late. Since JVC is the one responsible for the D-VHS standard to begin with, I now consider D-VHS to be dead in the water as far as DRM is concerned.
"Why would MS sell your e-mail address so they can turn around and pay for the bandwith it takes to receive thousands of spam e-mails?"
You're assuming they'd sell the addresses for less than the cost of bandwidth.
It could mean that NT was the first time they ever wrote their own OS...
Not that it had any "signifigance" back when the project was still being called "OS/2 NT"...
"HDTV's still do not have digital outputs, and
VCR's & DVD's do not have completely digital output yet."
You're funny. I mean, really. You expect this to be "straightened out?"
Let me spell it out for you:
HDTV's will have digital inputs. Only.
HD VC"R"'s and DVD's will have digital inputs. Only.
These digital connections will be designed in such a way that you can only view (not "record") what the media companies deign to let you view or record. Right now it seems i.Link will be the default digital standard.
"Right on the money. I'm sorry, but if you don't shower and wear Pokemon t-shirts, you are going to be intimate with the inner workings of public toiletry."
So I should shower before putting on my Pokemon t-shirts. Check!
"True, they didn't take some of the ridiculous college math courses that we nerds did. However they did get straight-As and took AP courses in the natural sciences, history, calculus, languages, etc. They were usually involved in some kind of varsity sport that had a low jock-factor (like tennis or soccer). While they were popular, they seemed to float above the social hierarchy, never taking part in the beatings or humiliation but never exactly seeking a nerd with whom to hang out. They generally got ridiculous scores on their SATs and went on to the Ivy League."
I think it depends on your viewpoint. I never really saw them as "smart" as much as "success oriented." They didn't get their grades because they enjoyed the materiel, they got them because they views their grades as some sort of status symbol (which is why they went off to ivy league schools). You'll also notice they came to school in business casual. They were in the "low-jock factor" sports because they "needed" extracurricular activities to put on their college applications.
And they weren't "floating above the heierarchy," they were just another social clique. They didn't really participate in either "the beatings" or "hanging out with nerds" because they were too busy showing off their GPAs to their "friends."
While I admit I only had one experience with an AP course (and an extremely negative one at that), from what I saw they were more memorization than learning. And ultimately the tests are on your memorization skills than anything else. Reminds me of MCSEs.
"They were popular because they weren't pretentious,"
They weren't "popular," at least outside their clique. The jock types left them alone because they could see the common thread: the focus on intra-clique competition . We're scorned by both groups (each in their own way) because of our ambivalence about competition (or at least about their competitions). And it wasn't because of our grades, it was because of how easily we got those grades.
"they knew how to talk to somebody without scaring or boring the shit out of them."
Same with the jocks. But they both looked down their noses at those that were "different" just the same.
"nerds feel it necessary to lord their supposedly superior intellect over others"
You're confusing intellectuals with intellectual elitists. Big difference. Genuine intellectuals are able to equate "showing off" with "stuffed into a locker."
Think about it: How many true intellectuals do you know of that were participating members of the NHS?
"And don't give me that innocence crap, you KNOW you're guilty of looking down your nose at whomever because you thought you were smarter than they...."
Um, no. I may have been able to ace math and history tests in my sleep, but the "ditzy" girls I always ended up helping with their homework had the whole social interaction thing figured out. I could never see tutoring as anything but a symbiotic relationship. Heck, she was even able to admit her faults to others (she asked for help, didn't she?).
"Tivo is keeping me"
;)"
I wouldn't hold my breath about TiVo being everything you always loved about it. I've looked at HDTV hardware just to see what's out there now, and already newer equipment has DRM built-in.
For example, the only thing you can record HD broadcasts on right now (short of a PC with a tuner card) is a digital VCR. It has all sorts of bells and whistles, like being able to record 24 hours of standard resolution video on one tape. They'll set you back $1000 or so right now. But they won't let you record things that don't "want" to be recorded. You can't even record from one D-VCR to another, at least not without having to use old analog connections (MiniDisc, anyone?)
And I wouldn't hold my breath for HD-DVD recorders, either. We've already seen what the DVD Consortium has done with the original medium. Do you actually expect the new format to be more consumer-friendly than the current one?
At this time, I don't see an HD TiVo coming out that won't be crippled by DRM. If nothing else the manufacturers of the tuner hardware for the boxes won't be allowed (*cough* DMCA *cough*) to make DRM-free chips.
I'm considering looking for a used, older HDTV receiver. It may or may not be able to view DRM-protected broadcasts, but at the very least I won't be supporting the DRM standards. Of course, I'm a loon that refuses to own a DVD player...
"Yet the HDTV doesn't have PIP (I do)"
PiP is accomplished by putting two separate tuners in a TV. You want HD PiP? Buy two HD tuners.
"It doesn't have Channel naming (I don't use that, but oh well
They're digital. They name themselves. Heck, even analog stations do that nowadays (Guide+, from the folks that brought you VCR+).
"I doesn't have Firewire/i.Link (something that I'm going to want in an HDTV)."
That's exactly what you want to avoid! How do you think they're able to enforce DRM to begin with? Super VGA and component video are standards that are already set in stone, but HDTV-over-1394 is still new and amorphous and what the DRM is aiming for. That crippled digital VCR I was talking about? The crippling is accomplished by having only one digital input: 1394.
"I'm worried that the FTC is going to change standards soon,"
I don't think they will. I don't believe there's anything else that needs to be changed for DRM. DRM is more easily enforced through connections and wires than through the radio spectrum.
"when they'll move adoption up to 2009 next,"
Congressman Tauzin, (in)famous for his support of "deregulating" DSL, is pushing to have 2006 written in stone (if he hasn't gotten it already).
" tvs these days... are little more than a monitor,"
A decent VHF/UHF receiver (especially with stereo sound) is a heck of a lot more than what you're implying. Saying that a TV should cost the same as a monitor of equal quality is like saying a 802.11b NIC should cost as much as a FastEthernet one ("But the wired LAN is faster!"). Hell, look how much a decent AM/FM tuner can set you back.
A monitor doesn't need to worry about that, all its signals are carried on separate physical wires, and all the signals that come over those wires are predictable. The monitor doesn't have to worry about finding the wires or making sure the wires don't overlap or anything beyond flinging electrons at phosphorous. On the other hand, a VHF/UHF tuner has a huge swath of the electromagnetic spectrum to grope around blindly through. And not only that, it has to find the right channel as well, not to broad and not too narrow. A little too wide can get you overlapping picture or sound, and a little too narrow can seriously degrade the quality. Hell, you can't even get something as "simple" as color unless everything is juuuust right.
"the sound and tuning is usually done seperately by a reciever."
No, the receiver decodes the signal. That's the easy part. It's the tuner that has to find the damn signal to begin with. It would be like the receiver groping around on the floor to find the right wire to plug in to itself.
The PSX got where it was because of the games, which is exactly why the Game Boy is in the lead. I'm tempted to say that all their success relies on Nintendo's decision not to make the N64 a CD-based system. Aside from battery life, size and price issues, the Game Boy is where it is today because of its library alone.
Beyond that, compared to the Genesis, the SNES was the technilogically superior platform.
"Also, Slashdot is paying me $127,000"
He does realize, of course, that all that money came from banner ads, right?
Man... maintaing monopoly control not through extortion but by improving your product so that your customers continue to buy it... Why can't the Baby Bells and the cable companies pay more attention to Nintendo?
"I don't see why Sony ... could make something with a 3 inch screen and mini DVD and integrated controls."
Because maybe Game Boy has been eating technilogically superior handhelds for breakfast for the better part of a decade now and Sony isn't dumb enough to spend all that R & D money on cannon fodder?
"I believe battery technology is where it would need to be for a unit like this as well."
This new Game Boy uses a Li-ion battery. What more do you want?
"I honestly don't know if that proposal is the best solution, but if it comes down to splitting the Bells versus local governments seizing control of the last mile...as a customer, I'd prefer the former over the latter."
We've already in the middle of former. AT&T and Bell were the same company, but the courts split them up between multiple local carriers and multiple long-distance carriers. Here's what's happened so far:
AT&T: "Hey, this long-distance stuff is great! Even with the new competition, we're still making money hand over fist! I'm glad I don't have to deal with money-losing local service any more!"
Baby Bells: "Damn! I want in on that long-distance stuff, too!"
Government: "Too bad. There was a reason we split you up."
Baby Bells: "Please?"
Government: "No."
Baby Bells: "Pretty please?"
Government: "No."
Baby Bells: "Fine. I'll just hold my breath and not upgrade anything, leaving the country using decades-old technology on the local loops. See if I care."
Government: "Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "UPGRADE!"
Baby Bells: "Only if you let us get in on the long-distance action. Alas, we're afraid that it's just too expensive otherwise..."
Government: "... Oh, alright. But on one condition: You have to let other businesses compete with you on the local loops. By leasing them your equipment."
Baby Bells: "Huh? What the heck are you smoking?"
Government: "Take it or leave it."
Baby Bells: "Fine. But we won't like it!"
(a few years pass)
Baby Bells: "This whole leasing business sucks ass. Why the hell do we have to let the competition use our stuff, anyway? The worst is that we have to do this crap with the new 'internet access' thing as well. Every time we upgrade the network, our competition gets access to the same upgraded network we do. To hell with it, we'll just not upgrade."
Government: "Europe is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "Canada is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "South Korea is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade now, dammit! Hell, you haven't even upgraded from the last time we had this argument!"
Baby Bells: "Only if you let us keep a monoply on the broadband services. Alas, we're afraid that it's just too expensive otherwise...
Government: "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? What part of 'Telecommunications Act of 1996' are you having trouble with?"
Baby Bells: "Oh, we know we need to be opening ourselves up to competition. And we're really trying, too! But do you think there's a way where we can open ourselves up to competition and... well... you know... not?"
Government: "I don't know... Will you really hold up your end of the bargain this time?"
And that's where we are today. The problem with the model you're suggesting is that the two monopoliess you'd end up with would still be corporations and still be beholden to shareholders more than their customers, and it's always more profitable for them to extort their customers than to cater to their customers' needs. One of the ventures will be more profitable than the other, and the loser will lie, cheat and steal until they're able to compete in the more profitable areas without relinquishing their existing monopolies. You can go ahead and split ILECs into hardware ownership and service providing corporations, but that division of functions between the two will be all but gone in thirty years, leaving us exactly where we started back in the 1960's: A corporation abusing it's monopoly powers in one field to stifle competition in another, with the ultimate losers being the customers.