What are you trying to do ? How are you trying to do it ?
Trying to configure multi-homed adapters in a multiple adapter system. Turns out some functions appear to be time sensitive, and some are only good after a reboot. This includes doing some things such as setting MTU, which I've only been able to do via netsh. (Honestly, after several weeks of dealing with various issues in this area, I stopped looking for other answers to this after a very short time, esp after initially going with the C APIs and having them fail - oh, and MSDN sucks eggs from a documentation standpoint. Who would ever suspect that JavaDocs would be fondly thought of?)
BTW, this isn't just about changing network settings, that was merely one example.
...you cannot truly run "Least Privileges" nor Audit a particular user's actions in a service that runs as SYSTEM or any of its elevated cousins. This is how worms wreak havoc. Get a buffer overflow exploit on any windows service running under one of these elevated accounts, and the machine is completely owned.
Firstly, that explanation has little relevance to your original comment.
This wasn't in response to nor in support of the original comment, but in answer to your question about a detail in the statement I made.
Secondly, how is this worse to root on any UNIX system, or any highly privileged account on any system ?
Short answer: it's not. However, had you comprehended the implications of my statement, you'd see that we'd never run root, nor any service as a privileged account in UNIX precisely because we can elevate privileges as needed by requesting credentials. This is not directly possible in Windows (believe me, I tried and went through all 9 levels before conceding defeat when I ran into the 2008+ special service token for non-privileged accounts)
If some process running at high privileges is taken over, then the system is more vulnerable that it would be otherwise. This is a basic fact of any multiuser design, not some design flaw only present in Windows.
Yes it is peculiar only to Windows. Only in windows can a service running under a truly non-privileged account not spawn a higher privileged process with proper credentials. (well, there might be some other now defunct OS out there....) Note that this statement is based on the fact that the actions must be carried out on the behalf of a specific user in such a fashion that the audit logs show user 'x' commited action 'y' through all portions of the logs, not merely completing action 'y'.
The short story is in windows I must run a service with much higher privileges than I do in other OSes to accomplish basic tasks with the previous runas user criteria. If those tasks involve Administrator level privileges, then I must have the equivalent privileges in the account that is running the service. In other OSes I currently work with - this is not necessary and my "service" account can have essentially NO privileges.
Why are you running your services as SYSTEM in the first place ?
I'm not as I have a different solution. But because I'm executing Administrator level tasks, I essentially am forced to run the service executing those tasks at a System (or equivalent) level. Things like changing the computer name, the network configuration, domain membership, backups and restores (backup ops work for this one too, I know), route functions, the list goes on.
Windows sucks in so many ways it's truly mind boggling once you get down at this level. The insecurity system they have is completely upside down from every other one currently in existence. The "shell" is next to useless, as it is a third class citizen pretending to be second class in the windows system hierarchy. This actually is problematic for those with needs such as ours, and is also why Server Core still isn't ready for prime time.
Yes, if you are trying to use Windows like you would UNIX, it won't work very well. That's because it isn't meant to work that way.
Actually - in Server 2008 R2, there's no other way to do certain options within the machine. MS has tried to force you to have your system as part of a domain, and be managed by all the gooeyness that implies, but sometimes there are needs that require that a machine not be a domain member and not be accessible via a GUI. (I know!!! Shocker!!!)
MS has actually paid lipservice to this with Server Core, but it's merely lip-service. There's a splattering of shells available to accomplish certain tasks which can no longer be easily done through APIs (since they seem to have vanished in some cases, or become largely unusable in others - try changing network configuration, for instance)
Because under windows, a token must have all the permissions it can ever use already available and they're merely masked under the "least privileges" rule.
Perhaps you can explain in more detail, what you mean and why it is a problem ?
It's pretty simple - Because you cannot truly run "Least Privileges" nor Audit a particular user's actions in a service that runs as SYSTEM or any of its elevated cousins. This is how worms wreak havoc. Get a buffer overflow exploit on any windows service running under one of these elevated accounts, and the machine is completely owned.
I actually think you're doing listeners a disservice by promoting 128kbs MP3s.
They sound like crap, when you compare then against their lossless source on even mediocre sound equipment (well, for most music. There are music selections where it wouldn't matter....)
Note that I'm not comparing different MP3s against each other, but the MP3 against original source. From my own experiences, using a variety of encoders nothing under 192kbs is really listenable.
And no - I'm no audiophile snob. I just don't like my music flattened, clipped, or otherwise mutilated.
a 700kbs stream is starting to not be all that large (the roughtly 50% compression, although the best I've seen is 40% so far - but that was a couple of years ago that I ran those tests.)
I personally believe that within 5 years people will be asking why anyone ever compressed anything, as bandwidth and storage devices both increase capacity far beyond what's needed for audio. Video will take longer.
I'll respond to you directly on the couple of items I didn't see in the other replies:
1) DJs generally play dance/electronica - which are ideally suited for MP3 style compression. They are also more concerned with blasting it out loud than at a moderate level in an appropriate listening environment. (ie, not a dance hall or the like)
2) Most music at formal functions are the equivalent of FM radio in their sound output/speaker quality
3) Even my car stereo will allow easy discernment between a 192kbs MP3 and a full WAV file for some of the types of music I listen to.
4) Studies done on youth music preferences have discovered not surprisingly that they prefer the flatter MP3 sound than high fidelity recordings.
And no, I'm far far from an audio snob. I just realize that certain songs I listen to sound like crap in MP3 formats unless you go to 256kbs or higher, and some do not work even then.
Wow, you're exactly the kind of full-of-yourself holier-than-thou douchebag web developer I'm talking about.
Talk about pot-kettle.
Dude, you're an asshole, you're producing buggy code that, like it or not, you'll have to eventually fix, and you're pissing off all your users and many of your co-workers.
Actually - I produce very high quality code that generally only needs a few tweaks for IE because....
wait for it...
it's written using standards!!!!
The only tweaks required are for broken IE implementations.
Face it - IE has been the pariah of web browsers ever since version 4 deviated from standards in MS's plot to take over the web.
The best thing that could happen is that no one develops for IE specifically. Then again, we could just wait for You Tube to force HTML 5 on IE....
I'm not sure how a bash interpreter is any more of a feature than a Windows command interpreter, especially after PowerShell. Bash can run bash scripts, cmd.exe can run batch files, and WSH lets you do VBScript and a bunch of other crazy stuff.
Having just come up for air battling windows' various shells, scripts, and services combinations, I can tell you unequivocally that all of Microsoft's work on shells is still far far far below anything possible with even the first Linux kernel. In short, shells are horribly broken in windows, and they always will be, since it was done intentionally. (For the short version, try piping in a service, or elevating your process)
Another area MS is horribly clueless on, despite all their PR to the contrary, is security. Why are their 4 different security tokens? Because under windows, a token must have all the permissions it can ever use already available and they're merely masked under the "least privileges" rule. All other OSes that I'm aware of use a token with no extra privileges which then need to be raised with credentials. This is why MS has had such major issues in the security realm. It's a fundamental flaw in their architecture, and they've been unable to fix it.
Right now, you're still lucky if they test on IE 6-8, Firefox 2-3 and Safari 2-4... I'd guess 90% of web developers don't even do that
The last 4 jobs I've had all tested on the current version of Firefox (most devs actually used FF during dev) , the latest version of Safari in the last 3, and IE, fortunately, only versions 7 and 8. We actually had a page up for IE 6 users that recommended an updated browser since IE 6 has so many limitations it's actually disfunctional.
Digital downloads will be the primary choice as soon as the quality is on par with CDs. (ie, lossless compression)
Otherwise, downloads are fine for that one song or two to see if you like it, but mostly they still fail on decent audio equipment for regular listening.
...in other Words, inflation adjusted, Microsoft hasn't raised the price of Windows. And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...)
many of those programs were available for free from archives such as Simtel back in the mid to late 80s. Just because you paid for pkzip etc....
yep - subversion. Back when 8.04 came out. There was no svn 1.5 client available at the time. Take a look at ubuntu forums for some of the details on what it took to get a 1.5 client working on 8.04 x64.
At the moment, because of pricepoint and such, there's no reason to get any AMD proc. A Core i5-750 is better processor for the money than any AMD proc, and if you need the extra performance of a high end AMD, a Core i7-860 is pretty much the best value proc on the market today.
You've got to be kidding. AMDs are still far less expensive than Intel solutions in general. The motherboards alone are usually 50-100 cheaper, especially if you delve into the i3-7 series. Yes, Intel CPUs are faster in many cases, but not per dollar when looking for absolute performance that's not in the top tier.
and even once all the hardware is supported, more or less, then you get to have fun with software.
Don't agree - try running a system with SVN 1.5 on Ubuntu, at least on Hardy Heron (8.04) about a year ago. It doesn't just work. FYI: 8.04 was current, SVN 1.5 had been out for at least 3 years, it still wasn't supported on Ubuntu and required some interesting playing around with software repositories that could royally screw up your system if you weren't careful. Yes, I left the repo in when an "update" occurred. Very interesting after effects, such as an unbootable system. I almost thought I was running a MS OS, except it only took about 15m to fix it.
They're probably right; it probably would be better if they re-wrote it.
In general, no.
I've refactored/rewritten more than one large codebase, and in each case the purpose wasn't just to rewrite it, but the addition of new requirements and/or the high cost of maintenance were targets with a single exception.
I shouldn't even admit this, but I once received a 100+K line FORTRAN program that seemed to work but had unexplained small variances in some results. After going through the code, it turned out that the 100+ common blocks used had non-unique variables in them, and thus, you were never sure what variable was in use in a specific function due to the sequence of linkages that changed due to compilation order. (it was a living codebase that was modified as needed) I rewrote it in a less than 25K program and removed most of the common blocks and added full 3D analysis into what was an original 2D program. The rewrite took about 3 months. The original analysis of what went wrong took about 3 months.
Fixing the original code and adding the additional functionality would have taken far longer and been almost impossible to test, due to the way the codebase was originally developed.
My current project is refactoring a rather large codebase by removing an entire set of "bad" code and all of their associated dependencies from the core functionality that I actually want. In the process, I'm also removing hibernate and spring, replacing those with a custom JPA solution. So far the result is a codebase that retains all the "real" functionality that compiles and runs in less than 1/10th the time of the original and has an entire set of known problems removed.
Like everyone else, I've also knowingly written what I consider to be "bad code" because of timelines and purpose.
Sorry, but the concept of reading a file while still writing it has been around for ages. "tail" has been around how long? And I'm certain it's not the first either.
It's not just about contributions and bribery. It's also about extortion. A big company will go to a Congress critter and say things like, "If this bill doesn't go my way, we'll be forced to pull X number of jobs from your district and you'll be blamed and recalled."
That particular bit becomes harder and harder to wield, since all the company has leverage with is jobs/no jobs at that point, or popular/unpopular projects. The latter can be regulated by localities, and the former... well, if they make the statement that representative so and so did it, well, that gets to be political "advertising" which isn't allowed.
I had Dish for a long time. I still like their implementation. I tried Tivo (admittedly for a relatively short period) and currently have AT&Ts horrid u-Verse box that's about to be tossed out the door. I've also had TW's box that I would barely call beta.
The thing I like least about the u-Verse and Tivo boxes are the auto recording features, especially when they bump the "older" recordings I actually cared about (Yes you can "lock" it on some systems). I personally dislike technology that thinks it's smarter than me and knows what I want despite me telling it otherwise.
The features that I want are decent search, and the ability to quickly set a recording with enough lead and follow time to cover the whole thing. A bonus would be if there was a methodology from the broadcaster to indicate delays, and maybe they'd be kind enough to definitively indicate commercials as well (Yes, I'm aware of the blank frame signal:)
but it's obvious to anyone with knowledge in the arts. Tivo just got to the patent office first with applying this idea to a video stream on a PC, and the PTO in its usual incredibly swift efficiency, granted them patents on obvious technologies.
The idea of reading data while still writing it to disk has been around since... well, the first or second hard drive.
I think something between Virginia and England is correct. No 2 consecutive terms and a vote of confidence taken within 5 years. Combine those two, and the voters can yank the incompetent ass out, or allow them to serve the full term.
NO campaign funds. NONE. ZILCH. (Yes, capitals and all). PBS is a ready venue for candidates to push their message out, as are all TV/Radio channels in the US. (They all operate under charters one way or the other from the FCC, and one clause in there is about serving the public good, which is why you have public service announcements and things like the presidential addresses) This also eliminates the lobbyist and PACs. If not completely, then ban them outright.
Toss the Electoral College. Yesterday. It was a great idea before the invention of the telegraph. It's a little dated, like the buggy whip today.
You're correct in that one shouldn't spread misinformation or disinformation - check out the specs the GP linked in wikipedia itself no less.
Turns out the only mandatory category where BR is higher than HDDVD is the lowest bit rate supported - the lossy Dolby Digital. I also note that HDDVD had several mandatory supported codecs that were optional on BR including, gasp, True HD.
Now, that supposes that Wikipedia is correct, but it certainly looks like BR is less capable unless DTS Master Audio optional codec is included, and then I'm sure you'd have to get some serious audiophiles to go argue over which system sounds better in a double blind test.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you trying to do ? How are you trying to do it ?
Trying to configure multi-homed adapters in a multiple adapter system. Turns out some functions appear to be time sensitive, and some are only good after a reboot. This includes doing some things such as setting MTU, which I've only been able to do via netsh. (Honestly, after several weeks of dealing with various issues in this area, I stopped looking for other answers to this after a very short time, esp after initially going with the C APIs and having them fail - oh, and MSDN sucks eggs from a documentation standpoint. Who would ever suspect that JavaDocs would be fondly thought of?)
BTW, this isn't just about changing network settings, that was merely one example.
Firstly, that explanation has little relevance to your original comment.
This wasn't in response to nor in support of the original comment, but in answer to your question about a detail in the statement I made.
Secondly, how is this worse to root on any UNIX system, or any highly privileged account on any system ?
Short answer: it's not. However, had you comprehended the implications of my statement, you'd see that we'd never run root, nor any service as a privileged account in UNIX precisely because we can elevate privileges as needed by requesting credentials. This is not directly possible in Windows (believe me, I tried and went through all 9 levels before conceding defeat when I ran into the 2008+ special service token for non-privileged accounts)
If some process running at high privileges is taken over, then the system is more vulnerable that it would be otherwise. This is a basic fact of any multiuser design, not some design flaw only present in Windows.
Yes it is peculiar only to Windows. Only in windows can a service running under a truly non-privileged account not spawn a higher privileged process with proper credentials. (well, there might be some other now defunct OS out there....) Note that this statement is based on the fact that the actions must be carried out on the behalf of a specific user in such a fashion that the audit logs show user 'x' commited action 'y' through all portions of the logs, not merely completing action 'y'.
The short story is in windows I must run a service with much higher privileges than I do in other OSes to accomplish basic tasks with the previous runas user criteria. If those tasks involve Administrator level privileges, then I must have the equivalent privileges in the account that is running the service. In other OSes I currently work with - this is not necessary and my "service" account can have essentially NO privileges.
Why are you running your services as SYSTEM in the first place ?
I'm not as I have a different solution. But because I'm executing Administrator level tasks, I essentially am forced to run the service executing those tasks at a System (or equivalent) level. Things like changing the computer name, the network configuration, domain membership, backups and restores (backup ops work for this one too, I know), route functions, the list goes on.
Windows sucks in so many ways it's truly mind boggling once you get down at this level. The insecurity system they have is completely upside down from every other one currently in existence. The "shell" is next to useless, as it is a third class citizen pretending to be second class in the windows system hierarchy. This actually is problematic for those with needs such as ours, and is also why Server Core still isn't ready for prime time.
Yes, if you are trying to use Windows like you would UNIX, it won't work very well. That's because it isn't meant to work that way.
Actually - in Server 2008 R2, there's no other way to do certain options within the machine. MS has tried to force you to have your system as part of a domain, and be managed by all the gooeyness that implies, but sometimes there are needs that require that a machine not be a domain member and not be accessible via a GUI. (I know!!! Shocker!!!)
MS has actually paid lipservice to this with Server Core, but it's merely lip-service. There's a splattering of shells available to accomplish certain tasks which can no longer be easily done through APIs (since they seem to have vanished in some cases, or become largely unusable in others - try changing network configuration, for instance)
Because under windows, a token must have all the permissions it can ever use already available and they're merely masked under the "least privileges" rule.
Perhaps you can explain in more detail, what you mean and why it is a problem ?
It's pretty simple - Because you cannot truly run "Least Privileges" nor Audit a particular user's actions in a service that runs as SYSTEM or any of its elevated cousins. This is how worms wreak havoc. Get a buffer overflow exploit on any windows service running under one of these elevated accounts, and the machine is completely owned.
I actually think you're doing listeners a disservice by promoting 128kbs MP3s.
They sound like crap, when you compare then against their lossless source on even mediocre sound equipment (well, for most music. There are music selections where it wouldn't matter....)
Note that I'm not comparing different MP3s against each other, but the MP3 against original source. From my own experiences, using a variety of encoders nothing under 192kbs is really listenable.
And no - I'm no audiophile snob. I just don't like my music flattened, clipped, or otherwise mutilated.
a 700kbs stream is starting to not be all that large (the roughtly 50% compression, although the best I've seen is 40% so far - but that was a couple of years ago that I ran those tests.)
I personally believe that within 5 years people will be asking why anyone ever compressed anything, as bandwidth and storage devices both increase capacity far beyond what's needed for audio. Video will take longer.
I'll respond to you directly on the couple of items I didn't see in the other replies:
1) DJs generally play dance/electronica - which are ideally suited for MP3 style compression. They are also more concerned with blasting it out loud than at a moderate level in an appropriate listening environment. (ie, not a dance hall or the like)
2) Most music at formal functions are the equivalent of FM radio in their sound output/speaker quality
3) Even my car stereo will allow easy discernment between a 192kbs MP3 and a full WAV file for some of the types of music I listen to.
4) Studies done on youth music preferences have discovered not surprisingly that they prefer the flatter MP3 sound than high fidelity recordings.
And no, I'm far far from an audio snob. I just realize that certain songs I listen to sound like crap in MP3 formats unless you go to 256kbs or higher, and some do not work even then.
Wow, you're exactly the kind of full-of-yourself holier-than-thou douchebag web developer I'm talking about.
Talk about pot-kettle.
Dude, you're an asshole, you're producing buggy code that, like it or not, you'll have to eventually fix, and you're pissing off all your users and many of your co-workers.
Actually - I produce very high quality code that generally only needs a few tweaks for IE because....
wait for it...
it's written using standards!!!!
The only tweaks required are for broken IE implementations.
Face it - IE has been the pariah of web browsers ever since version 4 deviated from standards in MS's plot to take over the web.
The best thing that could happen is that no one develops for IE specifically. Then again, we could just wait for You Tube to force HTML 5 on IE....
Well...
Having just come up for air battling windows' various shells, scripts, and services combinations, I can tell you unequivocally that all of Microsoft's work on shells is still far far far below anything possible with even the first Linux kernel. In short, shells are horribly broken in windows, and they always will be, since it was done intentionally. (For the short version, try piping in a service, or elevating your process)
Another area MS is horribly clueless on, despite all their PR to the contrary, is security. Why are their 4 different security tokens? Because under windows, a token must have all the permissions it can ever use already available and they're merely masked under the "least privileges" rule. All other OSes that I'm aware of use a token with no extra privileges which then need to be raised with credentials. This is why MS has had such major issues in the security realm. It's a fundamental flaw in their architecture, and they've been unable to fix it.
Right now, you're still lucky if they test on IE 6-8, Firefox 2-3 and Safari 2-4... I'd guess 90% of web developers don't even do that
The last 4 jobs I've had all tested on the current version of Firefox (most devs actually used FF during dev) , the latest version of Safari in the last 3, and IE, fortunately, only versions 7 and 8. We actually had a page up for IE 6 users that recommended an updated browser since IE 6 has so many limitations it's actually disfunctional.
Digital downloads will be the primary choice as soon as the quality is on par with CDs. (ie, lossless compression)
Otherwise, downloads are fine for that one song or two to see if you like it, but mostly they still fail on decent audio equipment for regular listening.
...in other Words, inflation adjusted, Microsoft hasn't raised the price of Windows. And if you include all of the programs that are included with Windows 7 that you would normally have had to have purchased separately back in '85 (compression, file management, image viewers, etc, etc...)
many of those programs were available for free from archives such as Simtel back in the mid to late 80s. Just because you paid for pkzip etc....
yep - subversion. Back when 8.04 came out. There was no svn 1.5 client available at the time. Take a look at ubuntu forums for some of the details on what it took to get a 1.5 client working on 8.04 x64.
At the moment, because of pricepoint and such, there's no reason to get any AMD proc. A Core i5-750 is better processor for the money than any AMD proc, and if you need the extra performance of a high end AMD, a Core i7-860 is pretty much the best value proc on the market today.
You've got to be kidding. AMDs are still far less expensive than Intel solutions in general. The motherboards alone are usually 50-100 cheaper, especially if you delve into the i3-7 series. Yes, Intel CPUs are faster in many cases, but not per dollar when looking for absolute performance that's not in the top tier.
and even once all the hardware is supported, more or less, then you get to have fun with software.
Don't agree - try running a system with SVN 1.5 on Ubuntu, at least on Hardy Heron (8.04) about a year ago. It doesn't just work. FYI: 8.04 was current, SVN 1.5 had been out for at least 3 years, it still wasn't supported on Ubuntu and required some interesting playing around with software repositories that could royally screw up your system if you weren't careful. Yes, I left the repo in when an "update" occurred. Very interesting after effects, such as an unbootable system. I almost thought I was running a MS OS, except it only took about 15m to fix it.
The less code you write, the fewer bugs you create, and less code you are directly responsible for fixing and documenting.
Yes the libraries won't be perfect, but in general they should be less crap than your code (especially if used and fixed by many others).
You should know your libraries. There are certain libraries out there that have significant flaws.
They're probably right; it probably would be better if they re-wrote it.
In general, no.
I've refactored/rewritten more than one large codebase, and in each case the purpose wasn't just to rewrite it, but the addition of new requirements and/or the high cost of maintenance were targets with a single exception.
I shouldn't even admit this, but I once received a 100+K line FORTRAN program that seemed to work but had unexplained small variances in some results. After going through the code, it turned out that the 100+ common blocks used had non-unique variables in them, and thus, you were never sure what variable was in use in a specific function due to the sequence of linkages that changed due to compilation order. (it was a living codebase that was modified as needed) I rewrote it in a less than 25K program and removed most of the common blocks and added full 3D analysis into what was an original 2D program. The rewrite took about 3 months. The original analysis of what went wrong took about 3 months.
Fixing the original code and adding the additional functionality would have taken far longer and been almost impossible to test, due to the way the codebase was originally developed.
My current project is refactoring a rather large codebase by removing an entire set of "bad" code and all of their associated dependencies from the core functionality that I actually want. In the process, I'm also removing hibernate and spring, replacing those with a custom JPA solution. So far the result is a codebase that retains all the "real" functionality that compiles and runs in less than 1/10th the time of the original and has an entire set of known problems removed.
Like everyone else, I've also knowingly written what I consider to be "bad code" because of timelines and purpose.
Sorry, but the concept of reading a file while still writing it has been around for ages. "tail" has been around how long? And I'm certain it's not the first either.
It's not just about contributions and bribery. It's also about extortion. A big company will go to a Congress critter and say things like, "If this bill doesn't go my way, we'll be forced to pull X number of jobs from your district and you'll be blamed and recalled."
That particular bit becomes harder and harder to wield, since all the company has leverage with is jobs/no jobs at that point, or popular/unpopular projects. The latter can be regulated by localities, and the former... well, if they make the statement that representative so and so did it, well, that gets to be political "advertising" which isn't allowed.
I had Dish for a long time. I still like their implementation. I tried Tivo (admittedly for a relatively short period) and currently have AT&Ts horrid u-Verse box that's about to be tossed out the door. I've also had TW's box that I would barely call beta.
The thing I like least about the u-Verse and Tivo boxes are the auto recording features, especially when they bump the "older" recordings I actually cared about (Yes you can "lock" it on some systems). I personally dislike technology that thinks it's smarter than me and knows what I want despite me telling it otherwise.
The features that I want are decent search, and the ability to quickly set a recording with enough lead and follow time to cover the whole thing. A bonus would be if there was a methodology from the broadcaster to indicate delays, and maybe they'd be kind enough to definitively indicate commercials as well (Yes, I'm aware of the blank frame signal :)
case - generously $60.
motherboard/CPU - $60
memory - $40 (only because prices have gone up recently)
hard drive - $50
remote - $50 (generous)
software is free/owned by Tivo.
$260 for a decent box: This would be a dual core power efficient system with 2GB RAM and a 500GB HD. Probably more than what you get in a tivo box.
but it's obvious to anyone with knowledge in the arts. Tivo just got to the patent office first with applying this idea to a video stream on a PC, and the PTO in its usual incredibly swift efficiency, granted them patents on obvious technologies.
The idea of reading data while still writing it to disk has been around since... well, the first or second hard drive.
You're wrong.
I think something between Virginia and England is correct. No 2 consecutive terms and a vote of confidence taken within 5 years. Combine those two, and the voters can yank the incompetent ass out, or allow them to serve the full term.
NO campaign funds. NONE. ZILCH. (Yes, capitals and all). PBS is a ready venue for candidates to push their message out, as are all TV/Radio channels in the US. (They all operate under charters one way or the other from the FCC, and one clause in there is about serving the public good, which is why you have public service announcements and things like the presidential addresses) This also eliminates the lobbyist and PACs. If not completely, then ban them outright.
Toss the Electoral College. Yesterday. It was a great idea before the invention of the telegraph. It's a little dated, like the buggy whip today.
I'm guessing there's a reason they posted AC....
You're correct in that one shouldn't spread misinformation or disinformation - check out the specs the GP linked in wikipedia itself no less.
Turns out the only mandatory category where BR is higher than HDDVD is the lowest bit rate supported - the lossy Dolby Digital. I also note that HDDVD had several mandatory supported codecs that were optional on BR including, gasp, True HD.
Now, that supposes that Wikipedia is correct, but it certainly looks like BR is less capable unless DTS Master Audio optional codec is included, and then I'm sure you'd have to get some serious audiophiles to go argue over which system sounds better in a double blind test.
I don't recall anyone buying out the market from underneath BetaMax. They lost, to a cheaper solution.
HD DVD might have come out a winner. BR is upgrade = buy new player (except, of course, the PS3 - wonder why that is?) .
It also took BR almost a year post "win" to almost catch up to where HD DVD was. Can you bookmark a spot in a movie yet and go back to it at any time?