It IS "classic vendor lock". Move away from Apple = lose your movies, apps, and accessories. Move away from a Windows/Android vendor to another Windows/Android vendor: Keep pour movies and apps; lose some accessoires, maybe.
Move away from android, your apps don't work, DRM or not, so drop the apps part from your argument as it applies to all things.
Move away from your G2 android handset and your G2 android handset accessories no longer work... so thats not unique to apple either.
Show me the same movie from a legitimate source of movies for android as one of the DRM'd itunes movies... and lets see if it has DRM... you know what, it will, because the DRM is a requirement of movie studios, not apple.
So everything you pointed out about the Apple experience that is 'evil' or 'bad' applies to everyone else as well. The only way its unique is that Apple tells you up front we're not doing it, don't but us if you want that versus pretending that everything is compatible with everything else as you see elsewhere.
You mean the Apps that only run on those devices anyway? Or the movie rentals which expire after a few days anyway?
I have never bought any media from iTunes with DRM on it, and I've dropped a rather large chunk of change with them over the years.
As for BD... well, you're right... right up till they blacklist your player... using the DRM built into bluray and the player, but hey, don't let facts fuck up your silly rants.
What exactly can't I take with me when I leave Apple that would be USEFUL somewhere else. I can't take my apps to another device... so that must be apples fault, I should sue them for that... as well as suing them for making it so OSX apps won't run on Windows... oh and then I can sue RIM for not making apps that run on my PC or iPhone! You might have a good idea here.
Take your freaking tin foil hat off and go buy from someone else, you are not being forced to buy apple, there is no lockin if they aren't your vendor.
No, Mobile Safari and Safari and Chrome and the KDE web browser thingy, by your definition would be webkit skins.
And Firefox is really just a gecko skin, like all the other gecko based 'browsers'.
IE for PC is a skin on Trident, and its a skin for something else in the old Mac and Solaris versions.
So translation, according to you: There are no web browsers installed and directly accessible on iOS devices, only skins.
Its a web browser, not a rendering engine, there is a difference... if there wasn't a difference we wouldnt' name them two different things and have any reason to associate them in the way we do.
If you're going to be retarded and warp the perspective, you have to realize it applies to everything, so its best to check if your warping holds your point up or completely destroys it as has happened here.
Why on Earth would you install a memory and cpu hogging bloated mess like Firefox on a light weight low memory/low cpu power battery sipping device.
Are you retarded?
You can pick a lot of things you'd want on your phone that Apple doesn't allow, but anyone wanting Firefox on their phone needs someone like Apple to protect them from themselves.
Its funny that the battle cry for iPhone haters almost always seems to be something that any normal rational intelligent person would see as a good thing.
Back to the point however, Apple isn't forcing anything on anyway using an entrenched product that is essentially the only relevent one in the marketplace. Which is what Microsoft did. Apple didn't get to be the crowd favorite by forcing you to use their stuff. They put their stuff on sale, and before they did, they told you it was going to be locked down and you'd have to take it there way or the high way... and you know what? Everyone lined up at their doors and was happy to sign up for it.
They didn't beat everyone else out of the market, then change their ways to keep others out. They came into the market as a no one, in both mp3 players and phones and tablets... and people were happy to jump on board... while paying more than the actual value of the device from someone else.
When are you guys going to get it? You really need an iPhone more than most of the non-techies out there, you think you're smart but clearly want to do some stupid things.
If you read their business plan, which has been public since they announced their existence to the world... all along the intended to license the tech to the existing manufactures.
No need to suspect it, they told you thats what they were going to do years ago.
Most people don't give a flying fuck about the environment, those with more money typically even less so. The statement made was pretty clear, MOST but NOT ALL people capable of buying a Roadster aren't going to give a fuck.
Its extremely common when you don't have infinite funds.
If you notice... they are switching to a car with more mass market appeal... which... was their plan from day one... so ALL the VC money they got going in... came from people fully aware of this plan. People who have made enough money to know a thing or two about how to run a business.
If they had an entry level model priced for the average consumer, and possibly a mid-range and high-line car, that would satisfy the markets. More people would have bought one priced closer to $10k. At $109k, you can buy two of any of the common hybrid cars available, *AND* you could get parts and have it serviced almost anywhere. Those with the money will get the high line model. Many who look at the entry level model would consider or buy the mid-range model.
You wouldn't catch me, or many other people dead in what passes for a hybrid or EV car today. Its as if they makers are going out of their way to produce cars so fucking ugly and so pathetic in every way that no one wants to buy them, and those who do are so far off the deep end that you can't take their opinion about the car seriously, they are clearly anti-gasoline fanboys well beyond what anyone would define as rational.
A Tesla roadster on the other hand, I wouldn't mind driving around town.
My current car costs about the same as a nice EV, but it doesn't look like ass, it doesn't have a range thats not worth mentioning... oh yea, and its rather fuel efficient so if you take into account the entire life cycle of an EV and my car... well, the EV has produced more pollution before its rolled off the assembly line than my car EVER WILL guzzingly gasoline... and ITS A FREAKING SPORTS CAR.
All current Hybrids and EVs are novelty cars, if you buy one for any other reason, you're an idiot who hasn't bothered to due complete research.
Sure... IF and ONLY IF you ignore all the other things that were produced during the refinement process that we'd need anyway or actually produce energy as well.
If we totally stopped using fossil fuel based engines RIGHT THIS INSTANT, the only thing that would change is we'd have a massive surpluss of fossil fuels useful for a combustion engine. You do like plastics and lubricants and medicines and food by products, and all the other shit that stims from oil productions... DON'T YOU? You turn off the energy to produce that gallon of refined gasoline and your world would turn upside down even if you ignored the direct results of not having gasoline.
There is practically 0 waste in an oil refinery, yes, they have big flames all over burning waste gases, and those are trivial in comparison to the amount of crude that goes through them.
But hey, don't let taking the big picture into account prevent you from sayings something stupid.
(Charging battery for deceleration or going down hill)
I've been working with regenerative braking since the 90s, its not nearly as efficient as you seem to think it is.
Yes, it puts some energy back into the system. No, its not worth mentioning because the amount is so little that its irrelevant.
This technology isn't even a little bit new and is FAR more efficient in the areas I deal with it than it is in a car, the only reason its done is because with all the other technology involved in making electric braking work on an electric motor requires shunting electricity somewhere. The power controllers HAVE to be able to electrical flow in both directions in order to work. They'd actually have to add components to use the motor as a brake without recharging the battery as they'd have to add components to shunt the motors poles together.
The point, regenerative braking isn't worth mentioning, and they aren't doing it to be impressive, they're doing it because its the cheapest way to build the power controller for the car. They just spin that into a marketing bullet point to fool those who don't know anything about the tech.
Any gain you get from it, you'll loose 100 times over powering your air conditioner to offset the increase heat generated in the motors, electronics and batteries that makes its way into the cabin.
I wonder what environmental issues there might be if the factory was ever completely decommissioned.
Pretty much the exact same issues there would be if it doesn't get decommissioned or if they had decommissioned it sooner.
It doesn't magically make bad things when you tear it down. They are already there, already leaching into the soil, water and air around the plant. Eventually it will all come out, its just a question of when. Cleaning it up at once, before it has leaked into the environment and been dispersed across a large region is FAR easier and better for everyone involved.
Agreed, in that you can't sell more if you can't make them.
Some people will certainly be willing to wait 6 months. I waited almost 9 months for a 30k car because I wanted THAT car... now I'm a little pissed the GM decided to sell that brand off so the only place I can get new parts is from across the frakking pond, but thats another story entirely.
Also, it is so risky that patent insurance, if at all available, costs far more than the patent is worth.
This is true of all forms of insurance, regardless of what its form.
Insurance providers aren't in business to lose money.
Auto insurance is a great example, most drivers claim very little over their lifetime yet pay tremendous amounts. Within 15-20 years of driving, you'll have paid the insurance companies more than your insurance is worth at maximum payout in almost every case. And under no circumstances will you EVER get maximum payout.
Why not? Doctors are held personally liable for their mistakes.
Hahahahah seriously, you believe that?
Preface: my wife is a doctor.
My wife never even SEEs her malpractice insurance bill, the group she works for pays it. Second, assuming they kill a man, intentionally, and its proven in court, the absolute WORST thing that happens to them... they can't practice medicine again... IN THAT STATE, they just go somewhere else. Insurance pays the bill. They get boarded in the new state, and go one continuing to be a shitty doctor. Maybe they can't practice in California, because they bother to look at things like that, but thats just California, no body else does (well, no body else where you'd actually want to live, North Dakota and those states might, never bothered looking). The feds really don't give a flying fuck, the state boards are the ones that pull licenses.
Doctors are no more liable than I am if you shoot your wife. They are supposed to be, but theory and reality are entirely different in most cases, especially this one.
Doctors are even less liable than drivers. Drivers of cars are required to have insurance as well, but you're a lot more likely to go to jail for doing something stupid in a car than any doctor.
I've seen doctors get their license revoked for being complete scumbags in our state, literally move their office 2 blocks down the street, to the other side of the state line, and open up for business a week later. We're talking about a doctor who prescribed drugs at levels that were unacceptable to any other doctor, gave out pain pills like there was no tomorrow (I know people who have signed prescription pads from the guy so they could refill themselves.), put people on long term IV antibiotics and destroy their bodies in various ways, and flat out lie about all of it, with video and audio taped evidence...
The ONLY, and I do mean ONLY reason he lost his license? The BlueCross and BlueShield were tired of paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient every month. Not because of all the bad shit he was doing, not because he was hurting people, but because the insurance company of patients didn't want to pay anymore.
The idea that doctors are liable is about as funny as the idea that politicians are liable for what they do.
In most places, the fiber is already there. If you've got a cable modem, theres fiber fairly close to your home.
Long haul connections just get upgraded equipment on the ends. We don't need more fiber for more bandwidth, thats why we laid fiber, its theoretical limit is defined by the laws of physics and light, which means as long as we can keep upgrading our endpoint routers, we can keep getting more bandwidth out of existing fiber. We've got a few years before we hit the limits of what we can push down fibre, probably far more than we're going to push processors to handle the bandwidth.
I haven't had any difficulty throttling any sort of IP stream in almost 15 years. UDP, TCP, ICMP, IGMP, RAW (otherwise unknown payloads), you name it. Just because your little OS or linksys router doesn't do it doesn't mean real network equipment doesn't. Literally 15 years ago, throttling UDP to specific rates with no problem at all.
UDP video transfer is a dirty hack implemented because it was the only way to get video of watchable quality through.
UDP is used because a lost packet doesn't stop the stream, missed packet is just a missed packet. If its a miss on a small portion of a moving image, you probably won't notice. A lost packet in a TCP stream could result in no data flowing at the logical level for several seconds. This hasn't gone away or changed and never will, packets WILL get lost and need to be retransmitted. When your video stops playing for a few seconds while it waits for the missing packet, then finally requests a retransmit, then you're going to notice.
I'm not sure what you think it has to do with picture quality, since its all digital data, the quality doesn't change just because you put it over a different protocol. Do you also believe that the file format changes when you move it from your PC to PC using a USB stick rather than a CD?
You probably want to get a clue before you start telling everyone to dump UDP... especially since you clearly have no fucking clue why its used.
I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about, mostly because the MTU for most people won't even hold a tiny portion of the screen at QVGA quality, considering its at most going to be 1500 bytes unless they happen to be on gigabit to their DSL or Cable modems...
When streams buffer, the buffer ahead and then stop, or run at a reduced rate. Buffering is only relevant at the beginning, and considering I can run probably 6-10 netflix movies on my home connection, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on being anywhere nearing saturation constantly. After that, when the buffer is full, it falls back to sending what it needs to send.
But hey, don't let a little thing like actually understanding how this shit works keep you from spewing your ignorance.
Wake me up when you actually know what you're talking about.
You do realize current video technology (HD broadcast TV) is higher definition that most people can see in their homes right?
The point to that being, one or two resolution jumps and we're likely to be at the final point for TV. You don't need more pixels once the eye stops perceiving any change in the image. Yes, we'll still have morons like people who call themselves audiophiles and listen to 'high bitrate mp3s' but you can safely ignore those morons with TV just like you do with music now.
As far as being the 'best idea' Mr Cerf can muster, well, its the idea agreed on by every competent network engineer on the planet. Anyone who works in the industry knows the problem isn't bandwidth availability, its that companies don't want to perform the very inexpensive (compared to the profit and other costs associated with moving data) upgrade.
So before you go telling the father of the Internet, creator of the first real ISP, and all around knowledgable guy that he doesn't have clue... remember, he had a clue before you were born and long before you could click a mouse, and he's STILL about 100 times more knowledgable than you... hence the reason he was speaking at Junipers conference... unless of course you think the guys who make the biggest and baddest routers and switches on the Internet when and picked some idiot to speak to them.
Your ignorance makes you look like a little bitch, keep your mouth shut and you'll get a lot further in life.
If you're smart, you'll install the localized help and turn on integrated help in visual studio, its far easier to access the help locally with hotkeys than using msdn for most things.
People don't spend massive amounts of time just google searching... or bing searching... the do however spend lots of time reading their email on the sites both of those providers provide.
Its a safe bet he uses Google considering he thinks MS search sucks. In fact if you look at the last line, its pretty clear that he doesn't use MS sites.
You need help for reading comprehension? Maybe call God?
I would be much happier if they were only allowed to call real 4G as 4G and not 3.14159G as 4G.
What is 'real 4g'? Don't bother answering, you can't, cause you don't know, because it doesn't actually have a definition, so you can't tell them they aren't providing 4g.
Thats why its called '2g' or '3g' or whatever. Its so devoid of useful meaning that you can not possibly prove the telco wrong or call them a liar.
My bass boat uses 6g equipment. By 6g I mean its the 6th prototype board I've made for it that includes a zigbee for communications, I'm just as accurate as the telco's but I assure you, you'd never want to try to use the radio link on my boat for anything other than over night data offloads between vessels.
Slashdot Mirror
It IS "classic vendor lock". Move away from Apple = lose your movies, apps, and accessories. Move away from a Windows/Android vendor to another Windows/Android vendor: Keep pour movies and apps; lose some accessoires, maybe.
Move away from android, your apps don't work, DRM or not, so drop the apps part from your argument as it applies to all things.
Move away from your G2 android handset and your G2 android handset accessories no longer work ... so thats not unique to apple either.
Show me the same movie from a legitimate source of movies for android as one of the DRM'd itunes movies ... and lets see if it has DRM ... you know what, it will, because the DRM is a requirement of movie studios, not apple.
So everything you pointed out about the Apple experience that is 'evil' or 'bad' applies to everyone else as well. The only way its unique is that Apple tells you up front we're not doing it, don't but us if you want that versus pretending that everything is compatible with everything else as you see elsewhere.
DRM laden purchases
You mean the Apps that only run on those devices anyway? Or the movie rentals which expire after a few days anyway?
I have never bought any media from iTunes with DRM on it, and I've dropped a rather large chunk of change with them over the years.
As for BD ... well, you're right ... right up till they blacklist your player ... using the DRM built into bluray and the player, but hey, don't let facts fuck up your silly rants.
What exactly can't I take with me when I leave Apple that would be USEFUL somewhere else. I can't take my apps to another device ... so that must be apples fault, I should sue them for that ... as well as suing them for making it so OSX apps won't run on Windows ... oh and then I can sue RIM for not making apps that run on my PC or iPhone! You might have a good idea here.
Take your freaking tin foil hat off and go buy from someone else, you are not being forced to buy apple, there is no lockin if they aren't your vendor.
No, Mobile Safari and Safari and Chrome and the KDE web browser thingy, by your definition would be webkit skins.
And Firefox is really just a gecko skin, like all the other gecko based 'browsers'.
IE for PC is a skin on Trident, and its a skin for something else in the old Mac and Solaris versions.
So translation, according to you: There are no web browsers installed and directly accessible on iOS devices, only skins.
Its a web browser, not a rendering engine, there is a difference ... if there wasn't a difference we wouldnt' name them two different things and have any reason to associate them in the way we do.
If you're going to be retarded and warp the perspective, you have to realize it applies to everything, so its best to check if your warping holds your point up or completely destroys it as has happened here.
Why on Earth would you install a memory and cpu hogging bloated mess like Firefox on a light weight low memory/low cpu power battery sipping device.
Are you retarded?
You can pick a lot of things you'd want on your phone that Apple doesn't allow, but anyone wanting Firefox on their phone needs someone like Apple to protect them from themselves.
Its funny that the battle cry for iPhone haters almost always seems to be something that any normal rational intelligent person would see as a good thing.
Back to the point however, Apple isn't forcing anything on anyway using an entrenched product that is essentially the only relevent one in the marketplace. Which is what Microsoft did. Apple didn't get to be the crowd favorite by forcing you to use their stuff. They put their stuff on sale, and before they did, they told you it was going to be locked down and you'd have to take it there way or the high way ... and you know what? Everyone lined up at their doors and was happy to sign up for it.
They didn't beat everyone else out of the market, then change their ways to keep others out. They came into the market as a no one, in both mp3 players and phones and tablets ... and people were happy to jump on board ... while paying more than the actual value of the device from someone else.
When are you guys going to get it? You really need an iPhone more than most of the non-techies out there, you think you're smart but clearly want to do some stupid things.
Might want to check your math and remove a zero off the end so you can get back down to the actual amount of 180 million.
109,000 * 1650 = 179,850,000
If you'd had said 1.8B it would have made a little more sense, but 1.5B isn't even off by just an extra 0 on the end.
If you read their business plan, which has been public since they announced their existence to the world ... all along the intended to license the tech to the existing manufactures.
No need to suspect it, they told you thats what they were going to do years ago.
Not really.
Most people don't give a flying fuck about the environment, those with more money typically even less so. The statement made was pretty clear, MOST but NOT ALL people capable of buying a Roadster aren't going to give a fuck.
Its extremely common when you don't have infinite funds.
If you notice ... they are switching to a car with more mass market appeal ... which ... was their plan from day one ... so ALL the VC money they got going in ... came from people fully aware of this plan. People who have made enough money to know a thing or two about how to run a business.
If they had an entry level model priced for the average consumer, and possibly a mid-range and high-line car, that would satisfy the markets. More people would have bought one priced closer to $10k. At $109k, you can buy two of any of the common hybrid cars available, *AND* you could get parts and have it serviced almost anywhere. Those with the money will get the high line model. Many who look at the entry level model would consider or buy the mid-range model.
You wouldn't catch me, or many other people dead in what passes for a hybrid or EV car today. Its as if they makers are going out of their way to produce cars so fucking ugly and so pathetic in every way that no one wants to buy them, and those who do are so far off the deep end that you can't take their opinion about the car seriously, they are clearly anti-gasoline fanboys well beyond what anyone would define as rational.
A Tesla roadster on the other hand, I wouldn't mind driving around town.
My current car costs about the same as a nice EV, but it doesn't look like ass, it doesn't have a range thats not worth mentioning ... oh yea, and its rather fuel efficient so if you take into account the entire life cycle of an EV and my car ... well, the EV has produced more pollution before its rolled off the assembly line than my car EVER WILL guzzingly gasoline ... and ITS A FREAKING SPORTS CAR.
All current Hybrids and EVs are novelty cars, if you buy one for any other reason, you're an idiot who hasn't bothered to due complete research.
just using the energy to refine that gallon.
Sure ... IF and ONLY IF you ignore all the other things that were produced during the refinement process that we'd need anyway or actually produce energy as well.
If we totally stopped using fossil fuel based engines RIGHT THIS INSTANT, the only thing that would change is we'd have a massive surpluss of fossil fuels useful for a combustion engine. You do like plastics and lubricants and medicines and food by products, and all the other shit that stims from oil productions ... DON'T YOU? You turn off the energy to produce that gallon of refined gasoline and your world would turn upside down even if you ignored the direct results of not having gasoline.
There is practically 0 waste in an oil refinery, yes, they have big flames all over burning waste gases, and those are trivial in comparison to the amount of crude that goes through them.
But hey, don't let taking the big picture into account prevent you from sayings something stupid.
(Charging battery for deceleration or going down hill)
I've been working with regenerative braking since the 90s, its not nearly as efficient as you seem to think it is.
Yes, it puts some energy back into the system. No, its not worth mentioning because the amount is so little that its irrelevant.
This technology isn't even a little bit new and is FAR more efficient in the areas I deal with it than it is in a car, the only reason its done is because with all the other technology involved in making electric braking work on an electric motor requires shunting electricity somewhere. The power controllers HAVE to be able to electrical flow in both directions in order to work. They'd actually have to add components to use the motor as a brake without recharging the battery as they'd have to add components to shunt the motors poles together.
The point, regenerative braking isn't worth mentioning, and they aren't doing it to be impressive, they're doing it because its the cheapest way to build the power controller for the car. They just spin that into a marketing bullet point to fool those who don't know anything about the tech.
Any gain you get from it, you'll loose 100 times over powering your air conditioner to offset the increase heat generated in the motors, electronics and batteries that makes its way into the cabin.
I wonder what environmental issues there might be if the factory was ever completely decommissioned.
Pretty much the exact same issues there would be if it doesn't get decommissioned or if they had decommissioned it sooner.
It doesn't magically make bad things when you tear it down. They are already there, already leaching into the soil, water and air around the plant. Eventually it will all come out, its just a question of when. Cleaning it up at once, before it has leaked into the environment and been dispersed across a large region is FAR easier and better for everyone involved.
A 6 month wait list hindered sales.
Agreed, in that you can't sell more if you can't make them.
Some people will certainly be willing to wait 6 months. I waited almost 9 months for a 30k car because I wanted THAT car ... now I'm a little pissed the GM decided to sell that brand off so the only place I can get new parts is from across the frakking pond, but thats another story entirely.
Also, it is so risky that patent insurance, if at all available, costs far more than the patent is worth.
This is true of all forms of insurance, regardless of what its form.
Insurance providers aren't in business to lose money.
Auto insurance is a great example, most drivers claim very little over their lifetime yet pay tremendous amounts. Within 15-20 years of driving, you'll have paid the insurance companies more than your insurance is worth at maximum payout in almost every case. And under no circumstances will you EVER get maximum payout.
Why not? Doctors are held personally liable for their mistakes.
Hahahahah seriously, you believe that?
Preface: my wife is a doctor.
My wife never even SEEs her malpractice insurance bill, the group she works for pays it. Second, assuming they kill a man, intentionally, and its proven in court, the absolute WORST thing that happens to them ... they can't practice medicine again ... IN THAT STATE, they just go somewhere else. Insurance pays the bill. They get boarded in the new state, and go one continuing to be a shitty doctor. Maybe they can't practice in California, because they bother to look at things like that, but thats just California, no body else does (well, no body else where you'd actually want to live, North Dakota and those states might, never bothered looking). The feds really don't give a flying fuck, the state boards are the ones that pull licenses.
Doctors are no more liable than I am if you shoot your wife. They are supposed to be, but theory and reality are entirely different in most cases, especially this one.
Doctors are even less liable than drivers. Drivers of cars are required to have insurance as well, but you're a lot more likely to go to jail for doing something stupid in a car than any doctor.
I've seen doctors get their license revoked for being complete scumbags in our state, literally move their office 2 blocks down the street, to the other side of the state line, and open up for business a week later. We're talking about a doctor who prescribed drugs at levels that were unacceptable to any other doctor, gave out pain pills like there was no tomorrow (I know people who have signed prescription pads from the guy so they could refill themselves.), put people on long term IV antibiotics and destroy their bodies in various ways, and flat out lie about all of it, with video and audio taped evidence ...
The ONLY, and I do mean ONLY reason he lost his license? The BlueCross and BlueShield were tired of paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient every month. Not because of all the bad shit he was doing, not because he was hurting people, but because the insurance company of patients didn't want to pay anymore.
The idea that doctors are liable is about as funny as the idea that politicians are liable for what they do.
In most places, the fiber is already there. If you've got a cable modem, theres fiber fairly close to your home.
Long haul connections just get upgraded equipment on the ends. We don't need more fiber for more bandwidth, thats why we laid fiber, its theoretical limit is defined by the laws of physics and light, which means as long as we can keep upgrading our endpoint routers, we can keep getting more bandwidth out of existing fiber. We've got a few years before we hit the limits of what we can push down fibre, probably far more than we're going to push processors to handle the bandwidth.
Only until DPI on port 80 becomes common and firewalls start blocking tunneling over HTTP.
Oh wait ... too late.
through difficult to throttle udp
I haven't had any difficulty throttling any sort of IP stream in almost 15 years. UDP, TCP, ICMP, IGMP, RAW (otherwise unknown payloads), you name it. Just because your little OS or linksys router doesn't do it doesn't mean real network equipment doesn't. Literally 15 years ago, throttling UDP to specific rates with no problem at all.
UDP video transfer is a dirty hack implemented because it was the only way to get video of watchable quality through.
UDP is used because a lost packet doesn't stop the stream, missed packet is just a missed packet. If its a miss on a small portion of a moving image, you probably won't notice. A lost packet in a TCP stream could result in no data flowing at the logical level for several seconds. This hasn't gone away or changed and never will, packets WILL get lost and need to be retransmitted. When your video stops playing for a few seconds while it waits for the missing packet, then finally requests a retransmit, then you're going to notice.
I'm not sure what you think it has to do with picture quality, since its all digital data, the quality doesn't change just because you put it over a different protocol. Do you also believe that the file format changes when you move it from your PC to PC using a USB stick rather than a CD?
You probably want to get a clue before you start telling everyone to dump UDP ... especially since you clearly have no fucking clue why its used.
I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about, mostly because the MTU for most people won't even hold a tiny portion of the screen at QVGA quality, considering its at most going to be 1500 bytes unless they happen to be on gigabit to their DSL or Cable modems ...
When streams buffer, the buffer ahead and then stop, or run at a reduced rate. Buffering is only relevant at the beginning, and considering I can run probably 6-10 netflix movies on my home connection, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on being anywhere nearing saturation constantly. After that, when the buffer is full, it falls back to sending what it needs to send.
But hey, don't let a little thing like actually understanding how this shit works keep you from spewing your ignorance.
Wake me up when you actually know what you're talking about.
You do realize current video technology (HD broadcast TV) is higher definition that most people can see in their homes right?
The point to that being, one or two resolution jumps and we're likely to be at the final point for TV. You don't need more pixels once the eye stops perceiving any change in the image. Yes, we'll still have morons like people who call themselves audiophiles and listen to 'high bitrate mp3s' but you can safely ignore those morons with TV just like you do with music now.
As far as being the 'best idea' Mr Cerf can muster, well, its the idea agreed on by every competent network engineer on the planet. Anyone who works in the industry knows the problem isn't bandwidth availability, its that companies don't want to perform the very inexpensive (compared to the profit and other costs associated with moving data) upgrade.
So before you go telling the father of the Internet, creator of the first real ISP, and all around knowledgable guy that he doesn't have clue ... remember, he had a clue before you were born and long before you could click a mouse, and he's STILL about 100 times more knowledgable than you ... hence the reason he was speaking at Junipers conference ... unless of course you think the guys who make the biggest and baddest routers and switches on the Internet when and picked some idiot to speak to them.
Your ignorance makes you look like a little bitch, keep your mouth shut and you'll get a lot further in life.
If you're smart, you'll install the localized help and turn on integrated help in visual studio, its far easier to access the help locally with hotkeys than using msdn for most things.
People don't spend massive amounts of time just google searching ... or bing searching ... the do however spend lots of time reading their email on the sites both of those providers provide.
Its a safe bet he uses Google considering he thinks MS search sucks. In fact if you look at the last line, its pretty clear that he doesn't use MS sites.
You need help for reading comprehension? Maybe call God?
So you somehow missed the hand crank laptops for 3rd world countries eh?
I would be much happier if they were only allowed to call real 4G as 4G and not 3.14159G as 4G.
What is 'real 4g'? Don't bother answering, you can't, cause you don't know, because it doesn't actually have a definition, so you can't tell them they aren't providing 4g.
Thats why its called '2g' or '3g' or whatever. Its so devoid of useful meaning that you can not possibly prove the telco wrong or call them a liar.
My bass boat uses 6g equipment. By 6g I mean its the 6th prototype board I've made for it that includes a zigbee for communications, I'm just as accurate as the telco's but I assure you, you'd never want to try to use the radio link on my boat for anything other than over night data offloads between vessels.