I think what the original poster was getting at is that the term 'iPod' has become synonymous with portable media players in general. I quite often hear (especially around less tech-oriented family and friends) people referring to generic MP3 players and other companies' music devices as 'one of those iPod things'.
You are correct that it is a brand name, trademarked, etc, and that in that sense it is not generic. But calling the OP a troll is a bit much.
Actually, this appears to be what iTunes does. Certainly for playlists.
Try it out yourself: load up iTunes, go to a playlist and hit the 'Shuffle' button. See how the playlist randomly reorganises? If you keep hitting the button, it toggles between normal, sequential order and a different, randomly-generated, shuffle order. Guess what happens when you finish listening to the playlist (and you've got it on repeat)? Yep, iTunes reshuffles and starts again. The only chance of a song being repeated is if the song was at the end of one shuffle and the beginning of another.
However, this is iTunes. The story is about iPods, which may handle shuffling differently.
First, I did not say it doesn't exist. If you read and thought about it, you would realise that I don't care about features, ACLs, journaling, etc, as they are irrelevant when I can't write to the bloody thing.
Second, consider Microsoft's position: They have over 95% of the market, a ridiculous cash pile, and a very very large monopoly. It would cost them little to nothing to open the relevant parts of the spec so that developers for other platforms and open-source projects could write drivers to interface with their FS. They clearly feel that, since they have over 95% of the OS market, they can afford to not give a rat's ass about interoperability. That, is arrogant.
Third, there should be no reason to hate NTFS if it is usable. A filesystem is largely invisible to the user when it doesn't present a barrier, like I describe.
Fourth, that article you link to: "As some of you are aware, there are some in the community who believe that a.Net 2.0 compatible release was theirs by-right and that I should be moving faster - despite the fact that I am but one man working in his spare time..." I assume this was what you were drawing attention to. This does not apply in this argument, a MS is not "but one man working in his spare time"... it is a multi-billion dollar corporation that could easily allow interoperability with its major FS with little effort. I am also an avid supporter of open-source software and regularly donate to projects that I use. I don't see how this constitutes 'killing'.
Fifth, I do not see the point of continuing this argument. Let's agree to disagree. I'm sure we both have something better to do than hold a long-distance dispute.
I ignore all of the features that you claim it has because they are of no use to me. Why? Because they're no use to me when I can't even write from Mac or Linux.
I'm sure NTFS is just wonderful, but forgive me for not liking it because of Microsoft's arrogance towards interoperability.
It's none of those. It's the fact that Microsoft won't open it up sufficiently to allow drivers for full (and safe) read/write access to be written for Linux and Mac.
It's ridiculous when I can't write a file from OSX to my friend's NTFS external HDD. The filesystem could be fantastic, a joy to use and full of useful features, but if there's not full interoperability with all platforms, then I don't consider it very good.
Note: I'm not just pointing the finger at NTFS, other filesystems have problems on the interoperability front (yes HFS, I mean you). It's just that NTFS is much more widely used.
Except, you can't block access to Windows Update or certain other Microsoft websites by using the HOSTS file. You just can't.
Microsoft wrote some sort of hack into Windows so that requests for Microsoft websites (including update.microsoft.com and microsoft.com) cannot be blocked or redirected by malware or viruses.
Try it and see for yourself: put two lines in the HOSTS file, '127.0.0.1 google.com' and '127.0.0.1 microsoft.com' (without the quotes). For the uninitiated, the HOSTS file is located in \Windows\system32\drivers\etc, and you'll need Administrator priveleges to edit it. Now open up your favourite web browser and try to open google.com. You'll find that Google is unreachable and returns an error. Now try microsoft.com and watch as the page merrily loads.
Maybe you'll need to rethink your tinfoil hat solution for avoiding Automatic Updates?
I think his whole point was that they'd get better functionality from Windows programs if you run them in Windows, rather than a hacked solution that links them (kicking and screaming) to the Mac frameworks.
I would be pretty damn sure he was not advocating a total switch away from OSX to Windows for one program, rather he was suggesting that you'll get better results running Windows programs through Parallels or Boot Camp.
Relax, it's too early in the day to break out the serious ???s.:)
At my University we have access cards with an embedded chip (like on a recent credit card) and a two-factor authentication system. To gain entry to a controlled area, you have to put the card in a reader (no RFID here) and type in your 4 digit PIN. In theory at least, the PIN is known to only the holder of the card, so if the card was copied/faked/stolen/found, it would be unusable by itself. The access cards are required for things like access to buildings, laboratories within buildings, computer labs, and after-hours access to anywhere that would normally be open. Obviously, access is restricted to only the areas you are authorised to enter, and this is managed by a central database.
This is much more secure than the one-factor authentication systems that use any kind of access card alone. My own view is to avoid biometric security, thanks to it being unproven technology and there have been reports of gaining access with play-doh, etc.
The downside to this system is that it takes longer to authenticate and grant access; time is lost in inserting and removing the card, and entering the PIN on the keypad. If you were to add something to prevent tailgating, then you'd have to think about whether this would cause a bottleneck in your site. You could probably speed it up by using RFID cards with the PIN system, but if you do, make sure they actually do challenge-response authentication, not just passively give out an ID number to every Tom, Dick and Harry with an RFID sniffer.
As always, everything depends on what level of security you need, what kind of building you're planning and how many staff you'll have using the system. I'd strongly recommend, as others have said, talking to a couple of well known security companies and finding out what their systems have to offer and how much it will cost to roll it out. Just don't let a salesman steam-roller you into deploying something that doesn't fit your needs, and be cautious of unproven technology. YMMV.
"But how many potential game buyers is Microsoft turning away by charging for live access?"
Answer: None.
On the Xbox 360, everybody gets free Xbox Live Silver membership. You only have to pay extra if you want online multiplayer. The free service includes all the online stats sharing, messaging, and Xbox Live Marketplace (which is where you buy and demo Live Arcade games).
In the case of the 360 at least, Microsoft is not running a shop with an admission charge.
And if you know you don't qualify for their free offer, you don't even have to contact Microsoft to get your key changed.
They actually make a little tool for updating your product key, so you can avoid googling for key changers (which may lead you to potentially dodgy websites).
If you go and buy a boxed/retail copy of the Windows version you are currently running (eg, Home or Pro), you can update the product key by following these instructions. Or, instead of buying a retail version, you can buy the WGA kit or licence code direct from Microsoft by following the parent poster's advice.
Before Google Checkout has much hope of usurping PayPal, they'll need to accept more payment options.
Paypal currently allows payment direct from a bank account (I don't expect Google to need this), Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Delta, Maestro, Visa Electron, Solo, Discover, and more if you count their other services. That's at least 10 ways to pay.
Google, on the other hand, accept Visa, Mastercard, Amex and Discover. With only 4 ways to pay, I suspect Google Checkout is not an option for many people.
Disclaimer: I live in the UK and this is based on my experience with the UK PayPal service. I also agree with the sentiments of paypalsucks.com, and would like to see Google smash PayPal to pieces if they can Do No Evil. YMMV.
What the article doesn't make clear is whether this is free to visitors to Goonhilly Earth Station itself or just the cafe. Having visited myself, I suspect it's the former.
I can assure you, BT are making plenty of dough from visitors to the station. The entry prices aren't exactly cheap for what you get; an adult costs £6.50 (or $12) and a family ticket is £20 (or $36). I wouldn't worry about those dishes falling apart any time soon.
The problem with this scheme (there may be others, I'm not claiming to be an expert on content distribution) is that most of the BitTorrent traffic at the moment is due to illegal downloads. I'll bet a massive chunk of it'll be TPB related. Don't get me wrong here, I realise we're talking about legal stuff, but don't be under the illusion that those legal-and-properly-licensed files are what made BitTorrent take off (I'm going to ignore Linux ISOs at the moment, but bear with me).
BitTorrent, while requiring trackers, is a distributed network. There are no specific 'areas' where files are held that could possibly be subject to **AA lawsuits (and others). The problem with your newsgroup situation is that the files are hosted on a server, owned and operated by someone. People can connect to that server, and the copyright holders can flex the DMCA and have your ISP shut the connection down. Thus, BT is a very good way of sharing bandwidth on a P2P basis where it is totally impractical and very difficult to trace the people in a swarm. See? BitTorrent is really, really good for TPB stuff and illegal things -- hence it took off and became a buzzword of sorts.
Now that Hollywood are in on this hip-new-Bit-wave-thingy, the legal downloads will begin. Realistically, the Hollywood content providers couldn't give a rat's ass about the internet... they just want to save some cash on bandwidth and server costs by using BitTorrent, which (as you say, inefficiently) takes the bandwidth burden away and pushes it onto the users. It would probably cost the Hollywood guys a lot more to set up NNTP-type servers across the globe, hence that idea will never happen. Although, why they're too cheap to use something like Akamai beats me.
The Linux distros are in a similar position. They use BT as a means of serving large files like DVD ISO images, without costing a fortune in server and bandwidth costs. I mean, lets face it, there are many distros that are just a couple of guys in a basement... without BT they'd never be able to distribute their stuff. They certainly can't afford the infrastructure, server and bandwidth costs of NNTP-type global distribution.
Oh, and before I go. Your home DSL line will probably be capped at 1.5 Mbps download, but around 384 Kbps upload. Which do you think matters more for BT?:)
Slashdot can't cope with EURO symbols. My post should then read:
"In the UK, a WRT54GL is around £50 (or 70 EUR), whereas FON will sell you one for 50 EUR (assuming you just pay the surcharge for not registering) which is just £35."
Even audio CDs don't last more than a couple of years, particularly if you do something ridiculous, such as actually use them. Who here as a pile of audio CDs they bought in the 90s that are degraded beyond use?
Crap. No other word for it.
You're telling me you've got CDs from around 2002, which, after normal use and care (ie, play them, put them back in the box after), do not work?
I have got numerous CDs from the mid-to-late-80s which play just fine. They aren't as good quality recordings as newer discs today, but I wouldn't attribute that to degradation of the optical medium.
If you take normal, due care of your optical media (which means put it back in the box when you're done with it) then you've have readable discs for years to come. If you leave them lying around the floor for people to stand on, then no wonder you've got problems after a couple of years.
I like the concept, but I don't think the whole thing has been thought out properly.
In order to safely share your connection, you'd need to make sure that the FON registration process can keep good records of the Fonero users, and that the firmware is able to filter and block access to inappropriate/illegal content (and I'm not convinced it can). Otherwise, users can anonymously use your connection for looking up kiddie porn... which your ISP will have something to say about if it is traced. You'd also have to daisy-chain routers together or somehow segregate this from your internal LAN, which is probably more expense/trouble than it's worth.
Add to this the fact that most ISPs frown heavily on you setting up a public access hotspot with a residential broadband connection (It's against the ToS of mine), and this 5/$5 router becomes more trouble than it's worth.
The only major benefit that I can see is the cheap router. In the UK, a WRT54GL is around £50 (or 70), whereas FON will sell you one for 50 (assuming you just pay the surcharge for not registering) which is just £35.
High definition is headed for a niche market at best, not an industry takeover.
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Most people now have at least heard of HDTV; there have been plenty of adverts for high-def digital cable and satellite services here in the UK, especially in the run-up to the World Cup (which can be viewed in HD with the required equipment).
I'm also pretty sure that people buying larger TVs today are buying HDTVs. The big thing about it is the 'Wow' factor of these sets. With a good HD source, the massive screens are pretty amazing. Now, people bought enough DVDs of old VHS tapes for a huge back catalog of old (and oftentimes, shite) films to be released on DVD. What is to say it won't happen again?
Personally, I believe it is far to early to tell what will happen. But, no matter what Audioholics says, High definition IS the future and it WILL take over eventually.
Well really. We've taken 6 pages and a whole load of Google Ads to tell us that the PSOne uses least energy and the Xbox 360 uses most. Umm... I could've guessed that! Comparing the PSOne's power consumption with the 360 is a little crazy. Of course the 360 is going to draw more power to fire up its 3-core PowerPC CPU than the PS2's 295MHz processor!
I don't see the merit of comparing consoles from different generations for their power comsumption. Of course they need more juice... but they're doing a lot more with it. This article would have been interesting if the PS3 and Wii had been out, but with only the 360 available to examine, we don't really know too much about the true power usage of the next-gen systems. The 360 might be the most energy efficient... I'd certainly bet that the PS3's Cell processor and BD-ROM drive will use more electricity.
Also, they labour the point about the idle power consumption a bit much. If I had paid $500 for a 360 and games, I really wouldn't mind paying $2.63 a year for the convenience of using a wireless device (remote or controller) to turn the console on, and $20 per year is probably much less than my PC uses to run, never mind my kettle.
But above all, I especially love this bit:
We might unpack our Xbox 1 to play games on instead of backwards compatibility on the 360. Is double the energy worth anti-aliasing and a wireless controller?
Ummm, yes. They forgot that the $20 per year saves the moaning caused by the two consoles and associated controllers cluttering up the TV unit!
It's interesting reading through the Bugzilla comments; it certainly looks to me that the CAcert.org root certificate will probably be included with Mozilla Firefox at some point in the future.
From Frank Hecker, the guy in charge of CAs:
"I'm the person tasked with developing the mozilla.org policy on inclusion of root CA certs, and with approving noot[sic] root CAs for inclusion.... I have looked over the documentation provided for CAcert, and I approve of including their root CA cert in Mozilla. I'm not the person who does the actual work, but I'll send that person an email to tell them to go ahead and include the cert as soon as possible."
The argument continues; however, so only time will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what the original poster was getting at is that the term 'iPod' has become synonymous with portable media players in general. I quite often hear (especially around less tech-oriented family and friends) people referring to generic MP3 players and other companies' music devices as 'one of those iPod things'.
You are correct that it is a brand name, trademarked, etc, and that in that sense it is not generic. But calling the OP a troll is a bit much.
Actually, this appears to be what iTunes does. Certainly for playlists.
Try it out yourself: load up iTunes, go to a playlist and hit the 'Shuffle' button. See how the playlist randomly reorganises? If you keep hitting the button, it toggles between normal, sequential order and a different, randomly-generated, shuffle order. Guess what happens when you finish listening to the playlist (and you've got it on repeat)? Yep, iTunes reshuffles and starts again. The only chance of a song being repeated is if the song was at the end of one shuffle and the beginning of another.
However, this is iTunes. The story is about iPods, which may handle shuffling differently.
Disclaimer: I have not RTFA.
First, I did not say it doesn't exist. If you read and thought about it, you would realise that I don't care about features, ACLs, journaling, etc, as they are irrelevant when I can't write to the bloody thing.
.Net 2.0 compatible release was theirs by-right and that I should be moving faster - despite the fact that I am but one man working in his spare time..."
Second, consider Microsoft's position: They have over 95% of the market, a ridiculous cash pile, and a very very large monopoly. It would cost them little to nothing to open the relevant parts of the spec so that developers for other platforms and open-source projects could write drivers to interface with their FS. They clearly feel that, since they have over 95% of the OS market, they can afford to not give a rat's ass about interoperability. That, is arrogant.
Third, there should be no reason to hate NTFS if it is usable. A filesystem is largely invisible to the user when it doesn't present a barrier, like I describe.
Fourth, that article you link to: "As some of you are aware, there are some in the community who believe that a
I assume this was what you were drawing attention to. This does not apply in this argument, a MS is not "but one man working in his spare time"... it is a multi-billion dollar corporation that could easily allow interoperability with its major FS with little effort. I am also an avid supporter of open-source software and regularly donate to projects that I use. I don't see how this constitutes 'killing'.
Fifth, I do not see the point of continuing this argument. Let's agree to disagree. I'm sure we both have something better to do than hold a long-distance dispute.
I ignore all of the features that you claim it has because they are of no use to me. Why? Because they're no use to me when I can't even write from Mac or Linux.
I'm sure NTFS is just wonderful, but forgive me for not liking it because of Microsoft's arrogance towards interoperability.
It's none of those. It's the fact that Microsoft won't open it up sufficiently to allow drivers for full (and safe) read/write access to be written for Linux and Mac.
It's ridiculous when I can't write a file from OSX to my friend's NTFS external HDD. The filesystem could be fantastic, a joy to use and full of useful features, but if there's not full interoperability with all platforms, then I don't consider it very good.
Note: I'm not just pointing the finger at NTFS, other filesystems have problems on the interoperability front (yes HFS, I mean you). It's just that NTFS is much more widely used.
Not only are you a troll, but you're a troll that needs to defrag...
Except, you can't block access to Windows Update or certain other Microsoft websites by using the HOSTS file. You just can't.
Microsoft wrote some sort of hack into Windows so that requests for Microsoft websites (including update.microsoft.com and microsoft.com) cannot be blocked or redirected by malware or viruses.
Try it and see for yourself: put two lines in the HOSTS file, '127.0.0.1 google.com' and '127.0.0.1 microsoft.com' (without the quotes). For the uninitiated, the HOSTS file is located in \Windows\system32\drivers\etc, and you'll need Administrator priveleges to edit it. Now open up your favourite web browser and try to open google.com. You'll find that Google is unreachable and returns an error. Now try microsoft.com and watch as the page merrily loads.
Maybe you'll need to rethink your tinfoil hat solution for avoiding Automatic Updates?
I think his whole point was that they'd get better functionality from Windows programs if you run them in Windows, rather than a hacked solution that links them (kicking and screaming) to the Mac frameworks.
:)
I would be pretty damn sure he was not advocating a total switch away from OSX to Windows for one program, rather he was suggesting that you'll get better results running Windows programs through Parallels or Boot Camp.
Relax, it's too early in the day to break out the serious ???s.
At my University we have access cards with an embedded chip (like on a recent credit card) and a two-factor authentication system. To gain entry to a controlled area, you have to put the card in a reader (no RFID here) and type in your 4 digit PIN. In theory at least, the PIN is known to only the holder of the card, so if the card was copied/faked/stolen/found, it would be unusable by itself. The access cards are required for things like access to buildings, laboratories within buildings, computer labs, and after-hours access to anywhere that would normally be open. Obviously, access is restricted to only the areas you are authorised to enter, and this is managed by a central database.
This is much more secure than the one-factor authentication systems that use any kind of access card alone. My own view is to avoid biometric security, thanks to it being unproven technology and there have been reports of gaining access with play-doh, etc.
The downside to this system is that it takes longer to authenticate and grant access; time is lost in inserting and removing the card, and entering the PIN on the keypad. If you were to add something to prevent tailgating, then you'd have to think about whether this would cause a bottleneck in your site. You could probably speed it up by using RFID cards with the PIN system, but if you do, make sure they actually do challenge-response authentication, not just passively give out an ID number to every Tom, Dick and Harry with an RFID sniffer.
As always, everything depends on what level of security you need, what kind of building you're planning and how many staff you'll have using the system. I'd strongly recommend, as others have said, talking to a couple of well known security companies and finding out what their systems have to offer and how much it will cost to roll it out. Just don't let a salesman steam-roller you into deploying something that doesn't fit your needs, and be cautious of unproven technology. YMMV.
"But how many potential game buyers is Microsoft turning away by charging for live access?"
Answer: None.
On the Xbox 360, everybody gets free Xbox Live Silver membership. You only have to pay extra if you want online multiplayer.
The free service includes all the online stats sharing, messaging, and Xbox Live Marketplace (which is where you buy and demo Live Arcade games).
In the case of the 360 at least, Microsoft is not running a shop with an admission charge.
And if you know you don't qualify for their free offer, you don't even have to contact Microsoft to get your key changed.
They actually make a little tool for updating your product key, so you can avoid googling for key changers (which may lead you to potentially dodgy websites).
If you go and buy a boxed/retail copy of the Windows version you are currently running (eg, Home or Pro), you can update the product key by following these instructions. Or, instead of buying a retail version, you can buy the WGA kit or licence code direct from Microsoft by following the parent poster's advice.
I'm posting on Slashdot. My "Written English License" expired years ago.
In all of the Physics and Engineering I have seen, '+ve' is accepted shorthand for 'positive'.
Consider your geek license revoked, please hand it in on your way out.
Please clue me in folks, since when did Yahoo Answers become "The Internet"?
Did I not get the memo?
Before Google Checkout has much hope of usurping PayPal, they'll need to accept more payment options.
Paypal currently allows payment direct from a bank account (I don't expect Google to need this), Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Delta, Maestro, Visa Electron, Solo, Discover, and more if you count their other services. That's at least 10 ways to pay.
Google, on the other hand, accept Visa, Mastercard, Amex and Discover. With only 4 ways to pay, I suspect Google Checkout is not an option for many people.
Disclaimer: I live in the UK and this is based on my experience with the UK PayPal service. I also agree with the sentiments of paypalsucks.com, and would like to see Google smash PayPal to pieces if they can Do No Evil. YMMV.
What the article doesn't make clear is whether this is free to visitors to Goonhilly Earth Station itself or just the cafe. Having visited myself, I suspect it's the former.
I can assure you, BT are making plenty of dough from visitors to the station. The entry prices aren't exactly cheap for what you get; an adult costs £6.50 (or $12) and a family ticket is £20 (or $36). I wouldn't worry about those dishes falling apart any time soon.
The problem with this scheme (there may be others, I'm not claiming to be an expert on content distribution) is that most of the BitTorrent traffic at the moment is due to illegal downloads. I'll bet a massive chunk of it'll be TPB related. Don't get me wrong here, I realise we're talking about legal stuff, but don't be under the illusion that those legal-and-properly-licensed files are what made BitTorrent take off (I'm going to ignore Linux ISOs at the moment, but bear with me).
:)
BitTorrent, while requiring trackers, is a distributed network. There are no specific 'areas' where files are held that could possibly be subject to **AA lawsuits (and others). The problem with your newsgroup situation is that the files are hosted on a server, owned and operated by someone. People can connect to that server, and the copyright holders can flex the DMCA and have your ISP shut the connection down. Thus, BT is a very good way of sharing bandwidth on a P2P basis where it is totally impractical and very difficult to trace the people in a swarm. See? BitTorrent is really, really good for TPB stuff and illegal things -- hence it took off and became a buzzword of sorts.
Now that Hollywood are in on this hip-new-Bit-wave-thingy, the legal downloads will begin. Realistically, the Hollywood content providers couldn't give a rat's ass about the internet... they just want to save some cash on bandwidth and server costs by using BitTorrent, which (as you say, inefficiently) takes the bandwidth burden away and pushes it onto the users. It would probably cost the Hollywood guys a lot more to set up NNTP-type servers across the globe, hence that idea will never happen. Although, why they're too cheap to use something like Akamai beats me.
The Linux distros are in a similar position. They use BT as a means of serving large files like DVD ISO images, without costing a fortune in server and bandwidth costs. I mean, lets face it, there are many distros that are just a couple of guys in a basement... without BT they'd never be able to distribute their stuff. They certainly can't afford the infrastructure, server and bandwidth costs of NNTP-type global distribution.
Oh, and before I go. Your home DSL line will probably be capped at 1.5 Mbps download, but around 384 Kbps upload. Which do you think matters more for BT?
*sigh*
Slashdot can't cope with EURO symbols. My post should then read:
"In the UK, a WRT54GL is around £50 (or 70 EUR), whereas FON will sell you one for 50 EUR (assuming you just pay the surcharge for not registering) which is just £35."
Crap. No other word for it.
You're telling me you've got CDs from around 2002, which, after normal use and care (ie, play them, put them back in the box after), do not work?
I have got numerous CDs from the mid-to-late-80s which play just fine. They aren't as good quality recordings as newer discs today, but I wouldn't attribute that to degradation of the optical medium.
If you take normal, due care of your optical media (which means put it back in the box when you're done with it) then you've have readable discs for years to come. If you leave them lying around the floor for people to stand on, then no wonder you've got problems after a couple of years.
I like the concept, but I don't think the whole thing has been thought out properly.
In order to safely share your connection, you'd need to make sure that the FON registration process can keep good records of the Fonero users, and that the firmware is able to filter and block access to inappropriate/illegal content (and I'm not convinced it can). Otherwise, users can anonymously use your connection for looking up kiddie porn... which your ISP will have something to say about if it is traced. You'd also have to daisy-chain routers together or somehow segregate this from your internal LAN, which is probably more expense/trouble than it's worth.
Add to this the fact that most ISPs frown heavily on you setting up a public access hotspot with a residential broadband connection (It's against the ToS of mine), and this 5/$5 router becomes more trouble than it's worth.
The only major benefit that I can see is the cheap router. In the UK, a WRT54GL is around £50 (or 70), whereas FON will sell you one for 50 (assuming you just pay the surcharge for not registering) which is just £35.
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Most people now have at least heard of HDTV; there have been plenty of adverts for high-def digital cable and satellite services here in the UK, especially in the run-up to the World Cup (which can be viewed in HD with the required equipment).
I'm also pretty sure that people buying larger TVs today are buying HDTVs. The big thing about it is the 'Wow' factor of these sets. With a good HD source, the massive screens are pretty amazing. Now, people bought enough DVDs of old VHS tapes for a huge back catalog of old (and oftentimes, shite) films to be released on DVD. What is to say it won't happen again?
Personally, I believe it is far to early to tell what will happen. But, no matter what Audioholics says, High definition IS the future and it WILL take over eventually.
Somehow, I find my browser's interpretation more fitting...
I don't see the merit of comparing consoles from different generations for their power comsumption. Of course they need more juice... but they're doing a lot more with it. This article would have been interesting if the PS3 and Wii had been out, but with only the 360 available to examine, we don't really know too much about the true power usage of the next-gen systems. The 360 might be the most energy efficient... I'd certainly bet that the PS3's Cell processor and BD-ROM drive will use more electricity.
Also, they labour the point about the idle power consumption a bit much. If I had paid $500 for a 360 and games, I really wouldn't mind paying $2.63 a year for the convenience of using a wireless device (remote or controller) to turn the console on, and $20 per year is probably much less than my PC uses to run, never mind my kettle.
But above all, I especially love this bit:
Ummm, yes. They forgot that the $20 per year saves the moaning caused by the two consoles and associated controllers cluttering up the TV unit!
I know; I live in Edinburgh, Scotland. :)
From Frank Hecker, the guy in charge of CAs:
The argument continues; however, so only time will tell.