The majority of the slashdotters seems to have missed the key point of the article. Maybe because the site was slow so people skipped the illustrations? It's not an article about forcing users to memorize keyboard commands up front. Ugh.
The author has an excellent point, and a simple example on how you can slowly train first-time users into remembering hotkeys. Such an overlay screen is an excellent idea, and I think that even very basic users like my mom would appreciate it. Bolding up frequent commands instead of hiding them like word does also sounds like a good idea.
The article is very brief and the suggested system have some fundamental flaws, though. For example, it will require some form of nested navigation the moment you have more commands than can fit on a single screen. Then people will have to remember the meny navigation. You could make it context-sensitive, but then people wouldn't find the commend if they didn't remember which context it was active in.
So. Interesting, but there is a better way of doing the same thing. OLED-keyboards. I can't wait for the Optimus to hit mass production. (http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/)
With OLEDs, hitting CTRL wouldn't pop up a stupid overlay that teaches you 'S' is short for 'Save'. Hitting CTRL would turn you 'S' key into a 'Save' button. Heck, it will turn your keyboard into a neatly arranged system of menus, so the muscle memory would remember locations without indirectly going through letters. CTRL-S for save is allright, but CTRL-V for paste.
Or just give me a 10x10 OLED keypad designed specifically to display and navigate menu systems. Anyway, the the users will have a big, fat "Save" button next to their fingers, and they won't even imagine why anyone would use the mouse to navigate menus.
IMO, it won't be that long until we have standarized OLEd inputs. And web applications will include keymap files and icons for the user's OLED-pads.
An interface designed at least partially around physically moving the unit would be great to have on something as small as a cellphone, as it would reduce the need for thumb-typing or any other kind of extreme dexterity I got this mental image of someone using their phone to hammer morse-codes against a concrete wall...
So what you are saying is that if I get something from Bittorrent over my comparatively slow link that's not stealing, but being efficient about it (which these guys seem to be) is now 'stealing'. Check. This has nothing to do with "stealing" and everything to do about privacy. Slashdotters are generally against government wiretapping also, but not because they want to get paid for the copies.
Assume you had a sexually explicit picture of yourself / significant other. Then assume someone scanned it and published it on a large web site for everyone in the world to see.
Would you be angry because 1) they "stole" your work? 2) they violated your privacy?
Privacy and copyright are two entirely different issues. Both have issues in the digital age, though.
Linux missed the window for the desktop. Now that PCs are expected to play DRM-protected media encoded with proprietary codecs, the window for consumer open source systems has closed. Linux might have made it in 2002, but now it's too late. And iTunes will NEVER sell non-DRMed music. Oh, wait...
The more widespread DRM gets, the more people will be constantly pissed off by hostile error messages explaining that they damn not try to enjoy their content except for the way the media industry have decided.
Then invite them over and show them how your latest DVD plays on both your computer, living room TV, and handheld phone. They'll be asking for pointers on how to set up Linux the same evening. If this is illegal in your country, you can explain it for laughter.
The existence of superpowers and nuclear deterrents has ended the brutal, organic relationships between countries. Wrong.
International trade has ended it. Countries fought wars over resources, in order to enrich themselves. Trade provides a counterweight to this. Trade is a benefit to a country, and war between countries destroys trade. If loosing the trade will outweight the benefit of aquiring a resource, you do not go to war.
Or put another way: War is expensive. If a country is willing to sell a resource at a reasonable price, it's cheaper to buy it than to take it.
And if there is a war in the future, it is likely between nuclear superpowers. China and the USA, if oil or any other resource should become so critically important that it will be considered more important to a nation than the huge cost of a war.
These days, the biggest threat is not from invasion and occupation, but from global guerilla warfare, also known as terrorism. WW2, Bitch. 70 million dead.
Even if terrorists hijacked planes into skyscrapers every single day, they'd need 63 years. Assuming there was an infinite number of skyscrapers and that passengers allow the hijackers to pilot the plane instead of fighting them.
Then assume WW3 will be fought with nukes.
Apart from this, I agree fully that money would be much better spent constructively instead on military operations.
Though any mention of terror makes me angry and wants to lunge out at current media focus and government-encouraged "war on terror" mass hysteria... People need to get some perspective on terrorism. Without nukes, single attacks can't do shit. Really. Sure, bombing people is horrible, but they cannot cause any real damage.
I'm not saying you should ignore terrorism. I'm saying you should worry about it slightly less. Traffic accidents kill more people that terrorisms, so you should probably be slightly less worried about terrorism than traffic accidents. Anything more, and it's just going to end up huring yourself indirectly.
The mass hysteria after the terror attacks are causing more damage than the attacks themselves. Until people get some perspective and get on with their lives, they're only helping the terrorists.
Yes, I was thinking of the USB & Network combo, for lightweight, single-computer use. As opposed to the USB firewall posted some week ago that relied on redirecting all network traffic through the USB.
This seems very unlikely to me. Currently people pay for CDs then immediately rip them and post the mp3s to various file sharing networks. They arent going to be loyal because they paid you. Certainly. I never claimed to eliminate such behaviour.
I know of some cases where I've downloaded some music and really liked it, though. The only thing that was missing was a convenient way to pay for it. The official website of the band didn't even have a paypal link for donations.
If I was an independent music artists, I'd attempt something like the following:
Link to the torrent on the official site. Music, stage recordings, interviews, the works. Each torrent containing a text file stating that this is the official & legal torrent.
Now, for the twist: I'd also have a high-speed torrent server. If people pay $X or more, the torrent server will serve connections from their IP address.
If the official torrents were excellent, there would be little point in making unofficial ones. That means that everyone downloading my music would also get links to my official site, where they can visit for more content as well as paying for it. (Note the psychological kickback: If people pay a very reasonable fee for something, they will be less interested in seeding it to others for free.)
Couple in with official merchandise, signed photos, posters, limited edition x and everything else.
Finally, charge real, hard cash for live performances. The more people are downloading your music, the more potential customers. Heck, have an online forum and find out where they live, then hold performances where it will be easy for them to come.
Just a fantasy, maybe. But I strongly believe that business models must adapt to technology. Attempting to regulate technology with legislation to preserve static business models is utterly stupid. I'm leaning towards legalizing piracy and see what business models spring up. As long as people are willing to pay for something, someone will come up with a clever way to get paid for delivering it.
Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free what they invested a lot of hard work into producing? If you produced something that can be represented as information... Not much choice, I'm afraid. People have always been good at sharing information. Millions of information-processing machines interconnected in a global network isn't exactly slowing things down. You may like it or not.
Protecting internal documents. And hey, if it helps convince my gf that the sex tape won't end up on the internet, but I still get to watch it, that's one step closer. Work with me people. I have a dream! Then wake up. While you were sleeping, Cryptography came along. Should cover both your internal documents case and your more exotic request. http://www.truecrypt.org/ Use a long password. And if you forget it, make sure to explain to her that your er... 'internal documents' are lost for eternity. Even for you, having the file, without the password it is impossible.
Note: Never attempt to explain quantum computing to your GF after this.
DRM would be if you actually wanted to show her sex tape on the Internet, then remove it again one week later. Yes, that is what DRM promises to do. Not an easy thing to do, no.
I'm wondering if the regular sex tape scandals on the net giving the next generation innate knowledge of how difficult(impossible?) DRM is.
Grandparent:
Darwin's theory of evolution has many components, some of which fall under science (e.g. there is random genetic mutation) Already assumed, so I left it out.
The funny part is that last time I discussed with a creationist, his argument was hinged on the claim that genetic mutation could never, ever introduce a beneficial mutation. Guess that's another good example of pseudoscience: Depending on the person, they disagree with different aspects of the scientific approach, but somehow, they always end up with the same competing theory in the end...
On one hand, I don't mind waiting a few thousand years just to make sure. Or milions.
On the other hand, Mars have also had billion years to come up with life. Little progress, it seems. Mind you, the sun is half spent by now.
So I'm leaning towards... go for it! But don't talk about humans as blundering. We seem to be the only species that even stops to consider if this is a bad thing. Any other species will kill anything and everything in its path, for just the smallest benefit.
1. Fight them and attempt to deny them success in their attacks and their goal of gaining power. 2. Don't fight them. Allow them to succeed or fail without our intervention. Wash our hands of their future and the future of their victims. Don't lead. Don't help. Don't prevent terrorist bombings. (The victims will understand. "Car accidents are bad too", we'll say.) Strawman. Try again.
You define two strongly biased categories, then force-fit me in one of them. Are you saying there are no other possible courses of actions? Last time I checked, there were more options in the world that "do as I want" and "do absolutely nothing".
Anyhow... Seems like a poll, so I know what do to! Missing option: 3. Allocate a reasonable amount of resources to fight them, then go on with life.
The amount of resources and attention terrorism is getting is simply not rational. It's off the scale, orders of magnitude. And I wouldn't be surprised if all that is happening is to increase resentment and possibly recruit more terrorists.
I'm forever worried that I'll lose or misplace, erase or whatever the tracks I've legally downloaded... I'd just re-download it. Though you'd probable be defenseless if the mafIAA decided to sue you for downloading music you have already bought.
I think physical delivery will make increasingly less sense. though maybe in the future, you'd be buying a "collectors edition" photo album from the making of the record, a poster, a keycode (to download a backup from the official site, anytime), and a small certificate giving you the right to download said music in whatever way you want, should the official site ever disappear in the future.
Yeah, why wait until we've actually surveyed it for an existing ecosystem or other signs of life, when we can ensure there is life on Mars, if that's all we care about? Umm... because we could acidentally upset the potentially delicate ecosystem of a dead, barren wasteland? I'm all for preserving rainforests and places teeming with life, but this seems a bit like opposing tree-planting in Sahara because we might upset the fraigle desert ecosystem.
Second, we've been trying to detect any life or ecosystem there for decades. We have some robots rolling around there right now, if they found life that would be the most amazing thing they could do. Most likely, Mars is deader that dead - literally - having never even had life in the first place.
Finally, humans are actually exceptionally protective of the environments. The bloody ferns and algea didn't even think twice before terraforming earth back in the days. Nor will the germs and bacteria either, the ones that will be dropped off accidentally while surveying Mars anyway. Though if anything can actually live in that place, it will eat our germs and bacteria for lunch. So no worries.
You think Eco Terrorism is bad now, wait until someone starts moralizing on the idea of just commandeering a whole planet for experimental purposes. If the planet is dead, how much worse can get it really get?
Even if there are some living cells there, humans should be expected to stay away just as much as a bacteria should be expected to stay away from your food. Life have spent 3.7 billion years on spreading and multiplying. Old habits die hard, we're going to Mars.
We = life on earth. Humans, bacteria or intelligent fungi a million years from now. Whatever works.
I disagree with you, but it's still sad to see you modded as troll for just refusing to like the movies you "should" like. At least, that is how I felt until I read the Jar Jar sentence. Good riddance, troll!;p
We're all clones anyway - each of us is an anonymous nuclear target. Get over it. Exactly!
Go ahead, mod me down. Why? You're an AC, you coward. I'll correct you instead.
Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It's extremely logical. Short version:
1. Assume two different animals. 2. Assume one of them is more likely to get food / have children. 3. The one that is likely to get food / have children is also likely to pass on its genes.
There. Evolution in 1-2-3. Notice, no leaps of faith.
Personally, I'm a fan of Intelligent Design combined with evolutionary and old Earth science, but I would in no way force my religion on others Fixed.
Beliveve what you want. But keep in mind that evolution based off science, ID is based off religion. Educate your children as you like, but if they are taught proper science, they will be inclined to reject Intelligent Design. The two are simply not compatible. That does not we are out to hurt your religion, we are only trying to educate some good scientists for the next generation.
Personally, I make sure my religious beliefs are not on a collision course with science. There is no need. The only way for science to disprove God would be if he created a universe where he cannot exist.;)
Sure, there are lots of terrorists attacks. There are a lot of traffic accidents, too, absolutely dwarfing any terrorist-related deaths whatsoever.
Not to mention world hunger. 24.000 dead per day, was it?
Terrorism sucks, of course it does. But what on earth makes it so much worse than all the other things that kill so many more people every year? It's time to pull our heads out of the sand, suck it up, and deal with terrorism in a more rational way. At the moment, it seesm we're in some weird from of global panic.
The core of this issue that it is extremely easy for me to get the conent. But getting it legally is downright impossible.
Except for hoping the show would eventually get released on a DVD, then buy that and rip it to a file I could play on my phone. Though for countries with any DMCA-type law, I guess even that would still be illegal...
Heck. IMO, media companies should link to torrents then sell access to dedicated, high-speed servers. Then I could buy something that makes sense. And I'd happily decimate my upload speed for torrent. Give people a reasonable way to pay for their content, and they'll not want to share it for free. Just as the grandparent is annoyed by me watching "his" TV shows.
There are people on YouTube producing material that is genuinely worthwhile, and that isn't purely superficial...but such people are never who you're going to see on the front page, and thus they also aren't the people who YouTube are going to pay. Thus, the erosion of the signal-to-noise ratio actually becomes a self-reinforcing negative spiral. If it's really that awful, why don't you make your own version of YouTube and capture that market segment?
If the majority of people want mindless drivel, obviously some site should take care of that segment. If there is another segment wanting genuinely worthwhile material, and youtube does not deliver it, that it an untapped market. The start of a businessplan. Why are you so negative?
There are countless video sites springing up everywhere. One simple change would be to introduce a moderation system instead of ranking every single video after "number of times viewed". I might watch a video and think it's shit.
This negative spiral you describe is actually not that different from trolling and flaming on discussion boards. Generating controversies, and people waste their time on it without thinking. This is just a sign of an immature technological solution, and definetely something that can be improved. Maybe why we're seeing all those new video sites...
YouTube is the big one now, but I don't expect things to stay this way for eternity. I have several issues with it myself. Soon, we'll have a wide range of video sites, using different implementations to facilitate different ways to search and view videos. I really don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach which will make a single site dominate web video. Just as we have more than one popular site using text.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of the slashdotters seems to have missed the key point of the article. Maybe because the site was slow so people skipped the illustrations? It's not an article about forcing users to memorize keyboard commands up front. Ugh.
The author has an excellent point, and a simple example on how you can slowly train first-time users into remembering hotkeys. Such an overlay screen is an excellent idea, and I think that even very basic users like my mom would appreciate it. Bolding up frequent commands instead of hiding them like word does also sounds like a good idea.
The article is very brief and the suggested system have some fundamental flaws, though. For example, it will require some form of nested navigation the moment you have more commands than can fit on a single screen. Then people will have to remember the meny navigation. You could make it context-sensitive, but then people wouldn't find the commend if they didn't remember which context it was active in.
So. Interesting, but there is a better way of doing the same thing. OLED-keyboards. I can't wait for the Optimus to hit mass production. (http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/)
With OLEDs, hitting CTRL wouldn't pop up a stupid overlay that teaches you 'S' is short for 'Save'. Hitting CTRL would turn you 'S' key into a 'Save' button. Heck, it will turn your keyboard into a neatly arranged system of menus, so the muscle memory would remember locations without indirectly going through letters. CTRL-S for save is allright, but CTRL-V for paste.
Or just give me a 10x10 OLED keypad designed specifically to display and navigate menu systems. Anyway, the the users will have a big, fat "Save" button next to their fingers, and they won't even imagine why anyone would use the mouse to navigate menus.
IMO, it won't be that long until we have standarized OLEd inputs. And web applications will include keymap files and icons for the user's OLED-pads.
Assume you had a sexually explicit picture of yourself / significant other. Then assume someone scanned it and published it on a large web site for everyone in the world to see.
Would you be angry because
1) they "stole" your work?
2) they violated your privacy?
Privacy and copyright are two entirely different issues. Both have issues in the digital age, though.
The more widespread DRM gets, the more people will be constantly pissed off by hostile error messages explaining that they damn not try to enjoy their content except for the way the media industry have decided.
Then invite them over and show them how your latest DVD plays on both your computer, living room TV, and handheld phone. They'll be asking for pointers on how to set up Linux the same evening. If this is illegal in your country, you can explain it for laughter.
International trade has ended it. Countries fought wars over resources, in order to enrich themselves. Trade provides a counterweight to this. Trade is a benefit to a country, and war between countries destroys trade. If loosing the trade will outweight the benefit of aquiring a resource, you do not go to war.
Or put another way: War is expensive. If a country is willing to sell a resource at a reasonable price, it's cheaper to buy it than to take it.
And if there is a war in the future, it is likely between nuclear superpowers. China and the USA, if oil or any other resource should become so critically important that it will be considered more important to a nation than the huge cost of a war.
Even if terrorists hijacked planes into skyscrapers every single day, they'd need 63 years. Assuming there was an infinite number of skyscrapers and that passengers allow the hijackers to pilot the plane instead of fighting them.
Then assume WW3 will be fought with nukes.
Apart from this, I agree fully that money would be much better spent constructively instead on military operations.
Though any mention of terror makes me angry and wants to lunge out at current media focus and government-encouraged "war on terror" mass hysteria... People need to get some perspective on terrorism. Without nukes, single attacks can't do shit. Really. Sure, bombing people is horrible, but they cannot cause any real damage.
I'm not saying you should ignore terrorism. I'm saying you should worry about it slightly less. Traffic accidents kill more people that terrorisms, so you should probably be slightly less worried about terrorism than traffic accidents. Anything more, and it's just going to end up huring yourself indirectly.
The mass hysteria after the terror attacks are causing more damage than the attacks themselves. Until people get some perspective and get on with their lives, they're only helping the terrorists.
Or an... alarm clock, maybe?
Or a few penlight-batteries?
Can't really think of a use for the latter, except for taking your servers with you when going camping.
Yes, I was thinking of the USB & Network combo, for lightweight, single-computer use. As opposed to the USB firewall posted some week ago that relied on redirecting all network traffic through the USB.
I know of some cases where I've downloaded some music and really liked it, though. The only thing that was missing was a convenient way to pay for it. The official website of the band didn't even have a paypal link for donations.
Link to the torrent on the official site. Music, stage recordings, interviews, the works. Each torrent containing a text file stating that this is the official & legal torrent.
Now, for the twist: I'd also have a high-speed torrent server. If people pay $X or more, the torrent server will serve connections from their IP address.
If the official torrents were excellent, there would be little point in making unofficial ones. That means that everyone downloading my music would also get links to my official site, where they can visit for more content as well as paying for it. (Note the psychological kickback: If people pay a very reasonable fee for something, they will be less interested in seeding it to others for free.)
Couple in with official merchandise, signed photos, posters, limited edition x and everything else.
Finally, charge real, hard cash for live performances. The more people are downloading your music, the more potential customers. Heck, have an online forum and find out where they live, then hold performances where it will be easy for them to come.
Just a fantasy, maybe. But I strongly believe that business models must adapt to technology. Attempting to regulate technology with legislation to preserve static business models is utterly stupid. I'm leaning towards legalizing piracy and see what business models spring up. As long as people are willing to pay for something, someone will come up with a clever way to get paid for delivering it.
Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free what they invested a lot of hard work into producing? If you produced something that can be represented as information... Not much choice, I'm afraid. People have always been good at sharing information. Millions of information-processing machines interconnected in a global network isn't exactly slowing things down. You may like it or not.
http://www.truecrypt.org/
Use a long password. And if you forget it, make sure to explain to her that your er... 'internal documents' are lost for eternity. Even for you, having the file, without the password it is impossible.
Note: Never attempt to explain quantum computing to your GF after this.
DRM would be if you actually wanted to show her sex tape on the Internet, then remove it again one week later. Yes, that is what DRM promises to do. Not an easy thing to do, no.
I'm wondering if the regular sex tape scandals on the net giving the next generation innate knowledge of how difficult(impossible?) DRM is.
The funny part is that last time I discussed with a creationist, his argument was hinged on the claim that genetic mutation could never, ever introduce a beneficial mutation. Guess that's another good example of pseudoscience: Depending on the person, they disagree with different aspects of the scientific approach, but somehow, they always end up with the same competing theory in the end...
Weird. I'd never watch it for the eye candy.
I'm torn.
On one hand, I don't mind waiting a few thousand years just to make sure. Or milions.
On the other hand, Mars have also had billion years to come up with life. Little progress, it seems. Mind you, the sun is half spent by now.
So I'm leaning towards... go for it! But don't talk about humans as blundering. We seem to be the only species that even stops to consider if this is a bad thing. Any other species will kill anything and everything in its path, for just the smallest benefit.
2. Don't fight them. Allow them to succeed or fail without our intervention. Wash our hands of their future and the future of their victims. Don't lead. Don't help. Don't prevent terrorist bombings. (The victims will understand. "Car accidents are bad too", we'll say.) Strawman. Try again.
You define two strongly biased categories, then force-fit me in one of them. Are you saying there are no other possible courses of actions? Last time I checked, there were more options in the world that "do as I want" and "do absolutely nothing".
Anyhow... Seems like a poll, so I know what do to! Missing option:
3. Allocate a reasonable amount of resources to fight them, then go on with life.
The amount of resources and attention terrorism is getting is simply not rational. It's off the scale, orders of magnitude. And I wouldn't be surprised if all that is happening is to increase resentment and possibly recruit more terrorists.
I think physical delivery will make increasingly less sense. though maybe in the future, you'd be buying a "collectors edition" photo album from the making of the record, a poster, a keycode (to download a backup from the official site, anytime), and a small certificate giving you the right to download said music in whatever way you want, should the official site ever disappear in the future.
Second, we've been trying to detect any life or ecosystem there for decades. We have some robots rolling around there right now, if they found life that would be the most amazing thing they could do. Most likely, Mars is deader that dead - literally - having never even had life in the first place.
Finally, humans are actually exceptionally protective of the environments. The bloody ferns and algea didn't even think twice before terraforming earth back in the days. Nor will the germs and bacteria either, the ones that will be dropped off accidentally while surveying Mars anyway. Though if anything can actually live in that place, it will eat our germs and bacteria for lunch. So no worries.
Even if there are some living cells there, humans should be expected to stay away just as much as a bacteria should be expected to stay away from your food. Life have spent 3.7 billion years on spreading and multiplying. Old habits die hard, we're going to Mars.
We = life on earth. Humans, bacteria or intelligent fungi a million years from now. Whatever works.
Oh wait, you didn't like the movie...
Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It's extremely logical. Short version:
1. Assume two different animals.
2. Assume one of them is more likely to get food / have children.
3. The one that is likely to get food / have children is also likely to pass on its genes.
There. Evolution in 1-2-3. Notice, no leaps of faith.
Beliveve what you want. But keep in mind that evolution based off science, ID is based off religion. Educate your children as you like, but if they are taught proper science, they will be inclined to reject Intelligent Design. The two are simply not compatible. That does not we are out to hurt your religion, we are only trying to educate some good scientists for the next generation.
Personally, I make sure my religious beliefs are not on a collision course with science. There is no need. The only way for science to disprove God would be if he created a universe where he cannot exist.
Sure, there are lots of terrorists attacks. There are a lot of traffic accidents, too, absolutely dwarfing any terrorist-related deaths whatsoever.
Not to mention world hunger. 24.000 dead per day, was it?
Terrorism sucks, of course it does. But what on earth makes it so much worse than all the other things that kill so many more people every year? It's time to pull our heads out of the sand, suck it up, and deal with terrorism in a more rational way. At the moment, it seesm we're in some weird from of global panic.
Panic never helps.
Indeed.
The core of this issue that it is extremely easy for me to get the conent. But getting it legally is downright impossible.
Except for hoping the show would eventually get released on a DVD, then buy that and rip it to a file I could play on my phone. Though for countries with any DMCA-type law, I guess even that would still be illegal...
Heck. IMO, media companies should link to torrents then sell access to dedicated, high-speed servers. Then I could buy something that makes sense. And I'd happily decimate my upload speed for torrent. Give people a reasonable way to pay for their content, and they'll not want to share it for free. Just as the grandparent is annoyed by me watching "his" TV shows.
If the majority of people want mindless drivel, obviously some site should take care of that segment. If there is another segment wanting genuinely worthwhile material, and youtube does not deliver it, that it an untapped market. The start of a businessplan. Why are you so negative?
There are countless video sites springing up everywhere. One simple change would be to introduce a moderation system instead of ranking every single video after "number of times viewed". I might watch a video and think it's shit.
This negative spiral you describe is actually not that different from trolling and flaming on discussion boards. Generating controversies, and people waste their time on it without thinking. This is just a sign of an immature technological solution, and definetely something that can be improved. Maybe why we're seeing all those new video sites...
YouTube is the big one now, but I don't expect things to stay this way for eternity. I have several issues with it myself. Soon, we'll have a wide range of video sites, using different implementations to facilitate different ways to search and view videos. I really don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach which will make a single site dominate web video. Just as we have more than one popular site using text.
My coworker disagrees with me. "Sounds like a bet"