<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_2047225</id>
	<title>Blu-ray Capacity Increase Via Firmware</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262768880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>LordofEntropy writes <i>"Blu-ray.com reports that Sony and Panasonic have announced a new optical disc evaluation technology that <a href="http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3977">increases capacity from 25GB to 33.4GB</a>. The tech uses existing Blu-ray diodes and is accomplished via firmware upgrade. The article says it is not known if and when the upgrade will be adopted into the Blu-ray spec. However, given that Sony and Panasonic are behind it, 'it will likely happen later this year.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>LordofEntropy writes " Blu-ray.com reports that Sony and Panasonic have announced a new optical disc evaluation technology that increases capacity from 25GB to 33.4GB .
The tech uses existing Blu-ray diodes and is accomplished via firmware upgrade .
The article says it is not known if and when the upgrade will be adopted into the Blu-ray spec .
However , given that Sony and Panasonic are behind it , 'it will likely happen later this year .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LordofEntropy writes "Blu-ray.com reports that Sony and Panasonic have announced a new optical disc evaluation technology that increases capacity from 25GB to 33.4GB.
The tech uses existing Blu-ray diodes and is accomplished via firmware upgrade.
The article says it is not known if and when the upgrade will be adopted into the Blu-ray spec.
However, given that Sony and Panasonic are behind it, 'it will likely happen later this year.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30681104</id>
	<title>Fuck bluray, fuck sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262871420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://fuckbluray.com/" title="fuckbluray.com" rel="nofollow">http://fuckbluray.com/</a> [fuckbluray.com]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony\_rootkit" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony\_rootkit</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //fuckbluray.com/ [ fuckbluray.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony \ _rootkit [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://fuckbluray.com/ [fuckbluray.com]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony\_rootkit [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884</id>
	<title>The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta go!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here. This is a computationally-intensive process, which means the PS3 might be able to handle this, but the $100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly won't.

Moore's Law means that this will become practical in the future, but this tech is definitely ahead of it's time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here .
This is a computationally-intensive process , which means the PS3 might be able to handle this , but the $ 100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly wo n't .
Moore 's Law means that this will become practical in the future , but this tech is definitely ahead of it 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here.
This is a computationally-intensive process, which means the PS3 might be able to handle this, but the $100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly won't.
Moore's Law means that this will become practical in the future, but this tech is definitely ahead of it's time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676230</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1262778480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about those fancy audio CDs that have multiple partitions on them? Play them on an old CD player and they play fine, put them in your Apple and two nice icons pop-up.<br> <br>

New technology doesn't necessarily mean backwards incompatible. It just means new ways to think of something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about those fancy audio CDs that have multiple partitions on them ?
Play them on an old CD player and they play fine , put them in your Apple and two nice icons pop-up .
New technology does n't necessarily mean backwards incompatible .
It just means new ways to think of something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about those fancy audio CDs that have multiple partitions on them?
Play them on an old CD player and they play fine, put them in your Apple and two nice icons pop-up.
New technology doesn't necessarily mean backwards incompatible.
It just means new ways to think of something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676784</id>
	<title>Meanwhile...</title>
	<author>ProfanityHead</author>
	<datestamp>1262781420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...every video or home theater forum is filled to the brim with complaints about all brands of bluray players and how they wont play many discs or have other showstopper issues. This is a great idea, make them even more unreliable.</p><p>DVD quality has been very good the last several years and I am more than happy with it. My bluray player sits gathering dust. I hated waiting for it to load and it ran so hot I was terrified it might cause a fire. The Samsung engineers knew this and set it to power off after 40 minutes of pausing. It annoyed me so much I went out and bought a $60 upscaling DVD player and never looked back.</p><p>Suck it bluray, I hope you die a quick death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...every video or home theater forum is filled to the brim with complaints about all brands of bluray players and how they wont play many discs or have other showstopper issues .
This is a great idea , make them even more unreliable.DVD quality has been very good the last several years and I am more than happy with it .
My bluray player sits gathering dust .
I hated waiting for it to load and it ran so hot I was terrified it might cause a fire .
The Samsung engineers knew this and set it to power off after 40 minutes of pausing .
It annoyed me so much I went out and bought a $ 60 upscaling DVD player and never looked back.Suck it bluray , I hope you die a quick death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...every video or home theater forum is filled to the brim with complaints about all brands of bluray players and how they wont play many discs or have other showstopper issues.
This is a great idea, make them even more unreliable.DVD quality has been very good the last several years and I am more than happy with it.
My bluray player sits gathering dust.
I hated waiting for it to load and it ran so hot I was terrified it might cause a fire.
The Samsung engineers knew this and set it to power off after 40 minutes of pausing.
It annoyed me so much I went out and bought a $60 upscaling DVD player and never looked back.Suck it bluray, I hope you die a quick death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675744</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here. This is a computationally-intensive process, which means the PS3 might be able to handle this, but the $100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly won't.</p><p>Moore's Law means that this will become practical in the future, but this tech is definitely ahead of it's time.</p></div><p>Sorry, ahead of it's time?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here .
This is a computationally-intensive process , which means the PS3 might be able to handle this , but the $ 100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly wo n't.Moore 's Law means that this will become practical in the future , but this tech is definitely ahead of it 's time.Sorry , ahead of it 's time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here.
This is a computationally-intensive process, which means the PS3 might be able to handle this, but the $100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly won't.Moore's Law means that this will become practical in the future, but this tech is definitely ahead of it's time.Sorry, ahead of it's time?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678336</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1262793000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe I'm old school, but back in my day a STANDARDIZED SPECIFICATION essentially means that everyone got together, said what they wanted the new tech to accomplish, the engineers had many a heated debate on the exact methods as to how it was going to happen, the marketers figured out how it was going to be sold, the accountants begged the engineers and marketers to do it cheaper, and when all was said and done, there was a new technology that was a STANDARD. A piece of hardware/software that was certified to read and/or write content written to that spec was the end user's assurance that their content would play back on their hardware, period. Vinyl records started as mono, and they played back on every Victrola of the day. Whether I play a record back from the 1920's on a similar vintage Victrola, or my 2008 vintage Numark TTX turntables with brand new Shure Whitelabel cartridges, the record will play, end of story. The reverse is also true; all of my vinyl pressed in the last few years will play back on a record player that rolled off the assembly line during the Harding administration. A CD pressed to Redbook audio spec* today will play back on a CD player from 1985. This is how standards work. If the most recent disc labeled to conform to the Blu-Ray spec does not play on EVERY Blu-Ray player that has been certified to also conform to the Blu-Ray spec, then one of three things must be true: 1.) The disc isn't to spec and shouldn't have been certified, 2.) the player isn't to spec and shouldn't have been certified, 3.) the Blu-Ray spec is incomplete at best and broken at worst. Vinyl, 8-Track, Cassettes, VHS, CD-ROM*, 3 1/2" floppy, and for the most part DVD-ROM* have gotten along just fine without firmware updates, else we are talking about a moving target, which is the very situation that specifications are written to prevent.</p><p>*For these, I am referring to commercially stamped media, not CD-R, DVD-R, DVD+R, etc. designed for consumer use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe I 'm old school , but back in my day a STANDARDIZED SPECIFICATION essentially means that everyone got together , said what they wanted the new tech to accomplish , the engineers had many a heated debate on the exact methods as to how it was going to happen , the marketers figured out how it was going to be sold , the accountants begged the engineers and marketers to do it cheaper , and when all was said and done , there was a new technology that was a STANDARD .
A piece of hardware/software that was certified to read and/or write content written to that spec was the end user 's assurance that their content would play back on their hardware , period .
Vinyl records started as mono , and they played back on every Victrola of the day .
Whether I play a record back from the 1920 's on a similar vintage Victrola , or my 2008 vintage Numark TTX turntables with brand new Shure Whitelabel cartridges , the record will play , end of story .
The reverse is also true ; all of my vinyl pressed in the last few years will play back on a record player that rolled off the assembly line during the Harding administration .
A CD pressed to Redbook audio spec * today will play back on a CD player from 1985 .
This is how standards work .
If the most recent disc labeled to conform to the Blu-Ray spec does not play on EVERY Blu-Ray player that has been certified to also conform to the Blu-Ray spec , then one of three things must be true : 1 .
) The disc is n't to spec and should n't have been certified , 2 .
) the player is n't to spec and should n't have been certified , 3 .
) the Blu-Ray spec is incomplete at best and broken at worst .
Vinyl , 8-Track , Cassettes , VHS , CD-ROM * , 3 1/2 " floppy , and for the most part DVD-ROM * have gotten along just fine without firmware updates , else we are talking about a moving target , which is the very situation that specifications are written to prevent .
* For these , I am referring to commercially stamped media , not CD-R , DVD-R , DVD + R , etc .
designed for consumer use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe I'm old school, but back in my day a STANDARDIZED SPECIFICATION essentially means that everyone got together, said what they wanted the new tech to accomplish, the engineers had many a heated debate on the exact methods as to how it was going to happen, the marketers figured out how it was going to be sold, the accountants begged the engineers and marketers to do it cheaper, and when all was said and done, there was a new technology that was a STANDARD.
A piece of hardware/software that was certified to read and/or write content written to that spec was the end user's assurance that their content would play back on their hardware, period.
Vinyl records started as mono, and they played back on every Victrola of the day.
Whether I play a record back from the 1920's on a similar vintage Victrola, or my 2008 vintage Numark TTX turntables with brand new Shure Whitelabel cartridges, the record will play, end of story.
The reverse is also true; all of my vinyl pressed in the last few years will play back on a record player that rolled off the assembly line during the Harding administration.
A CD pressed to Redbook audio spec* today will play back on a CD player from 1985.
This is how standards work.
If the most recent disc labeled to conform to the Blu-Ray spec does not play on EVERY Blu-Ray player that has been certified to also conform to the Blu-Ray spec, then one of three things must be true: 1.
) The disc isn't to spec and shouldn't have been certified, 2.
) the player isn't to spec and shouldn't have been certified, 3.
) the Blu-Ray spec is incomplete at best and broken at worst.
Vinyl, 8-Track, Cassettes, VHS, CD-ROM*, 3 1/2" floppy, and for the most part DVD-ROM* have gotten along just fine without firmware updates, else we are talking about a moving target, which is the very situation that specifications are written to prevent.
*For these, I am referring to commercially stamped media, not CD-R, DVD-R, DVD+R, etc.
designed for consumer use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30689548</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>CronoCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1262870580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PS3's CPU "is" used during blu-ray playback, which is why the PS3 has very very good BD-J performance.  How many standalone blu-ray players have a 3.2 GHz hyperthreaded, with altivec CPU with 7 powerful SPE's with cycles to burn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 's CPU " is " used during blu-ray playback , which is why the PS3 has very very good BD-J performance .
How many standalone blu-ray players have a 3.2 GHz hyperthreaded , with altivec CPU with 7 powerful SPE 's with cycles to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3's CPU "is" used during blu-ray playback, which is why the PS3 has very very good BD-J performance.
How many standalone blu-ray players have a 3.2 GHz hyperthreaded, with altivec CPU with 7 powerful SPE's with cycles to burn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675580</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1262775480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ironically, people who bought PS2s to use them as DVD players back in the day were burned when it turned out the PS2 was a pretty marginal DVD player.  Overlay (subtitle) support in particular was iffy on a lot of disks (flickering, improper fill, etc...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , people who bought PS2s to use them as DVD players back in the day were burned when it turned out the PS2 was a pretty marginal DVD player .
Overlay ( subtitle ) support in particular was iffy on a lot of disks ( flickering , improper fill , etc... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, people who bought PS2s to use them as DVD players back in the day were burned when it turned out the PS2 was a pretty marginal DVD player.
Overlay (subtitle) support in particular was iffy on a lot of disks (flickering, improper fill, etc...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676644</id>
	<title>IMO Bluray for PC is already dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262780700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a 1TB HDD cheaper than a internal bluray drive, who in the right mind would get bluray when the HDD is clearly much more convenient to use and arguably more reliable? Previously during the CD/DVD era optical discs are so much superior in terms of capacity/price to everything else but the situation today has been reversed so much you couldn't help thinking optical discs are more-or-less obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a 1TB HDD cheaper than a internal bluray drive , who in the right mind would get bluray when the HDD is clearly much more convenient to use and arguably more reliable ?
Previously during the CD/DVD era optical discs are so much superior in terms of capacity/price to everything else but the situation today has been reversed so much you could n't help thinking optical discs are more-or-less obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a 1TB HDD cheaper than a internal bluray drive, who in the right mind would get bluray when the HDD is clearly much more convenient to use and arguably more reliable?
Previously during the CD/DVD era optical discs are so much superior in terms of capacity/price to everything else but the situation today has been reversed so much you couldn't help thinking optical discs are more-or-less obsolete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30682786</id>
	<title>HD-DVD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you will about its failure and how Bluray was the future...but you know what?  HD-DVD worked.  Bluray is nothing more than Sony's revenge over the Betamax fiasco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about its failure and how Bluray was the future...but you know what ?
HD-DVD worked .
Bluray is nothing more than Sony 's revenge over the Betamax fiasco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about its failure and how Bluray was the future...but you know what?
HD-DVD worked.
Bluray is nothing more than Sony's revenge over the Betamax fiasco.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676774</id>
	<title>Hrm... sounds familiar</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262781360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else remember the days of "MFM vs RLL"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else remember the days of " MFM vs RLL " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else remember the days of "MFM vs RLL"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676242</id>
	<title>Encryption updates?</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1262778540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any chance this firmware update is first in an ongoing ploy to keep the encryption methods overhauled?<br>Promising to increase size and compatibility, even when the majority of people won't benefit from it,  is a pretty big carrot to get Joe Consumer to flash an entertainment device.  These days even my grandparents understand that having a higher version number means something good.</p><p>Waiting for the "oh sorry, your player is not compatible with this update, here's a $50 coupon towards a new one (.*.that won't read burned discs.*.)" message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any chance this firmware update is first in an ongoing ploy to keep the encryption methods overhauled ? Promising to increase size and compatibility , even when the majority of people wo n't benefit from it , is a pretty big carrot to get Joe Consumer to flash an entertainment device .
These days even my grandparents understand that having a higher version number means something good.Waiting for the " oh sorry , your player is not compatible with this update , here 's a $ 50 coupon towards a new one ( .
* .that wo n't read burned discs. * .
) " message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any chance this firmware update is first in an ongoing ploy to keep the encryption methods overhauled?Promising to increase size and compatibility, even when the majority of people won't benefit from it,  is a pretty big carrot to get Joe Consumer to flash an entertainment device.
These days even my grandparents understand that having a higher version number means something good.Waiting for the "oh sorry, your player is not compatible with this update, here's a $50 coupon towards a new one (.
*.that won't read burned discs.*.
)" message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676750</id>
	<title>is this a method of sneaking in updated DRM?</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1262781240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like a good way to get people to voluntarily cripple their players. Just a thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like a good way to get people to voluntarily cripple their players .
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like a good way to get people to voluntarily cripple their players.
Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30684728</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>SuiteSisterMary</author>
	<datestamp>1262889060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There was a SHITSTORM when Titanic came out on DVD because it was the first major dual layer release and tons of players couldn't deal with it.</p></div></blockquote><p>There was also a big do when the T2 special edition first came out.  Some were DVD-18, some were two DVD-9 discs.  Arguments ranged from the problems some players had with DVD-18 discs to preferring the two disc version, as then you had art on the DVDs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a SHITSTORM when Titanic came out on DVD because it was the first major dual layer release and tons of players could n't deal with it.There was also a big do when the T2 special edition first came out .
Some were DVD-18 , some were two DVD-9 discs .
Arguments ranged from the problems some players had with DVD-18 discs to preferring the two disc version , as then you had art on the DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a SHITSTORM when Titanic came out on DVD because it was the first major dual layer release and tons of players couldn't deal with it.There was also a big do when the T2 special edition first came out.
Some were DVD-18, some were two DVD-9 discs.
Arguments ranged from the problems some players had with DVD-18 discs to preferring the two disc version, as then you had art on the DVDs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30685440</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>xupere</author>
	<datestamp>1262892060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great, now my boss will be asking me to increase our microcontroller's ROM size with a software update.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now my boss will be asking me to increase our microcontroller 's ROM size with a software update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now my boss will be asking me to increase our microcontroller's ROM size with a software update.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here. This is a computationally-intensive process, which means the PS3 might be able to handle this, but the $100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly won't. Moore's Law means that this will become practical in the future, but this tech is definitely ahead of it's time.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe even the PS3 can't handle it. After all, most of heavy work in decoding the data is not done on the PS3's copious CPU, but on the drive's dinky little processor.</p><p>Now, most drives have updatable firmware, so maybe that processor is powerful enough. The next issue becomes who's going to want to support the old obsolete products? That $99 Wal-mart player has maybe a year of firmware updates before it's obsolete and no updates will be released for it ever, even bug fixes.</p><p>That's why I recommend the PS3 as a blu-ray player, because it's going to be supported for a long time and receive bug fixes. Early DVD players often had trouble playing DVDs that were to spec, but using fancy DVD features that weren't well tested. There are probably many blu-ray features that aren't well tested either. A supported player with firmware updates will get fixes to support discs that use those features, but obsolete players... won't.</p><p>And there are a number of players already effectively obsolete (e.g., the very first blu-ray players with profile 1.0). So now if this spec is approved, will we be left with a bunch of players unable to use the new discs, forcing everyone into another hardware upgrade? Blu-ray is doing OK on its own, but forcing everyone with players to buy new ones seems like a non-starter...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here .
This is a computationally-intensive process , which means the PS3 might be able to handle this , but the $ 100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly wo n't .
Moore 's Law means that this will become practical in the future , but this tech is definitely ahead of it 's time.Maybe even the PS3 ca n't handle it .
After all , most of heavy work in decoding the data is not done on the PS3 's copious CPU , but on the drive 's dinky little processor.Now , most drives have updatable firmware , so maybe that processor is powerful enough .
The next issue becomes who 's going to want to support the old obsolete products ?
That $ 99 Wal-mart player has maybe a year of firmware updates before it 's obsolete and no updates will be released for it ever , even bug fixes.That 's why I recommend the PS3 as a blu-ray player , because it 's going to be supported for a long time and receive bug fixes .
Early DVD players often had trouble playing DVDs that were to spec , but using fancy DVD features that were n't well tested .
There are probably many blu-ray features that are n't well tested either .
A supported player with firmware updates will get fixes to support discs that use those features , but obsolete players... wo n't.And there are a number of players already effectively obsolete ( e.g. , the very first blu-ray players with profile 1.0 ) .
So now if this spec is approved , will we be left with a bunch of players unable to use the new discs , forcing everyone into another hardware upgrade ?
Blu-ray is doing OK on its own , but forcing everyone with players to buy new ones seems like a non-starter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a little more than just a firmware upgrade involved here.
This is a computationally-intensive process, which means the PS3 might be able to handle this, but the $100 player you got at Wal-Mart most certainly won't.
Moore's Law means that this will become practical in the future, but this tech is definitely ahead of it's time.Maybe even the PS3 can't handle it.
After all, most of heavy work in decoding the data is not done on the PS3's copious CPU, but on the drive's dinky little processor.Now, most drives have updatable firmware, so maybe that processor is powerful enough.
The next issue becomes who's going to want to support the old obsolete products?
That $99 Wal-mart player has maybe a year of firmware updates before it's obsolete and no updates will be released for it ever, even bug fixes.That's why I recommend the PS3 as a blu-ray player, because it's going to be supported for a long time and receive bug fixes.
Early DVD players often had trouble playing DVDs that were to spec, but using fancy DVD features that weren't well tested.
There are probably many blu-ray features that aren't well tested either.
A supported player with firmware updates will get fixes to support discs that use those features, but obsolete players... won't.And there are a number of players already effectively obsolete (e.g., the very first blu-ray players with profile 1.0).
So now if this spec is approved, will we be left with a bunch of players unable to use the new discs, forcing everyone into another hardware upgrade?
Blu-ray is doing OK on its own, but forcing everyone with players to buy new ones seems like a non-starter...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30677692</id>
	<title>Poor experience with a previous PlayStation model</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262787660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why I recommend the PS3 as a blu-ray player, because it's going to be supported for a long time and receive bug fixes. Early DVD players often had trouble playing DVDs that were to spec</p></div><p>My slim PlayStation 2 (NTSC U/C), made by the same division of the same company, has trouble playing DVDs that are to spec. The DVD <i>Wobbl and Bob</i> is encoded for all regions with PAL video, but the PS2 can't rescale the 720x576 at 25fps video on the disc to 720x480 at 30 fps; it just gives up and says "TV system doesn't match."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I recommend the PS3 as a blu-ray player , because it 's going to be supported for a long time and receive bug fixes .
Early DVD players often had trouble playing DVDs that were to specMy slim PlayStation 2 ( NTSC U/C ) , made by the same division of the same company , has trouble playing DVDs that are to spec .
The DVD Wobbl and Bob is encoded for all regions with PAL video , but the PS2 ca n't rescale the 720x576 at 25fps video on the disc to 720x480 at 30 fps ; it just gives up and says " TV system does n't match .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I recommend the PS3 as a blu-ray player, because it's going to be supported for a long time and receive bug fixes.
Early DVD players often had trouble playing DVDs that were to specMy slim PlayStation 2 (NTSC U/C), made by the same division of the same company, has trouble playing DVDs that are to spec.
The DVD Wobbl and Bob is encoded for all regions with PAL video, but the PS2 can't rescale the 720x576 at 25fps video on the disc to 720x480 at 30 fps; it just gives up and says "TV system doesn't match.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676800</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262781600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the purposes of backups, optical media has always been tedious.<br>Who wants to have 50 discs to back up their stuff?</p><p>Also, with the price of 1tb drives dropping weekly, and they're already nearly cheap as chips, you'd be a retard to fork out for a blueray burner + 50 discs.</p><p>Flash is getting quite cheap too.<br>I suspect that in the not too distant future, distributable media will change to something based on the SD or miniSD standard. ROM most likely.<br>ROM should be cheaper than rewritable flash especially with the economies of scale studios would be looking at.</p><p>64gb? No worries.<br>128?<br>1tb? Wait a bit longer.</p><p>Scratches? Media integrity? Not an issue.<br>Rewritable will always remain more expensive, but who cares? Optical is rubbish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the purposes of backups , optical media has always been tedious.Who wants to have 50 discs to back up their stuff ? Also , with the price of 1tb drives dropping weekly , and they 're already nearly cheap as chips , you 'd be a retard to fork out for a blueray burner + 50 discs.Flash is getting quite cheap too.I suspect that in the not too distant future , distributable media will change to something based on the SD or miniSD standard .
ROM most likely.ROM should be cheaper than rewritable flash especially with the economies of scale studios would be looking at.64gb ?
No worries.128 ? 1tb ?
Wait a bit longer.Scratches ?
Media integrity ?
Not an issue.Rewritable will always remain more expensive , but who cares ?
Optical is rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the purposes of backups, optical media has always been tedious.Who wants to have 50 discs to back up their stuff?Also, with the price of 1tb drives dropping weekly, and they're already nearly cheap as chips, you'd be a retard to fork out for a blueray burner + 50 discs.Flash is getting quite cheap too.I suspect that in the not too distant future, distributable media will change to something based on the SD or miniSD standard.
ROM most likely.ROM should be cheaper than rewritable flash especially with the economies of scale studios would be looking at.64gb?
No worries.128?1tb?
Wait a bit longer.Scratches?
Media integrity?
Not an issue.Rewritable will always remain more expensive, but who cares?
Optical is rubbish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676198</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262778420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well honestly, I would question how much bluray video disks would benefit from this anyway.  I guess it would mean that you could squeeze more episodes per disc for TV shows, but that doesn't seem like a huge deal.  The real benefit would most likely be to people who are using bluray as a data storage medium.  I assume that there are some people out there doing this, using bluray as an archival format?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well honestly , I would question how much bluray video disks would benefit from this anyway .
I guess it would mean that you could squeeze more episodes per disc for TV shows , but that does n't seem like a huge deal .
The real benefit would most likely be to people who are using bluray as a data storage medium .
I assume that there are some people out there doing this , using bluray as an archival format ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well honestly, I would question how much bluray video disks would benefit from this anyway.
I guess it would mean that you could squeeze more episodes per disc for TV shows, but that doesn't seem like a huge deal.
The real benefit would most likely be to people who are using bluray as a data storage medium.
I assume that there are some people out there doing this, using bluray as an archival format?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676722</id>
	<title>And in other exciting news, IBM...</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262781000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in other exciting news, IBM has announced a way to squeeze 96 columns onto a punched card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in other exciting news , IBM has announced a way to squeeze 96 columns onto a punched card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in other exciting news, IBM has announced a way to squeeze 96 columns onto a punched card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676858</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1262781900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being firmware upgradeable does not oblige vendors to actually issue upgrades, and they won't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being firmware upgradeable does not oblige vendors to actually issue upgrades , and they wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being firmware upgradeable does not oblige vendors to actually issue upgrades, and they won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676548</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1262780340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if every player was firmware upgradeable (unlikely), not every manufacturer would issue patches and only a small \% of users would bother even if they did. There is no chance this would fly.</p> </div><p>I believe being firmware upgradable is a requirement.<br>I believe players are supposed to accept firmware upgrades on the discs themselves as well.</p><p>So when you buy a new disc pressed after your Daewoo BluRay player got hacked and had the decryption keys extracted, the disc won't refuse to play, it'll force an update.  The update will scan your player, find out what it is, and issue new keys.  Or some such.</p><p>They actually did put revocation of keys into the spec.  And it actually is in use - WinDVD or PowerDVD or whatever it is went through like 5 million required updates back when BluRay ripping was getting off the ground because hackers would just hook into the memory and pull the keys out.  The update would move / hide / obfuscate the keys, and the hackers would do it again.</p><p>If the current players can't read any section of the new discs, then yeah, they'll need to include an update disc with every disc for a while and work their asses off getting retailers and consumers up to speed.</p><p>But I agree - I don't think there's anyway in hell they're going to black list a big swath of standalone players, nor will they release a new wave of incompatible discs (be it because of revoked keys or because of a new encryption scheme).</p><p>There was a SHITSTORM when Titanic came out on DVD because it was the first major dual layer release and tons of players couldn't deal with it.</p><p>Surely they've learned from this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if every player was firmware upgradeable ( unlikely ) , not every manufacturer would issue patches and only a small \ % of users would bother even if they did .
There is no chance this would fly .
I believe being firmware upgradable is a requirement.I believe players are supposed to accept firmware upgrades on the discs themselves as well.So when you buy a new disc pressed after your Daewoo BluRay player got hacked and had the decryption keys extracted , the disc wo n't refuse to play , it 'll force an update .
The update will scan your player , find out what it is , and issue new keys .
Or some such.They actually did put revocation of keys into the spec .
And it actually is in use - WinDVD or PowerDVD or whatever it is went through like 5 million required updates back when BluRay ripping was getting off the ground because hackers would just hook into the memory and pull the keys out .
The update would move / hide / obfuscate the keys , and the hackers would do it again.If the current players ca n't read any section of the new discs , then yeah , they 'll need to include an update disc with every disc for a while and work their asses off getting retailers and consumers up to speed.But I agree - I do n't think there 's anyway in hell they 're going to black list a big swath of standalone players , nor will they release a new wave of incompatible discs ( be it because of revoked keys or because of a new encryption scheme ) .There was a SHITSTORM when Titanic came out on DVD because it was the first major dual layer release and tons of players could n't deal with it.Surely they 've learned from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if every player was firmware upgradeable (unlikely), not every manufacturer would issue patches and only a small \% of users would bother even if they did.
There is no chance this would fly.
I believe being firmware upgradable is a requirement.I believe players are supposed to accept firmware upgrades on the discs themselves as well.So when you buy a new disc pressed after your Daewoo BluRay player got hacked and had the decryption keys extracted, the disc won't refuse to play, it'll force an update.
The update will scan your player, find out what it is, and issue new keys.
Or some such.They actually did put revocation of keys into the spec.
And it actually is in use - WinDVD or PowerDVD or whatever it is went through like 5 million required updates back when BluRay ripping was getting off the ground because hackers would just hook into the memory and pull the keys out.
The update would move / hide / obfuscate the keys, and the hackers would do it again.If the current players can't read any section of the new discs, then yeah, they'll need to include an update disc with every disc for a while and work their asses off getting retailers and consumers up to speed.But I agree - I don't think there's anyway in hell they're going to black list a big swath of standalone players, nor will they release a new wave of incompatible discs (be it because of revoked keys or because of a new encryption scheme).There was a SHITSTORM when Titanic came out on DVD because it was the first major dual layer release and tons of players couldn't deal with it.Surely they've learned from this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678594</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>bigplrbear</author>
	<datestamp>1262795040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alternatively, Sony can put a seperate DVD track on the discs (similar to the way that Sega put the CD track on GD-ROMs for it's Dreamcast system) to make them readable on all PS3's, and then just stick the firmware update on there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively , Sony can put a seperate DVD track on the discs ( similar to the way that Sega put the CD track on GD-ROMs for it 's Dreamcast system ) to make them readable on all PS3 's , and then just stick the firmware update on there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively, Sony can put a seperate DVD track on the discs (similar to the way that Sega put the CD track on GD-ROMs for it's Dreamcast system) to make them readable on all PS3's, and then just stick the firmware update on there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678628</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So will that PS3 Blu-Ray player work with 3D Blu-Ray discs?</p><p>Do you hear that sound Mr. tlhIngan? It is the sound of inevitability, it is the sound of your PS3 Blu-Ray compatability death.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So will that PS3 Blu-Ray player work with 3D Blu-Ray discs ? Do you hear that sound Mr. tlhIngan ? It is the sound of inevitability , it is the sound of your PS3 Blu-Ray compatability death .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will that PS3 Blu-Ray player work with 3D Blu-Ray discs?Do you hear that sound Mr. tlhIngan? It is the sound of inevitability, it is the sound of your PS3 Blu-Ray compatability death.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30691712</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262983740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, revisionist history is the most convenient kind.  Please allow me to interject.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Vinyl, 8-Track, Cassettes, VHS, CD-ROM*, 3 1/2" floppy, and for the most part DVD-ROM* have gotten along just fine without firmware updates, else we are talking about a moving target, which is the very situation that specifications are written to prevent.</p></div><p>For years, vinyl records had varying speeds, playback methods (constant vs variable linear velocity), and even after the standardization on 78 RPM, different countries ran slightly different speeds, and later 45 and 33 1/3 RPM became the "new" standards.</p><p>Vinyl weight and size, and groove depth, width, and angle, all varied, and, as a result, so did the needles and turntables required to play them back.  Different recording shops and players had different equalization strategies to eliminate buzzing and popping inherent in vinyl technology.  This persisted through the 40's as companies fought for control of the industry.  Finally, standards were agreed upon in the US in the 50s, but for the most part, they didn't take worldwide until the 70s.</p><p>So if your point was that the records will play*, where * means they may have the wrong equalization, pitch (sometimes even depending on where in the record!), and may render your player and/or record inoperable or at least noticeably damaged, then you are correct.  But it hardly stands to your point on standardization.</p><p>But wait, there's more!<br>Redbook was actually a good example.  It's a standard that's been adhered to very well worldwide over the years; it was the *answer* to the fiasco that was vinyl.  It took major cooperation from the world's biggest entertainment corporations.  There are  some examples of discs out there that break the standard and therefore do not bear the compact disc certification logo; they're as strict as they should be.</p><p>However, companies tire of this aging standard and its limitations on their ability to make adjustments (likely to reduce consumers' freedoms).  Also - if there's a good, solid standard, how are the companies going to make money?  Their business is to sell the same material over and over again, and without new, improved specs (and ways to stop consumers from circumventing the industry's desired processes), they'd have to resort to (gasp) doing work and making something new that's worth buying (see: the debates on copyright extensions).  So they came up with a way to make it work that is relatively clear - a version numbering system.  Will my TV work with this bluray player over HDMI with this cable?  Sure, if they both have HDMI 1.1 - as clearly indicated on the packaging.  Will this disc's extra features work on my player?  Sure, if my player is bluray 2.0 compatible.  etc.</p><p>And because I'm feeling nitpicky:<br>"8-Track, Cassettes, VHS, CD-ROM*, 3 1/2" floppy"<br>* I'll admit that I don't know about 8-track.<br>* Cassettes had major technological changes (like the different metal technologies, Dolby Noise Reduction; sure they were intercompatible, but if your specs didn't match up, you weren't getting the right sound).<br>* VHS: see Hi-Fi, S-VHS, differing tape lengths that would tangle up your heads if your VCR didn't have powerful enough motors, etc.<br>* CD-ROM: again, point well taken - the CD was the good example here<br>* 3 1/2" floppy.  We went from 400k to 800k "double density" to 1.3MB "high density", all requiring completely new drives.</p><p>Check it all out on wikipedia or your favorite credible source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , revisionist history is the most convenient kind .
Please allow me to interject .
Vinyl , 8-Track , Cassettes , VHS , CD-ROM * , 3 1/2 " floppy , and for the most part DVD-ROM * have gotten along just fine without firmware updates , else we are talking about a moving target , which is the very situation that specifications are written to prevent.For years , vinyl records had varying speeds , playback methods ( constant vs variable linear velocity ) , and even after the standardization on 78 RPM , different countries ran slightly different speeds , and later 45 and 33 1/3 RPM became the " new " standards.Vinyl weight and size , and groove depth , width , and angle , all varied , and , as a result , so did the needles and turntables required to play them back .
Different recording shops and players had different equalization strategies to eliminate buzzing and popping inherent in vinyl technology .
This persisted through the 40 's as companies fought for control of the industry .
Finally , standards were agreed upon in the US in the 50s , but for the most part , they did n't take worldwide until the 70s.So if your point was that the records will play * , where * means they may have the wrong equalization , pitch ( sometimes even depending on where in the record !
) , and may render your player and/or record inoperable or at least noticeably damaged , then you are correct .
But it hardly stands to your point on standardization.But wait , there 's more ! Redbook was actually a good example .
It 's a standard that 's been adhered to very well worldwide over the years ; it was the * answer * to the fiasco that was vinyl .
It took major cooperation from the world 's biggest entertainment corporations .
There are some examples of discs out there that break the standard and therefore do not bear the compact disc certification logo ; they 're as strict as they should be.However , companies tire of this aging standard and its limitations on their ability to make adjustments ( likely to reduce consumers ' freedoms ) .
Also - if there 's a good , solid standard , how are the companies going to make money ?
Their business is to sell the same material over and over again , and without new , improved specs ( and ways to stop consumers from circumventing the industry 's desired processes ) , they 'd have to resort to ( gasp ) doing work and making something new that 's worth buying ( see : the debates on copyright extensions ) .
So they came up with a way to make it work that is relatively clear - a version numbering system .
Will my TV work with this bluray player over HDMI with this cable ?
Sure , if they both have HDMI 1.1 - as clearly indicated on the packaging .
Will this disc 's extra features work on my player ?
Sure , if my player is bluray 2.0 compatible .
etc.And because I 'm feeling nitpicky : " 8-Track , Cassettes , VHS , CD-ROM * , 3 1/2 " floppy " * I 'll admit that I do n't know about 8-track .
* Cassettes had major technological changes ( like the different metal technologies , Dolby Noise Reduction ; sure they were intercompatible , but if your specs did n't match up , you were n't getting the right sound ) .
* VHS : see Hi-Fi , S-VHS , differing tape lengths that would tangle up your heads if your VCR did n't have powerful enough motors , etc .
* CD-ROM : again , point well taken - the CD was the good example here * 3 1/2 " floppy .
We went from 400k to 800k " double density " to 1.3MB " high density " , all requiring completely new drives.Check it all out on wikipedia or your favorite credible source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, revisionist history is the most convenient kind.
Please allow me to interject.
Vinyl, 8-Track, Cassettes, VHS, CD-ROM*, 3 1/2" floppy, and for the most part DVD-ROM* have gotten along just fine without firmware updates, else we are talking about a moving target, which is the very situation that specifications are written to prevent.For years, vinyl records had varying speeds, playback methods (constant vs variable linear velocity), and even after the standardization on 78 RPM, different countries ran slightly different speeds, and later 45 and 33 1/3 RPM became the "new" standards.Vinyl weight and size, and groove depth, width, and angle, all varied, and, as a result, so did the needles and turntables required to play them back.
Different recording shops and players had different equalization strategies to eliminate buzzing and popping inherent in vinyl technology.
This persisted through the 40's as companies fought for control of the industry.
Finally, standards were agreed upon in the US in the 50s, but for the most part, they didn't take worldwide until the 70s.So if your point was that the records will play*, where * means they may have the wrong equalization, pitch (sometimes even depending on where in the record!
), and may render your player and/or record inoperable or at least noticeably damaged, then you are correct.
But it hardly stands to your point on standardization.But wait, there's more!Redbook was actually a good example.
It's a standard that's been adhered to very well worldwide over the years; it was the *answer* to the fiasco that was vinyl.
It took major cooperation from the world's biggest entertainment corporations.
There are  some examples of discs out there that break the standard and therefore do not bear the compact disc certification logo; they're as strict as they should be.However, companies tire of this aging standard and its limitations on their ability to make adjustments (likely to reduce consumers' freedoms).
Also - if there's a good, solid standard, how are the companies going to make money?
Their business is to sell the same material over and over again, and without new, improved specs (and ways to stop consumers from circumventing the industry's desired processes), they'd have to resort to (gasp) doing work and making something new that's worth buying (see: the debates on copyright extensions).
So they came up with a way to make it work that is relatively clear - a version numbering system.
Will my TV work with this bluray player over HDMI with this cable?
Sure, if they both have HDMI 1.1 - as clearly indicated on the packaging.
Will this disc's extra features work on my player?
Sure, if my player is bluray 2.0 compatible.
etc.And because I'm feeling nitpicky:"8-Track, Cassettes, VHS, CD-ROM*, 3 1/2" floppy"* I'll admit that I don't know about 8-track.
* Cassettes had major technological changes (like the different metal technologies, Dolby Noise Reduction; sure they were intercompatible, but if your specs didn't match up, you weren't getting the right sound).
* VHS: see Hi-Fi, S-VHS, differing tape lengths that would tangle up your heads if your VCR didn't have powerful enough motors, etc.
* CD-ROM: again, point well taken - the CD was the good example here* 3 1/2" floppy.
We went from 400k to 800k "double density" to 1.3MB "high density", all requiring completely new drives.Check it all out on wikipedia or your favorite credible source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675860</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262776680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any data storage standard is a compromise between reliability and capacity. Sure, you can increase the capacity using existing hardware, but that makes it just that more unlikely that the disk will read back without errors on a different player. I already have a problem with DVDs written by a computer tracking on my DVD player, this would only make it worse. The increase in capacity ain't worth the decrease in reliability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any data storage standard is a compromise between reliability and capacity .
Sure , you can increase the capacity using existing hardware , but that makes it just that more unlikely that the disk will read back without errors on a different player .
I already have a problem with DVDs written by a computer tracking on my DVD player , this would only make it worse .
The increase in capacity ai n't worth the decrease in reliability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any data storage standard is a compromise between reliability and capacity.
Sure, you can increase the capacity using existing hardware, but that makes it just that more unlikely that the disk will read back without errors on a different player.
I already have a problem with DVDs written by a computer tracking on my DVD player, this would only make it worse.
The increase in capacity ain't worth the decrease in reliability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</id>
	<title>Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Blu Ray spec is cast in stone - 25Gb single layer or 50Gb dual layer. There is not a chance in hell that video disks are going to appear supporting some other scheme unless it was backwards compatible. Even if every player was firmware upgradeable (unlikely), not every manufacturer would issue patches and only a small \% of users would bother even if they did. There is no chance this would fly.
<p>
The only place where the tech seems viable is for PS3s and games. Sony control the firmware so they can make PS3s read any format they like. The biggest issue is not every PS3 owner is internet connected to receive updates so if they just push new disks out some PS3s won't read them. Ordinarily, they'd put a mandatory firmware update on the disk, but the disk is unreadable without the firmware... So Sony probably have to ensure that firmware is pushed out beforehand or pack DVDs in with the game with the necessary firmware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Blu Ray spec is cast in stone - 25Gb single layer or 50Gb dual layer .
There is not a chance in hell that video disks are going to appear supporting some other scheme unless it was backwards compatible .
Even if every player was firmware upgradeable ( unlikely ) , not every manufacturer would issue patches and only a small \ % of users would bother even if they did .
There is no chance this would fly .
The only place where the tech seems viable is for PS3s and games .
Sony control the firmware so they can make PS3s read any format they like .
The biggest issue is not every PS3 owner is internet connected to receive updates so if they just push new disks out some PS3s wo n't read them .
Ordinarily , they 'd put a mandatory firmware update on the disk , but the disk is unreadable without the firmware... So Sony probably have to ensure that firmware is pushed out beforehand or pack DVDs in with the game with the necessary firmware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Blu Ray spec is cast in stone - 25Gb single layer or 50Gb dual layer.
There is not a chance in hell that video disks are going to appear supporting some other scheme unless it was backwards compatible.
Even if every player was firmware upgradeable (unlikely), not every manufacturer would issue patches and only a small \% of users would bother even if they did.
There is no chance this would fly.
The only place where the tech seems viable is for PS3s and games.
Sony control the firmware so they can make PS3s read any format they like.
The biggest issue is not every PS3 owner is internet connected to receive updates so if they just push new disks out some PS3s won't read them.
Ordinarily, they'd put a mandatory firmware update on the disk, but the disk is unreadable without the firmware... So Sony probably have to ensure that firmware is pushed out beforehand or pack DVDs in with the game with the necessary firmware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675322</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://astral-here.ucoz.ru/" title="astral-here.ucoz.ru" rel="nofollow">astral here</a> [astral-here.ucoz.ru]<br>but infact my friend buys PS3 in Ukraine about 50$ xD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>astral here [ astral-here.ucoz.ru ] but infact my friend buys PS3 in Ukraine about 50 $ xD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>astral here [astral-here.ucoz.ru]but infact my friend buys PS3 in Ukraine about 50$ xD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30684188</id>
	<title>Re:The diodes can stay, but the processor's gotta</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1262886960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the 1920s compensation curves on records had not been standardized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 1920s compensation curves on records had not been standardized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 1920s compensation curves on records had not been standardized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676180</id>
	<title>In other news..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262778360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people apparently still care about optical media.  Who knew?</p><p>Can we please let it die now?  Please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people apparently still care about optical media .
Who knew ? Can we please let it die now ?
Please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people apparently still care about optical media.
Who knew?Can we please let it die now?
Please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676470</id>
	<title>Re:Only PS3 games are likely to benefit</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1262779980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible they could release a dual-mode disc, where a small part of it is encoded in the old format, including firmware to upgrade to the new PS3 firmware, and then the rest is encoded in the new format. Put disc in, "please update", finish updating, bam, game is playable. The user would probably never even realize that the disc was encoded in a different format (mandatory firmware updates are pretty much the norm on modern game consoles.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible they could release a dual-mode disc , where a small part of it is encoded in the old format , including firmware to upgrade to the new PS3 firmware , and then the rest is encoded in the new format .
Put disc in , " please update " , finish updating , bam , game is playable .
The user would probably never even realize that the disc was encoded in a different format ( mandatory firmware updates are pretty much the norm on modern game consoles .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible they could release a dual-mode disc, where a small part of it is encoded in the old format, including firmware to upgrade to the new PS3 firmware, and then the rest is encoded in the new format.
Put disc in, "please update", finish updating, bam, game is playable.
The user would probably never even realize that the disc was encoded in a different format (mandatory firmware updates are pretty much the norm on modern game consoles.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30677692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30684188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30684728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30691712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30689548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2047225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2047225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2047225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30684728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2047225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30676774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2047225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30674884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30678336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30684188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30691712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30677692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30689548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2047225.30675322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
