Regarding MikesOnline's comment:

I hear you. They say that opinions are like a**holes. Everyone's got 'em, and most of them stink. It's OK that we disagree. I was just trying to clarify my point when you were taking it out of context.

Regarding tranzparentl's comment:

I apologize, but I do not know what statement or article you are referring to when you say "Sony was comparing 2 million shipped PS3s to PS2s and Xbox 360s sold." I am unaware of such a comparison statement from Sony. What I DO know is that the Sony PS3 has now shipped more than 2 million units, period. I also know that it took longer for the PS2 to ship as many PS2s. Try using Google's archive search to find out, it's very useful for historical news research.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch

I am not repeating or claiming to repeat something Sony said, other than the fact that they have reported that the Sony PS3 has passed the 2 million units shipped point, which it doesn't sound that you are disputing.

In regards to James comment:

My point exactly. I had no intention on dragging the PS3 fan-boy versus XBOX 360 fan-boy versus Wii fan-boy debate into this entirely separate issue. But as you clarified with a specific reason you believe in, no matter what the reason is that PS3 owners are buying Blu-Ray titles... the fact of the matter is that they are. There are more buyers out there for game machines such as the PS3 than DVD-player replacements. In other words, whatever the reasoning is behind Blu-Ray adoption by PS3 owners, it still stands that this is happening and it is giving Blu-Ray the clear winning edge over HD DVD.

I am sure that, once HD DVD becomes a clear minority in terms of titles and adoption rates, it will eventually wither away. It's not likely going to happen in a year or two, but certainly by five years down the road or so. By then, I am sure Microsoft will release an external Blu-Ray player for the XBOX 360, pleasing fans.

PS3 versus the XBOX 360 versus the Wii is an entirely different thread. But when it comes to Blu-Ray versus HD DVD, Blu-Ray has the clear advantage in many respects. The only advantages HD DVD had were being released earlier, being cheaper, and having some more advanced features. However, the fact that Betamax was a better quality over VHS didn't help it at all. More and more VHS players found their way into people's homes, which resulted in a growing library of VHS tapes, which continued the snowball effect. Betamax is still widely used in the video industry, but not in people's homes. Blu-Ray players, disguised as gaming machines, are flooding into people's homes, so this is the death knell for HD DVD.

Regarding MIkesOnline's comment:

Yes, but all of the other movie studios releasing movies in Blu-Ray format are also competitors to Universal. The longer Universal avoids Blu-Ray, the more Universal stands to lose market to those who are selling through the winning format. Just because HD DVD is still ahead in the YEAR figure, the sheer momentum already points to Blu-Ray being the clear winner. The only way to prevent Blu-Ray from pulling ahead at this point is to include an HD DVD player FREE with an XBOX 360 or Wii AND to drastically damage the credibility of the Blu-Ray format.

The HD DVD camp was banking on the fact that not every PS3 owner will be a Blu-Ray user, but the fact of the matter is... most who have shelled out the money for an expensive PS3 is going to try to justify the investment by utilizing the Blu-Ray feature. Those who don't likely aren't interested in hi-def movies to begin with. In other words, the odds are very unlikely that a PS3 owner is going to purchase an HD DVD player (unless they had already entered the hi-def movie market prior to the PS3 purchase and already started an HD DVD collection.)

In any case, a huge majority of PS3 owners are purchasing Blu-Ray movies. The PS3 has sold more units during its release so far than the PS2 ever sold during the same period in its release. Put another way, the PS3 is becoming a more successful machine than the PS2. So, Blu-Ray adoption is only going to continue to accelerate rapidly. Thus, the sale of Blu-Ray titles is going to accelerate rapidly. As a result, the longer Universal waits to enter the Blu-Ray market, the more potential sales they stand to lose while all of their competitors (those releasing titles in Blu-Ray format) reap the benefits of.

Universal is certainly going to sell HD DVDs, because there are already HD DVD owners in the market, and are more every day. That's not the issue. Universal is going after profits, yes. However, they are going after profits that are not accelerating quite as fast as the alternative. Universal does have an advantage in that all of the HD DVD owners who are chomping at the bit to get movies are given a smaller library to choose from so, as a result, Universal stands a better chance to sell more titles. However, in the long run, this is a losing strategy. In my opinion, this is the phase where Universal should milk everything they can out of HD DVD before it becomes a moot point, while they should also simultaneously actively pursue the Blu-Ray market before their competition gets too much of a head start.

To those who don't understand how this is a security problem that Google needed to fix (and I believe HAS fixed, rather quickly)... this isn't about one website reading a JavaScript file from your machine across a different domain. This is a matter of a URL pointing to Google's servers that returns some JavaScript code which contains the user's gmail contact information, if currently authenticated. In other words, there needn't be a "flaw" in the browser for this to be exploited. All a website would need to do is include a JavaScript file in its own website and point to the special URL on Google's server. Then, additional JavaScript would be used to extrapolate the data. There are no rules that prevent one website from including JavaScript from another domain... in fact, this is how website analytic sites operate (even Google's Adsense and Google Analytics).

I would imagine that Google's fix likely involved checking the referrer that is requesting the JavaScript URL and, as a result, is only including the private information if the URL is being requested by one of Google's own sites. A way Google could make this even more secure is to include some unique ID (that has a short life-span) in the URL of the request... in other words, an additional layer of authentication that is URL-based.

This was a problem for Google to fix, yes... but they also fixed it rather quickly. No programming team (nor programmer) is 100% perfect. The best any company can do is be quick to respond when problems are uncovered. Microsoft often takes quite a bit of time to solve problems and even then, may wait up to a week before finally applying the fix. Google will often apply fixes within hours of being discovered. That is a very good sign.