ReplayTV PC Edition Review

Well, practically everything nowadays lets you "pause, rewind, and record" TV. I'm pretty sure that my new electric toothbrush burns DVDs. Interestingly, there have been few commercially popular DVR services made specifically for computer users.

Once a rival of the popular digital video recorder TiVo, ReplayTV has been relatively quiet for the past few years. My roommate has the ReplayTV2, which is a very well designed set-top box. It comes with a decent decent--some would say boring--electronic program guide (EPG), but it is a solid all around product. ReplayTV now wants to bring its interface to your computer: ReplayTV PC Edition.

But, as I will show below, even if you have a decent computer, a compatible TV tuner card, and are willing to shell out $99.95 (plus 19.95 for each additional year), a 30-day trial is more than enough to see that ReplayTV PC Edition is worth passing on.

I. BYO-everything?

While the traditional ReplayTV comes in the form of a box with hardware for encoding and decoding video, and a harddrive, the PC Edition doesn't include any hardware at all. You have to buy your own cable TV signal, compatible TV tuner card, hard drive, and personal computer.

So what does the PC Edition include if it has no hardware? It offers you ReplayTV's EPG and interface -- and not much more sadly. ReplayTV's PC Edition is less of a "product" and more of a service, though when you look at the steep price, the service falls short of even modest expectations.

II. Setup

Installing the software took a lot longer than I expected. It was a small download, but it immediately notified me that I needed to install Microsoft's SQL Server 2005 Express. Ten minutes later, it was installed and I had to reboot.

When I launched the program for the first time, it gave me simple to read directions on how to set up my ReplayTV. I entered in my zip code and chose my cable provider, but the channel listings offered have some minor differences which I cannot fix. Thus, Discovery Channel is actually a home shopping channel and also off by like seven channel numbers. My roommate has the same problem on his set top box as well.

Next ReplayTV tried to initialize my TV tuner card (Happauge WinTV PVR 150, an amazing and well priced PVR card), but it failed. I restarted my computer and then it initialized properly. Finally the software downloaded my programming information and I was off.

III. Interface

Does ReplayTV add anything to my viewing experience? Marginally.

Before I signed up for this service, I had a basic cable connection that gives me no easy way to surf channels and view what's on. I rely generally on TitanTV.com, which is a great free site that lets me schedule recordings on my computer and search for shows. This of course is a separate interface from the software I use to watch TV on my computer.

ReplayTV, on the other hand, has an EPG built into the TV software, offering you something similar to what digital cable or DirecTV look like. You have a guide that gives you a decent description of what's available, as well as a fully integrated way of recording and watching your recorded shows. What's sort of annoying is that there is no way to customize the colors, which as you can see below are kind of bland. Nor is the programming color coded like most modern EPGs. I can't label my favorite shows easily or color certain types of sporting events or sitcoms. For 99.95, I expect a little more.

A simple but useful feature allows you to quickly see how far the show is in progress and how much time is left in the program.

A decent feature allows you to quickly record every episode of a particular show regardless of what channel it is on. Although you can easily set a timer without ReplayTV to record your favorite shows, ReplayTV does a great job of not cutting off your shows based on time slots. Unlike a traditional timer that starts recording exactly at the time you say, ReplayTV relies on its advanced EPG, which will take into account if your show is starting 2 minutes late, or 3 minutes early. I suppose this is a peace of mind feature, but I usually just set my timer to record a minute early in either direction, and that's for free.

ReplayTV boasts how it can find shows that match your interests, allowing you to find similar actors and genres. While this is convenient, you can easily run a few searches on TitanTV.com and TVGuide.com for free and just schedule those by yourself. Thus, the value add here is marginal.

Resizing your window isn't too bad, but is a bit slow and choppy at times. The title bar at the top of the screen hides itself and sometimes doesn't want to work with you. In addition, full screen mode locks your monitor, which makes it difficult to watch TV and continue to work on a system that has more than one monitor. Major bummer.

IV. System Resources

ReplayTV's PC Edition is SLOW, even on a pretty quick system. It consistently uses 30-50% of my CPU, in contrast, my normal TV tuner software uses only 5-15% of my CPU's resources, allowing me to easy multitask without any lag.

This results mainly from one of ReplayTV's features, namely that you can instantly rewind anything you're currently watching. So, whenever you change the channel, ReplayTV begins recording in the background and will continue to record so that you can quickly go back in time. Apart from this using a lot your system's resources, the other problem is that it takes about 5-6 seconds for you to change a channel, which is quite annoying.

This lag affects a number of other features. It causes the entire interface to slow down and seem rather unresponsive. Changing channels seems like a chore now because you can no longer "flip" through channels, but briskly peruse them instead.

One thing that ReplayTV could do is give you an option to disable the automatic recording or to at least delay it by a few seconds. Thus, you could quickly change a channel and only have the recording kick in after 3 or 5 seconds. This would give you a balance of speed and access to instant replay. Again, for 99.95, you'd think that ReplayTV would give its users, especially those who have very different types of computers and needs, the ability to tweak the service to fit their needs.

V. File Formats

ReplayTV also doesn't give you a very clear idea of how it is recording video. It gives you the option of recording at Low, Medium, or High, which although mildly descriptive, is generally unhelpful. Low quality recording uses 1GB of space per hour, while Medium and High use 2GB and 3GB, respectively.

While ReplayTV lets you choose where you want to record your video, navigating to that folder is frustrating because you can't simply double click on a video file and play it in your favorite media player. Windows Media Player gives you a decoding error, so you're forced to load up ReplayTV and then have to go through their menus (which are well-designed I admit) and load up the video through there. This is a pointless limitation and a blatant attempt at forcing you to use their software player, which for 99.95 should give me the option of using it or not using it when I want.

The other side effect of being forced to use ReplayTV as your software player is that you cannot stream your video to another computer either through the internet or through your home network. That is a MAJOR limitation especially because place-shifting is where all the action is going to be in the next year or two.

And speaking of space shifting, if ReplayTV's EPG is supposed to be so good, then how come ReplayTV doesn't give me the ability to sign in to a website and tell my computer at home what to record? This seems like a simple feature and something that would add a lot of value to their product.

VI. Conclusion

First off, this product isn't meant for everyone, so if you don't watch or record any video to your computer, then you're much better off getting a set-top box.

Like many popular software applications/services these days, ReplayTV tries to incorporate a bunch of features in a self-contained unit. Also like many applications and services these days, ReplayTV makes it difficult to opt-out of using certain parts of its system.

ReplayTV's PC Edition gives me very few reasons to think it is worth its steep price tag. The fact that I have to buy all of the hardware by myself means this high priced services needs to add a lot of value, which it really doesn't.

Not only does ReplayTV make it harder for you stream videos, ReplayTV gives me very few options in general. It makes me think that the company was just trying to capitalize on its existing mediocre, non-customizable EPG and sell it to you online. If all I'm getting is an EPG, I suggest that ReplayTV release a downloadable version of its EPG for $20.00 a year, and I think it will get far more subscribers. Although the product does exactly what it promises to do, the thought behind the product is a let down.

5 out of 10.

5 PSAs for the Women of Berkeley

1. Even if it wasn't still 65 degress out, you'd still look ridiculous in those UGG boots.

2. There's a reason that jeans with tightly tapered ankles went out of fashion.

3. Aviators are not sparkly.

4. Yes, you do look like a pirate.

5. As if wearing sweatpants in public wasn't bad enough, rolling up the waistband five times is unforgiveable.

Yahoo! Music Unlimited Review

It is a very interesting time to be a consumer of digital media. We can see business models appearing--and disappearing--on an almost daily basis. And the market for online music is no exception. In comparison to Napster and Rhapsody, and also (to a lesser extent) services like eMusic and iTunes, Yahoo!'s music service has its quirks, but is a strongest bang for the buck.

I. Introduction

Using the term "digital jukebox" to describe anything these days is meaningless because virtually anything can be described as a digital jukebox. In terms of its offerings, Yahoo! Music Unlimited is identical to Rhapsody and Napster because each service gives you a number of ways to legally listen and/or download music. You can: (1) stream MP3 quality audio from thousands of online radio stations; (2) purchase individual tracks for a one time fee; (3) download unlimited amounts of protected files; (4) share recommendations and playlists with other users; and (5) burn compilations. You can participate in one or all of these business models.

I first tried Yahoo! Music Unlimited when it launched in May 2005. I signed up for the 7-day trial but in the end opted for Napster’s paid service because it had a larger portfolio of music. Currently, Napster has over 2+ million songs available while Yahoo!—up until just a few days ago—still had about 1 million songs available (see below). Without any press whatsoever, Yahoo! now advertises that they have over 2 million songs as well. How can someone double their portfolio and not think it’s worth mentioning? So in terms of the amount of songs available, both are on par.

 

II. Pricing

The reason I chose Yahoo! Music Unlimited over Napster and Rhapsody is because of the price There is a fantastic promotion for Yahoo for anybody with a MasterCard. If you spend $59.98 for one year of unlimited downloads (the regular one year subscription price), you get a second year for free. That works out to only $2.50 per month for unlimited downloads. Compare this to Napster, which costs $9.95 a month unlimited downloads or Rhapsody Unlimited for $9.99 a month, and Yahoo! Music Unlimited begins to look quite appealing.

 

Like NetFlix in the movie market, I think Yahoo! has really hit the right chord with its price. I think anything hovering around the $5.00/month range is sufficiently appealing for many users who would otherwise illegally download via BitTorrent or other pre-legal Napster-like services. Rather than sifting through, often unorganized, torrent sites and risking spyware and viruses as well as confronting various filename and ID3 tag schemes, it seems that “buying in” is becoming a cheaper and more convenient solution than illegal downloading.

 

III. Subscription v. Single-Track Business Models

 

Let’s do some math. 60 bucks gets me two years of unlimited downloads, very good streaming radio, playlist services on Yahoo! or can get me approximately 4 albums on iTunes, which I can only play on my iPod.

 

It may not seem like it, but I strongly support the idea that if we buy music, we should only have to buy music one time and not feel compelled to re-buy an entire collection when another format comes along. This leaves us with two options. First, you can choose to just “not buy” music and perpetually subscribe to a service like Yahoo!’s. On the other hand, you can purchase CDs and just rip them yourself, which takes more time and more money. The benefit of ripping your own music is that you can always re-rip your own CD when a new format comes out and you can buy any music player you want; plus, you’re not going to lose your collection later on. In contrast to both of these approaches, Apple attempts to straddle the middle, but its position is inherently unstable because it gives you the worst of both worlds: restrictions on file formats, hardware and software lock in, and higher prices.

 

As stated earlier, Yahoo! offers a subscription model, so you have to remain a member to keep your music. You can listen to however many songs, radio, playlists, download them to your computer when you’re off the internet, and (for an additional fee) fill up your non-iPod music player with all the latest music. The fact that you lose all of this music if you stop becoming a member turns off a lot of people. I can’t say that it irks me as much as the iTunes and (maybe?) the Zune points model.

 

Subscription pricing gives services like Yahoo!, Rhapsody, and Napster a big leg up over iTunes, which sell tracks one-by-one. If I spent $2.50 a month on iTunes, I’d get two and a half tracks. Sure I can put them on my iPod, which although I was unhappy with the first three generations of, has begun to live up to the hype with the Nano, but I’m locked not only into Apple’s proprietary file format, but also to their software (iTunes) and their hardware (iPod). Good luck if Apple wants to give you support in moving your songs to multiple computers, other iPods, or even another platform. From what I can tell, there are also some limitations on how many times you can burn the song. Good luck using anything other than iTunes with it.

 

Ultimately, what we have here is a tradeoff of sorts. You’re locked in no matter which way you go, but I’d choose to be locked in a way that costs much less money and one that is not tied to particular type of hardware.

 

IV. Installation and Ease of Use

Yahoo! Music Unlimited requires you to install a large, rather bulky piece of software on your computer. Even with a fast notebook or desktop, downloading tracks and navigating through them is resource intensive, especially if you have or are going to have a large music collection. What is nice is that Yahoo!’s servers are quite robust, so if you have a fast internet connection, you can fly through a few hundred albums in a matter of hours.

 

In order to avoid using your computer that will be slow and unresponsive, I recommend making a major queue of downloads and download them overnight. If you have other people in the house, this is a great idea because downloading tracks during the day can clog your internet connection.

Sound quality is fantastic, so I’m not even going to go there.

You have full control over where the files are downloaded to. This is great if you have an extra hard drive and want to avoid making your MyDocuments\MyMusic folder bloated. Yahoo! does, however, ask you to import your existing music into the jukebox so that you can listen to it in there. While this might be convenient, Yahoo!’s jukebox is slow and it generally sucks. I’d say iTunes—which I don’t think is very good—is much better than Yahoo!’s jukebox in this respect. What is nice, however, is that you can open these protected .wma files in Winamp, MediaMonkey, or Windows Media Player, which are all good alternatives to the crappy jukebox software.

Yahoo!’s interface needs a lot of work. There is no quick way (or a very counterintuitive, often hidden way) of finding: (1) new releases; (2) a hierarchical list of genres. Both of these make the program difficult to navigate. It seems like Yahoo! has six or seven different ways of finding music—such as through other members, through similar artists/songs, and the like—but Yahoo! does a very poor job of integrating these methods in its interface.

A huge problem with Yahoo!’s interface is that it does not give you the track numbers of the tracks available for download. Thus, you can be downloading what you believe is a full album, but you’ll eventually find out that it is missing tracks 7, 10, and 13. I know Yahoo! avoids posting track numbers because it brings attention to the fact that many tracks are not available for download, but significantly impairing your customers’ abilities to navigate music is not a reasonable tradeoff.

Yahoo!’s recommendations are generally on target and helpful. One of the best features of the program is that if you find a song you really like, you create a playlist of similar songs or similar artists. This is a fantastic way to just listen to great new music without having to sift through 2 million songs. I’ve found plenty of great artists through this service.

 

V. Tag Inconsistencies

 

As I noted in an earlier set of tutorials titled "Digital Dirty Laundry" about MP3 file conversion and naming schemes (Part 1 and Part 2), one of my pet peeves about digital music libraries are file names and ID3 tags that are inconsistent. For example, an artist like “The Strokes” can show up as: (1) The Strokes, (2) Strokes, The, (3) Strokes. Add into the mix the different permutations of album names and track names, and building a library of music can quickly become a disaster.

 

For the most part Yahoo! does a mediocre job in keeping its library fairly easy to navigate. It, however, does not give you an option to correct the mistakes that Yahoo! has made. Thus, if you have an artist that is misspelled, you can’t rename it. I find the worst problems on rap and R&B albums, which inevitably “feature” thirty different artists on each track. The names are all completely out of whack and there’s no way to update them to make it easy to view.

 

VI. Conclusion

Yahoo! Music Unlimited is a bargain. For about $2.50/month, you can get unlimited access to over 2 million songs. While the software has its quirks, is slow and often hard to navigate, the business model--and the access it gives you to new music--runs circles around Apple's digital marketplace.

Facebook Makes Me Tingle

So I broke down and finally created a Facebook profile. Apart from all of the organizational problems with the website (i.e., not being able to quickly see or join networks), my biggest gripe with Facebook is that it gives me the option of "poking" my friends, which is either annoying, wildly inappropriate or both.

Google Accessible Search

If you don't like staring at Google's sponsored advertisements, try using Google's "Accessible Search" for the visually impaired. As shown below, the search listings are clean and easy to read. Personally I find the sponsored links to be often more helpful than the search results. Unlike Yahoo!, Google does a decent job of keeping the interface clean and neat, so the sponsored links on the right sidebar don't bother me all that much. But, to each his own.

I am of the opinoin that using this site, even if you are not visually impaired, is not in any way morally reprehensible. It's not like using your Uncle's handicapped parking permit. And because I am visually impaired, I'm in the clear. Suckers.

Norm MacDonald on Dennis Miller Live

Sorry for the recent string of Norm videos, but this is one of my favorite interviews of all time.

Best Buy + DMCA = One Step Further From Reality

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), originally designed to combat digital piracy, has proven to us in its short history that it is poorly designed to prevent abuse of its provisions to monopolize various markets. Whether it be a garage door opener, an inkjet printer, or a game server, the anti competitive implications are quite clear.

Yet another ridiculous example: Consumer electronics giant BestBuy has threatened to send a DMCA takedown notice to the the ISP of a site called BlackFriday.info. This site posts the prices of products that will be on sale on Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving). Recently these types of sites have become very popular because big name stores--I assume--like to keep their sale prices a secret. I still don't quite understand how getting more publicity about sale prices is a bad thing, but it is clear that BestBuy is not happy at all.

The site decided to pull the post: "BestBuy has threatened to file a take down notice with our ISP under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) due to our posting of the BestBuy Black Friday ad. While we believe that sale prices are facts and not copyrightable, we do not want to risk having this website shut down due to a DMCA take down notice. Because of this, we have removed the BestBuy Black Friday ad from the website as requested."

This is a pretty sad state of affairs, and for two reasons.

First, this isn't even the first time BestBuy has pulled this kind of stunt. In 2003, BestBuy threatened FatWallet.com for posting the same type of price information, which provoked FatWallet to sue BestBuy--although unsuccessfully--for abusing the DMCA.

Second, it is not at all clear that BestBuy has a valid legal claim. The DMCA is designed to give a party with a copyrighted work--a videogame, a song, a software program--a way to effectively protect their works and prevent others from either circumventing digital locks or trafficking in the sale of tools that would enable others to circumvent digital locks. The prerequisite for any of this protection, however, is that you must be protecting a COPYRIGHTED work. What copyrighted work is BestBuy protecting? The work at issue is text-only lists of products and their sale prices.

I think it would be a much closer case if someone was scanning in actual BestBuy advertisements and posting those images on the website. In that case, I would agree that BestBuy's advertisement was a copyrighted work because the selection and arrangement need to create an advertising design exhibit a modicum of creativity.

That I believe a sale price isn't copyrightable doesn't, however, mean that I agree with BlackFriday.info. BestBuy has a right to protect its own business information until it decides to make that information public. Nevertheless, the DMCA isn't the way to effectuate that kind of control. There are plenty of ways to protect business information without distorting copyright law.

Fog Rolling In

At The Hair Salon

I got a haircut last Wednesday at a local salon in Berkeley on University Ave. I've gone there for two and a half years because they charge $12.00, which is between three and five dollars cheaper than the rest. While I still think $12.00 plus tip is outrageous for a fifteen minute haircut (without shampoo or shave), there aren't any better options. Even a barber near the campus wants $15.00 for a buzz cut, not to mention that barbers in the bay area won't give you a shave. I went to a barber on University last year and asked how much a shave was: "Buddy, you need to go to New York for that sort of thing!"

So, I go for a haircut on Wednesday and ask for a trim just to clean up my sideburns and even up my fade. The woman working on my hair spent a total of ten minutes on it, which is fine since it was only a quick trim. $14.00 bucks. I went home, took a shower and that was that.

The next morning after I took a shower, I noticed that she cut my hair unevenly in a number of places, either too close or left patches of my hair uncut. It was an all around bad job, so I went back the next day and asked her to fix it. She seemed absolutely amazed not only that I would accuse her of giving me a bad haircut, but that I would actually ask to have it fixed free of charge. I told her I'd been going there for almost three years, so she agreed.

When I sat down she told me to point out what was wrong. I pointed out that the fade, instead of being in a straight line, was completely uneven and missing in certain areas and that a few patches of hair were not cut at all while others were cut too close. She stared at my head for a minute or two shaking her head in disapproval as if she didn't see anything wrong at all.

Her response, and I kid you not: "I know I didn't cut your hair like that. You are probably losing your hair; don't worry this happens with a lot of men. This explains why it is uneven now."

Absolutely unbelievable (and absolutely indicative of the consumer's shithole that we affectionately call Berkeley, CA).

Japanese Tea Garden at Golden Gate Park

Norm Macdonald, My Favourite Comedian

YouTube originally pulled this video due to licensing restrictions but have since worked out a deal with Viacom to allow Comedy Central clips. Enjoy!

10 Ways to Spice Up Midterm Elections

1. More special effects in campaign ads.
2. Corporate sponsored election officers, from Hooters.
3. Oil, filter, lube while you wait (6-cylinders extra, plus recycling fee).
4. House music at the polling station.
5. No Republicans or Democrats.
6. Unlimited salad, soup, and breadsticks for just $5.99.
7. Polling stations inside of Fry's Electronics.
8. Automatic buy-in to the World Series of Poker Main Event.
9. Poll Tax.
10. Automatic renewal of your driver's license when you vote.

5 Resolutions for the Rainy Season

1. Avoid awkward eye contact with female classmates by replacing my umbrella's nylon sheath in private.
2. Remind Apple that offering a music player in "red" is not as seismic a shift in the portable audio player market as they think it is.
3. Finally finish the last three episodes of Kieslowski's "The Decalouge"
4. Renew my campaign against the term "pussy poppin" in any rap song.
5. Attempt to read more than 35% of the Economist in any given week.

MPRE -- Done. I think. I hope.

The Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) is a part of the BAR exam for any state and was administered this morning. 60 multiple choice questions in 2 hours and 5 minutes, which is surprisingly reasonable. I finished in about an hour and a half, though I make no representations that finishing early has any relevance on my actual performance.

The test makes you leave feeling like you're stupid for not knowing which answer is ethical , and I think everyone leaves wondering if they failed. Surprisingly, there is very little information about there about the grading curve, raw scores, and passage rates. I assume that when we get our scores 5 weeks from now, that it will simply state Pass or Fail, and won't go into any detail about the breakdown of the grades.

While I think a breakdown of your rank and performance isn't necessary (because if you pass you pass), I do think it is necessary to give us some way of showing us what questions we got wrong so that we can learn what the right answer is. Frankly, if I'm never told what questions I got wrong, I'll probably assume--even when I start working--that what I originally thought was proper under the circumstances.

But I can't complain much. I think the test was at or near the level of difficulty seen on other practice exams. The Bar/Bri practice exams were a bit harder actually, not because of the material tested, but because of the confusingly written narratives.

If any of you in the East Bay are considering taking the exam in March 2007, I would recommend the Alameda testing center, which is easy to get to and has ample parking. I've never seen a test administration run smoother.

This is in absolute contrast to taking the LSAT (the first time), where the person reading the instructions was reading at a third to fourth grade reading level and the time keeper insisted that the time kept running in between sections of the exam, such that we were getting about 25-27 actual minutes for a "35" minute section. What a debacle.

One down -- many to go.

Adbusters

I bought a subscription to Adbusters during the summer. It only comes once every other month, so I go through withdrawal for awhile before I can get my next fix of cutting edge cultural commentary. The magazine, based out of Vancouver, is made by The Media Foundation, which describes itself as the following: "We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century." I suppose that's what they call "puffing" in trademark law. Sure it's putting it a bit strongly, but the Media Foundation is right that Adbusters magazine is a cultural crossroads. It reminds me a lot of studying critical theory during my undergrad years.

What The Media Group says about the magazine is also informative: Adbusters has 120,000-circulation and it is "concerned about the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces." The magazine definitely has an activist energy, offering "incisive philosophical articles as well as activist commentary from around the world addressing issues ranging from genetically modified foods to media concentration. In addition, our annual social marketing campaigns like Buy Nothing Day and TV Turnoff Week have made us an important activist networking group. Ultimately, though, Adbusters is an ecological magazine, dedicated to examining the relationship between human beings and their physical and mental environment."

Adbusters has wonderful cultural commentary on consumption. They create wonderful spoof advertisements, real anti-consumption advertisements, and insightful articles on topics you don't normally see. A few issues back they wrote an amazing article titled "How Nike Conquered Skateboard Culture," which discussed how the traditionally anti-brand skateboard crowd embraced the swoosh-company that represented the epitome of corporate branding.

Adbusters really fills my curiosity about how advertising and various systems of production generate true need and desire. Realizing that much of the desire is artificial--or at least sufficiently malleable--amazes me because sometimes I wonder how difficult it is to unlearn certain lessons about consumption.

One thing I really like about the magazine is that the magazines anti-consumption message is not absolute. The articles are written by people who function in a modern world economy, who own laptops and buy clothes. They're not Luddites; instead, they're just looking for moderation and accountability when these systems have harmful effects outweighing their contributions to society. While I don't really care about brands for clothes, wallets, and normal things, I undoubtedly suffer from "needing" the latest solutions for modern technological living. As if you didn't already know it, I'm a technophile.

Adbusters is a pretty pricey magazine, but they have a fantastic website where you can find most of the featured articles as well as a culture shop, where you can see some of their ad campaigns as well as see the postcards that I've linked to throughout this post.

U.S. Patent Application No. 2004 / 0161257

For more information see, PHOSITA's blog.

"Kallide"