Reasons like that are why I have three passwords memorized, and use a different semi-random (2-4 numbers, mix of capitals and lowercase, usually 8-12 characters long) password for each internet website.
One of my three memorized passwords is the 'strongest'. Mix of upper-case, lower-case, symbols, and numbers - and is over 10 characters long, generated randomly (I wrote it on a post-it note that I kept on my person for about a week around home until I'd memorized it, then destroyed the post-it). I use it only on devices I physically control - such as a login password on my laptop, or for my OpenPGP private key. It's also the login for my password store, where all the semi-random passwords for online websites are kept.
The second of three passwords is a slightly-less-strong (over 8 random characters, mix of numbers, lower-case, and upper-case) password that I use for some physical devices (usually ones I do not have administrative control over), and for anything I need to access on the internet that I should not be storing a password in a password safe for (such as if I need to login on machines other than my own, when I don't have my password safe with me). I also use the numeric part as a PIN number or part of a PIN number, when I need such.
The third of the passwords is a really old one, that's insanely easy to break if there was ever an issue (not a dictionary word, but close), with just lower-case. I only use it where I need a quick, often temporary, password that I don't care if it's broken or not....Thus far, this has all worked out pretty well for me. Of course I'm also very careful about not getting malware or keyloggers - partly due to OS choice, and partly due to common sense.
I wouldn't expect either of the linked articles to know binary. It probably is "U", meaning just a repeating 010101010101010101........ Makes the most sense given the structure of hard drives and the fact that a repeated sequence of "u" after "memory of the independence day" (assuming that comma is also not part of it) makes no sense from any point of view.
I'm in the middle of replaying the game - my memory of it is fresher than most people's would be. If you'll notice, most of the detail is also about the occurrence of them and not detail about the sex scenes themselves. Useful stuff to know when going for 100% completion in a game.
There are a grand total of four possible sexual encounters. One is optional for all characters in all playthroughs (and happens or not depending on conversation responses). The last three are optional depending on which (if any) crew member you decide to romance - at most one of these will happen per playthrough. All of them are consensual and between adults.
The first doesn't show anything even remotely considered nudity, and is mostly implied. It's with an Asari (a mono-gendered, but female-looking/acting alien race) consort. It's a 'reward' for you if you don't think her gift of advice is enough for completing her sidequests.
The other three are very similar in style, and are between a male PC and a female human, a female PC and a male human, and a female or male PC and an Asari (female-looking/acting) scientist. They show, at most, mild nudity from the characters (showing rear nudity, with full nudity implied), and are indeed tamer than what you can see on network TV in most ways, and certainly tamer than some things you can see on cable TV. They also only occur after a fairly significant romance sideplot, advanced in conversations with the chosen NPC between missions, and only occur near the end of the game (which is, attempting 100% completion, a longer-than 20-hour game, and probably could not be completed in much less than 8 hours, even with skipping all non-plot related events or quests).
I can't see Adobe spending the time/money to port Photoshop to an untested, unproven platform with an unknown number of users (if Chrome the browser is any indication, it'll be small).
I also can't see a Google OS doing anything other than the internet unless there's either a way to track what you do for advertising purposes, or actual ads embedded in the OS full-time.
[...]for those things one doesnt want to do on the web (DVD replay/ripping, video editing, photo editing, online backup clients, scanner/printer utilities
Honestly, I'm not sure this is in Google's agenda. Not unless there's persistent advertising in the OS, or persistent watching of your every move.
I don't trust Google. I would never run a 'vanilla' version of Chrome OS - only something compiled by the community or that I compiled myself. I don't mind Google knowing what I search for (considering any search engine would know that, no matter who it was) - but I do mind being tracked on internet sites not owned by them (I block Google Analytics - and other similar services), and I'd certainly mind them knowing what I'm doing offline.
Gah. I think I just missed a couple words in your initial post that caused me to miss the point.
"without me putting it in first"...
Sorry, carry on. I agree completely with you - and probably more. I don't want my e-mail divulged anywhere I haven't put it myself and checked the "make this public" box, for instance!
I have to disagree with this one... Unless you're very careful in the real world too, you'll end up with your name somewhere on the internet before long. I know I did long before I started identifying what I do with my name - welcome to the internet-enabled world. Name in a local paper? Good chance it's online too. Ever did well in school? If you won any awards, it'll be listed somewhere as well. The rest, I'm with you 100%. Unless I'm purchasing something, in which case phone number and credit card number can be a necessity. I never publicly publish my phone number, however - and I'm pretty careful in the real world with it as well.
Perhaps I'm not paranoid enough, but I feel comfortable with anyone being able to publicly know the city or province I live in (depending on the size - if it's a large city I don't care, but I wouldn't say if it were a small town), the country (to go with city/province), my name, and my e-mail address. Everything else, I take great care to keep concealed wherever possible, both online and off.
I also don't appreciate my online activity being tracked (page-to-page) unless I specifically wish to be identified. As such, I block most offsite scripts and images, particularly tools like Google Analytics.
You really missed the point of what I said there. I specifically said it's not a reason to *not* use Theora, but it's a reason to be concerned. There may be unknown patents that cover something in Theora that is *not* used in H.264 as well - and vice versa.
It's also a bit of risk management with choosing one codec and supporting it (the one that's *already* supported by the OS) so they won't be potentially double-liable for patent infringement (or liable for different sets of unknown patents).
Theora's also, from all of what I've seen, a significantly worse codec than H.264 - specifically in the area of high-definition video. It's fine at low sizes/bitrates (such as if it were to be used on YouTube - but they already have all videos in H.264 format, before HTML5 was arguing over codecs), but Apple *does* use a large amount of high-definition video for movies on iTunes, and movie trailer downloads.
It would also require them partially abandoning the codec they've already chosen to put their support behind in their operating system, or to at least (possibly messily) shoehorn in support for another codec into the various iPods (with, as others have mentioned, either a severe hit to battery life, or only supporting it on new devices with possibly-expensive Theora decoding chips - say what you will about Apple, but they generally keep pretty good backwards compatibility from one device to another).
Is it right? Perhaps not. But there are reasons for it to make sense from at least a business point of view.
A solution to this is to get rid of software patents - or live somewhere they aren't valid.
As has been discussed before, it's also possible (even likely) that some content of the Theora codec is covered by some other software patents, given the huge number of patents granted. It's simply not known if/what patents could apply to it. That's not a reason to *not* use it, but it is a reason to be concerned for the same reason as concern about H.264.
[...]and in many states the age at which you can consent to sex varies, but 14 to 16 is common.
It varies between 16 and 18, not 14 and 16. There may be some age-related exceptions in some states (such as people of a similar or same age), but I haven't looked into it.
*scratches head* This is the same "Miley Cyrus" who has had camwhore-like (provocative, not nude) self-photos of herself spread over the internet, right? This is also the same "MIley Cyrus" who had pictures that she ended up feeling "embarrassed" about (similar to the previous - suggestive in some ways, but not nude) published in Vanity Fair?...Completely avoiding the legal question here, is this really a sane response when there's already been so much sexually suggestive material of her available - stuff that isn't a (presumably bad) Photoshop job?
<em> and <strong> are preferred, particularly in XHTML documents (and maybe HTML 4 Strict - I'm not certain) because HTML is intended to define the structure of a document and not the formatting. Using tags to apply bold, italics, and underline (the trio - <b>, <i>, <u>) is using HTML to define the formatting and not the structure. <u> was eliminated (and underlining can only be done in CSS now), with <em> and <strong> introduced for the structure (an emphasized statement or a strongly-spoken statement if you will) that typically is represented by italics and bold.
Also of note is that several tags apply the same formatting (italics in this case) while defining a different element structurally. The <address> tag, for instance, defaults to also italicizing the text within. In short, while it may not be as intuitive when you're using HTML for formatting, it does preserve the intent of HTML as a structural markup language better.
Firefox doesn't have those pockets, they're non-profit and despite conspiracy theorists they're not really backed by Google (as in, Google doesn't have their back on this).
Mozilla Corporation's (a for-profit corporation - not to be confused with the Mozilla Foundation) major source (80%+ last I heard) of income (millions upon millions of profit) is Google. Google doesn't pay them for developing Firefox, but they have several agreements that gives MozCorp a ton of money every time a Firefox user searches on Google - such as through the search bar or through the default homepage.
Google won't support Mozilla if something goes badly - but Mozilla is pretty indebted to Google if they want to continue making a profit.
(They finally released an update last month after two years of no activity. I think this HTML5 argument finally spurred someone into thinking "Hey, maybe we should provide (regularly updated) support on a fairly widely-used platform.".)
It could still be plagiarized if it does not retain the proper copyright notice in an appropriate form with every copy distributed. Of course, it's really quite easy to meet the requirements for the BSD licence, so it's very unlikely anyone would take the risk.
We have more than two big parties. The Conservatives and Liberals are simply the most likely to be able to form a government.
And actually in general the Liberals are better than the Conversatives if you have left-leaning views. It's a case of them being different, with 'bad' often ending up as a relative term.
Spambots don't, and never have, invested enough time to include JavaScript parsing. One of the linked articles suggests this is due to a possibility of crashing when trying to interpret badly formed or incorrect JavaScript, but it could also be due to simple plaintext (maybe with stripping HTML tags) parsing has been producing enough results so far.
Most spambots have been proven, in several experiments, to not even parse hex/decimal HTML character entities, so JavaScript parsing was considered to be mostly safe for the moment. It's not like people assume this is a perfect spam-blocking method - just that it's good enough to not get thousands upon thousands of spam, limiting it to a reasonable number.
They're also parsing hex/decimal character entity armoured e-mails in exactly the same way. While not as safe as JavaScript, these have been mostly-invulnerable to spambots as well and are used by default in some web-based applications, like the Mercurial hgweb.cgi/hgwebdir.cgi scripts.
I think you're mistaking AAC for AC3. AAC is essentially MPEG-4 audio, with a compression vs. quality rate similar to OGG - meaning somewhat better than MP3.
He claimed OGG is twice as good as MP3 is, not even 0.3%... Nevermind that MP3 doesn't even enter the equation when comparing H.264 to Theora (both because H.264 is typically paired with AAC audio and the video quality is the important question here, given the comparatively small size of audio), but that's also a blatant lie. You won't get double the quality out of OGG or AAC when compared to MP3, no way.
Slashdot Mirror
Reasons like that are why I have three passwords memorized, and use a different semi-random (2-4 numbers, mix of capitals and lowercase, usually 8-12 characters long) password for each internet website.
One of my three memorized passwords is the 'strongest'. Mix of upper-case, lower-case, symbols, and numbers - and is over 10 characters long, generated randomly (I wrote it on a post-it note that I kept on my person for about a week around home until I'd memorized it, then destroyed the post-it). I use it only on devices I physically control - such as a login password on my laptop, or for my OpenPGP private key. It's also the login for my password store, where all the semi-random passwords for online websites are kept.
The second of three passwords is a slightly-less-strong (over 8 random characters, mix of numbers, lower-case, and upper-case) password that I use for some physical devices (usually ones I do not have administrative control over), and for anything I need to access on the internet that I should not be storing a password in a password safe for (such as if I need to login on machines other than my own, when I don't have my password safe with me). I also use the numeric part as a PIN number or part of a PIN number, when I need such.
The third of the passwords is a really old one, that's insanely easy to break if there was ever an issue (not a dictionary word, but close), with just lower-case. I only use it where I need a quick, often temporary, password that I don't care if it's broken or not. ...Thus far, this has all worked out pretty well for me. Of course I'm also very careful about not getting malware or keyloggers - partly due to OS choice, and partly due to common sense.
I wouldn't expect either of the linked articles to know binary. It probably is "U", meaning just a repeating 010101010101010101........ Makes the most sense given the structure of hard drives and the fact that a repeated sequence of "u" after "memory of the independence day" (assuming that comma is also not part of it) makes no sense from any point of view.
I'm in the middle of replaying the game - my memory of it is fresher than most people's would be. If you'll notice, most of the detail is also about the occurrence of them and not detail about the sex scenes themselves. Useful stuff to know when going for 100% completion in a game.
There are a grand total of four possible sexual encounters. One is optional for all characters in all playthroughs (and happens or not depending on conversation responses). The last three are optional depending on which (if any) crew member you decide to romance - at most one of these will happen per playthrough. All of them are consensual and between adults.
The first doesn't show anything even remotely considered nudity, and is mostly implied. It's with an Asari (a mono-gendered, but female-looking/acting alien race) consort. It's a 'reward' for you if you don't think her gift of advice is enough for completing her sidequests.
The other three are very similar in style, and are between a male PC and a female human, a female PC and a male human, and a female or male PC and an Asari (female-looking/acting) scientist. They show, at most, mild nudity from the characters (showing rear nudity, with full nudity implied), and are indeed tamer than what you can see on network TV in most ways, and certainly tamer than some things you can see on cable TV. They also only occur after a fairly significant romance sideplot, advanced in conversations with the chosen NPC between missions, and only occur near the end of the game (which is, attempting 100% completion, a longer-than 20-hour game, and probably could not be completed in much less than 8 hours, even with skipping all non-plot related events or quests).
I can't see Adobe spending the time/money to port Photoshop to an untested, unproven platform with an unknown number of users (if Chrome the browser is any indication, it'll be small).
I also can't see a Google OS doing anything other than the internet unless there's either a way to track what you do for advertising purposes, or actual ads embedded in the OS full-time.
[...]for those things one doesnt want to do on the web (DVD replay/ripping, video editing, photo editing, online backup clients, scanner/printer utilities
Honestly, I'm not sure this is in Google's agenda. Not unless there's persistent advertising in the OS, or persistent watching of your every move.
I don't trust Google. I would never run a 'vanilla' version of Chrome OS - only something compiled by the community or that I compiled myself. I don't mind Google knowing what I search for (considering any search engine would know that, no matter who it was) - but I do mind being tracked on internet sites not owned by them (I block Google Analytics - and other similar services), and I'd certainly mind them knowing what I'm doing offline.
Gah. I think I just missed a couple words in your initial post that caused me to miss the point.
"without me putting it in first"...
Sorry, carry on. I agree completely with you - and probably more. I don't want my e-mail divulged anywhere I haven't put it myself and checked the "make this public" box, for instance!
[...] such as my full name, [...]
I have to disagree with this one... Unless you're very careful in the real world too, you'll end up with your name somewhere on the internet before long. I know I did long before I started identifying what I do with my name - welcome to the internet-enabled world. Name in a local paper? Good chance it's online too. Ever did well in school? If you won any awards, it'll be listed somewhere as well. The rest, I'm with you 100%. Unless I'm purchasing something, in which case phone number and credit card number can be a necessity. I never publicly publish my phone number, however - and I'm pretty careful in the real world with it as well.
Perhaps I'm not paranoid enough, but I feel comfortable with anyone being able to publicly know the city or province I live in (depending on the size - if it's a large city I don't care, but I wouldn't say if it were a small town), the country (to go with city/province), my name, and my e-mail address. Everything else, I take great care to keep concealed wherever possible, both online and off.
I also don't appreciate my online activity being tracked (page-to-page) unless I specifically wish to be identified. As such, I block most offsite scripts and images, particularly tools like Google Analytics.
I think that's kind of assumed in circumstances such as this...
You really missed the point of what I said there. I specifically said it's not a reason to *not* use Theora, but it's a reason to be concerned. There may be unknown patents that cover something in Theora that is *not* used in H.264 as well - and vice versa.
It's also a bit of risk management with choosing one codec and supporting it (the one that's *already* supported by the OS) so they won't be potentially double-liable for patent infringement (or liable for different sets of unknown patents).
Theora's also, from all of what I've seen, a significantly worse codec than H.264 - specifically in the area of high-definition video. It's fine at low sizes/bitrates (such as if it were to be used on YouTube - but they already have all videos in H.264 format, before HTML5 was arguing over codecs), but Apple *does* use a large amount of high-definition video for movies on iTunes, and movie trailer downloads.
It would also require them partially abandoning the codec they've already chosen to put their support behind in their operating system, or to at least (possibly messily) shoehorn in support for another codec into the various iPods (with, as others have mentioned, either a severe hit to battery life, or only supporting it on new devices with possibly-expensive Theora decoding chips - say what you will about Apple, but they generally keep pretty good backwards compatibility from one device to another).
Is it right? Perhaps not. But there are reasons for it to make sense from at least a business point of view.
Exactly what the difference between 1500 and 2200 nukes is?
Seven hundred nukes.
[...]and h.264 has expensive licensing fees.
A solution to this is to get rid of software patents - or live somewhere they aren't valid.
As has been discussed before, it's also possible (even likely) that some content of the Theora codec is covered by some other software patents, given the huge number of patents granted. It's simply not known if/what patents could apply to it. That's not a reason to *not* use it, but it is a reason to be concerned for the same reason as concern about H.264.
[...]and in many states the age at which you can consent to sex varies, but 14 to 16 is common.
It varies between 16 and 18, not 14 and 16. There may be some age-related exceptions in some states (such as people of a similar or same age), but I haven't looked into it.
*scratches head* This is the same "Miley Cyrus" who has had camwhore-like (provocative, not nude) self-photos of herself spread over the internet, right? This is also the same "MIley Cyrus" who had pictures that she ended up feeling "embarrassed" about (similar to the previous - suggestive in some ways, but not nude) published in Vanity Fair? ...Completely avoiding the legal question here, is this really a sane response when there's already been so much sexually suggestive material of her available - stuff that isn't a (presumably bad) Photoshop job?
<em> and <strong> are preferred, particularly in XHTML documents (and maybe HTML 4 Strict - I'm not certain) because HTML is intended to define the structure of a document and not the formatting. Using tags to apply bold, italics, and underline (the trio - <b>, <i>, <u>) is using HTML to define the formatting and not the structure. <u> was eliminated (and underlining can only be done in CSS now), with <em> and <strong> introduced for the structure (an emphasized statement or a strongly-spoken statement if you will) that typically is represented by italics and bold.
Also of note is that several tags apply the same formatting (italics in this case) while defining a different element structurally. The <address> tag, for instance, defaults to also italicizing the text within. In short, while it may not be as intuitive when you're using HTML for formatting, it does preserve the intent of HTML as a structural markup language better.
Firefox doesn't have those pockets, they're non-profit and despite conspiracy theorists they're not really backed by Google (as in, Google doesn't have their back on this).
Mozilla Corporation's (a for-profit corporation - not to be confused with the Mozilla Foundation) major source (80%+ last I heard) of income (millions upon millions of profit) is Google. Google doesn't pay them for developing Firefox, but they have several agreements that gives MozCorp a ton of money every time a Firefox user searches on Google - such as through the search bar or through the default homepage.
Google won't support Mozilla if something goes badly - but Mozilla is pretty indebted to Google if they want to continue making a profit.
The plugin you're referring to: http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/
(They finally released an update last month after two years of no activity. I think this HTML5 argument finally spurred someone into thinking "Hey, maybe we should provide (regularly updated) support on a fairly widely-used platform.".)
It could still be plagiarized if it does not retain the proper copyright notice in an appropriate form with every copy distributed. Of course, it's really quite easy to meet the requirements for the BSD licence, so it's very unlikely anyone would take the risk.
We have more than two big parties. The Conservatives and Liberals are simply the most likely to be able to form a government.
And actually in general the Liberals are better than the Conversatives if you have left-leaning views. It's a case of them being different, with 'bad' often ending up as a relative term.
Spambots don't, and never have, invested enough time to include JavaScript parsing. One of the linked articles suggests this is due to a possibility of crashing when trying to interpret badly formed or incorrect JavaScript, but it could also be due to simple plaintext (maybe with stripping HTML tags) parsing has been producing enough results so far.
Most spambots have been proven, in several experiments, to not even parse hex/decimal HTML character entities, so JavaScript parsing was considered to be mostly safe for the moment. It's not like people assume this is a perfect spam-blocking method - just that it's good enough to not get thousands upon thousands of spam, limiting it to a reasonable number.
They're also parsing hex/decimal character entity armoured e-mails in exactly the same way. While not as safe as JavaScript, these have been mostly-invulnerable to spambots as well and are used by default in some web-based applications, like the Mercurial hgweb.cgi/hgwebdir.cgi scripts.
WARNING: Story may not reflect your experiences. Do not attempt.
I think you're mistaking AAC for AC3. AAC is essentially MPEG-4 audio, with a compression vs. quality rate similar to OGG - meaning somewhat better than MP3.
And you missed mine.
By arguing about the formats/codecs performance you loose the argument.
I was agreeing with you on that, by noting that the comparison you had a problem with was extremely wrong anyway.
He claimed OGG is twice as good as MP3 is, not even 0.3%... Nevermind that MP3 doesn't even enter the equation when comparing H.264 to Theora (both because H.264 is typically paired with AAC audio and the video quality is the important question here, given the comparatively small size of audio), but that's also a blatant lie. You won't get double the quality out of OGG or AAC when compared to MP3, no way.