I've lost the ability to care about whether abortion gets banned or not. Seriously. One party seriously can't expect electability on the basis that no matter how far to the right it drifts, at least it won't ban abortion!
He voted for it as part of a larger bill, and stated at the time that while he was opposed to warrantless wiretapping and would continue to fight it, he couldn't veto the entire bill it was a part of because the balance was better than worse.
I was making exactly that point. People who announce they're libertarians and then go to pains to explain that libertarianism isn't about getting rid of all laws, oh no, it's just the bad ones, are really not adding anything to the discussion or the politics or to understanding.
Bearing in mind that most people seem to decide to become libertarians, that is, decide to use that label, because they look at a bunch of things that the government is doing they feel shouldn't be done, I'm moving forward with the opinion that actually libertarianism is a false concept. It doesn't exist. It doesn't really have a counterpart and opposite. It's not ultimately based upon any real principle.
I'm a liberal. I too believe that the government should get out of my private life and avoid regulating my private behavior. I also believe that the government should only do things that aren't better done by private citizens and institutions.
My friend is a conservative. He believes the government should respect the money and property of private individuals. He also believes that the government should only do things that aren't better done by private citizens and institutions.
What are libertarians genuinely bringing to the table here? Listen to some and you think they're combining the first principle of my view, and the first of my friend's view, with the last bit, but that actually doesn't make sense and it's not true anyway. Most libertarians, in my experience, actually are fine drawing lines about private behavior and about property and taxes.
Does libertarianism exist? My view is no. You can have a general sense that there are too many laws right now, or that your taxes are a little high, but it says nothing for your policies and actual moral views of government.
Understand where you're coming from, but let's not forget that a major part of the support of Mr Hope & Change was from people who understood his position to be against warrantless wiretapping, and this bill wouldn't be on any agenda if Obama had actually been the person with that position.
We're best off voting for a third party at this election for President (Congress is more of a local matter and can't be generalized like that.) No matter who wins, we will get this crap anyway. At the very least, though, votes for a third party for President are votes that analysts will recognize as votes that could have been for a major party, had either one shown any principle whatsoever.
Actually pretty much nobody's impressed with the iPhone 5. With the exception of a lone Samsung employee who as I write this is putting together a memo that'll cause Samsung much embarassment in a trial five years from now...
Well, the OP described it as "Dolby's codec", which would be extremely dubious. Dolby was only a contributor, one of many, and there's no suggestion they actually steered the process or were the primary contributor.
In my experience, whenever I've heard someone describe AAC as a Dolby thing, they have, on further proding, mistaken it for AC-3 - there's a remarkable number of people out there who think they're the same thing.
If it wasn't such a big deal, why did Samsung's own documents point out how important it was to not lose market to iPhone?
I'm sure, over the years, more than one memo has circulated around Culpertino about the risk about losing the market to Microsoft, and even occasionally documents by engineers (albiet rare) comparing Mac OS features to Windows features and deciding Microsoft has a better approach.
I still don't see how my Galaxy Nexus resembles an iPhone, except possibly in that they both have attrocious battery lives.
That will depend on how you encoded it. You should include that metadata in the container. Opus is a CODEC, not a container.
OK, that kind of phrasing annoys the hell out of me. Opus is a codec, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and stating it like that implies that the person you're talking to is unaware that Opus is a codec.
Leaving that aside, no, the correct place for data that explains why there are four channels is in the codec. You wouldn't rely on a container to have information about which channel is left, and which is right, for basic two channel stereo. And that metadata is required information if a decoder is going to play the audio correctly. I have four channels of audio. My player has two speakers. How should it combine the streams? Are you expecting that to be done by the container demuxer? Why?
Bear in mind this isn't something normally done by a container demuxer either. AC-3 and DTS both get considerable savings within the codecs themselves by combining the channels. If AC-3 and DTS both, for reasons unknown, decided that they should only support two channels per stream (why two?) and so anything that used them needed three independently encoded streams, with the demuxer post-processing the audio and sending it to the right speakers, then they'd become considerably less efficient.
This is a bad idea. If it were a good idea, then nobody would have standardized on AC-3 and DTS to begin with, because MPEG 1 already supported the ability to have multiple audio streams per container.
OK, so imagine yourself as a juror in three cases:
1. You're asked to aquit or punish a starving orphan who stole an apple from a fruitcart. Your choices are aquittal, $500, $5,000 or $50,000.
2. You're asked to aquit or punish a driver who drive at 20 miles above the speed limit on a freeway. Your choices are aquittal, $500, $5,000 or $50,000.
3. You're asked to aquit or punish a factory manager who used whips to force a group of starving orphans to work for 20 hours a day for a year. Your choices are aquittal, $500, $5,000 or $50,000.
Assuming they're all guilty as hell, would you really pick $5,000 for all three crimes simply because it's the middle option? Even allowing for the fact you'd be given one of these cases, not all three, and thus not know the other two?
For the Thomas case, one thing Slashdot's anti-music industry posters tend to forget is that Thomas is one of the file sharers who went overboard in making themselves look recklessly irresponsible to judge and jury alike. If she'd gone to court, said "Yes, I did it, I just wanted people to have copies of the music I love without them having to pay for it", she'd probably have had a sympathetic jury - made up of 12 ordinary people, who must have included some familiar with TEH NAPSTERS - award her the minimum. But that's not what she did.
Her denials, her pretending it wasn't her, combined with a culture that does, actually, want artists to be rewarded for their work, even if the "Have the publishing industry collect royalties and pay advances" model is far from perfect, made it easy (and, in my view, completely 100% justifiable) to paint her as a freeloading jackass who's willing to waste everyone's time and money.
You won't see many of the lower awards being paid, largely because the people who'd pay them are more likely to have settled before the case even reaches court.
I can't speak for RAR, but really, honestly, GZIP doesn't do waveform analysis. It just looks for repeating strings. If you managed to zip up a WAV and it ended up about the same size as a FLAC, then you were either very luckly, or had a WAV that was dominated by, say, zeroes.
OK, I have two instances, each having two channels. Which of the following is a valid assumption?
- The audio is diamond quadraphonic (f/b/l/r)
- The audio is square qudraphonic (fl, fr, bl, br)
- The audio is stereo, with a rear speaker, and a center speaker (fl, fc, fr, b)
- Other
(And what about an SW?)
To support more than two channels, you need to do more than simply increase the number of audio streams. It's important to include the appropriate metadata, and that metadata should be associated with the audio itself.
I'd say Opus missing this is as big a mistake as it was for MPEG 1 Layer1/2/3 audio back in 1991 and it effectly rules out using Opus for at least one popular audio task, especially in an environment in which we're less than a decade from the most popular surround sound codec (AC-3) going into the public domain.
I believe you're confusing it with AC-3. AAC is not the same thing, is in many ways a would-be competitor, and originated in an attempt to create a new "clean" codec during the MPEG 2 standardization. The MPEG Audio Layer 1/2/3 thing resulted in some good ideas, but Layer 3 in particular isn't exactly how you'd put together an audio standard if you started from scratch.
Where do you get "1000mb/s" for "4G"? And you do realize the "4G LTE" moniker merely means "We're actually running LTE, not HSPA+, to provide our fourth generation network", right? It has nothing to do with different versions of LTE.
And yes, I'm aware there's some controversy on whether early versions of LTE count as "4G" (which is ridiculous, because 4G is not a synonym for IMT Advanced, and virtually everyone who pisses into that particular pool relies upon the assumption it is), but that's not what the "4G LTE" thing refers to.
Here's the deal: LTE is a high throughput mobile network standard that supplies all services over IP. It's certainly next generation. LTE-Advanced is a tweaked version of LTE (which includes a necessary increase in data rate) to conform to IMT Advanced, the requirement list the ITU put together to define their next generation of networks. LTE Advanced absolutely conforms to IMT Advanced.
Because early versions of LTE didn't quite reach IMT Advanced rates, an enhancement to UMTS, called HSPA+, was put forward as a legitimate alternative, as it reached similar data rates and it too could be run in an IP-only mode. That's what lead to the arguments, which lead Verizon and AT&T to start branding 4G and "4G LTE" as separate things.
But that's it. "4G LTE" is not "a version of LTE that's not 4G", it's a branding that includes LTE in its basic next generation form, and LTE-Advanced.
No, the editor's wrong. Here's why: the editor is knowingly and willingly putting false information in Wikipedia.
That's what this boils down to. In the morass of rules being quoted, interpreted, re-interpreted, noted, clarified, justified, defended, and other BS, what's forgotten here is the simple question of "Which fact is correct?" And saying "I am compelled to lie on Wikipedia - that is, to explicity state something is fact, in a context where I am trying to convince people of that fact, when I know it to be false, because "WP:RULECITED" applies, is not a defense.
At the very least, you remove the information you know to be factually incorrect. There is nothing about Wikipedia that suggests that if someone, somewhere, makes a statement, and somehow gets it published, that you absolutely must copy it verbertim to the Wiki. And basic professionalism and ethics says that you NEVER willingly mislead someone simply because you can get away with it.
The problem with Wikipedia is not merely that it has stupid rules: it's that people use those rules to justify intentionally bad behavior. Stop it.
Even in the Santorum case, they eventually made some results less prominent
They did? The first search result on the word "Santorum" is for the Wikipedia page on the Santorum neologism. The second, reasonably enough, is for the homophobic jackwagon himself. The third is the "Spreading santorum" blog.
After that you get links largely about the politician. The fact that the first link is still about the fluid, despite the fact Santorum spent most of the last year and a bit in an election campaign for president, suggests to me Google hasn't done anything. (Which is fine, I'm not criticising them, I just think they're not as hands on as you think.)
Kindle Touch is an entirely different OS, it's not Android based like the Fire range.
My comments, marginally related to yours:
One thing I really like about the Kindle Fires is that Amazon actually has something that Apple and Google do not: a vision for how their devices will be used. Apple and Google are trying to create a "useful touch-based computing device", while Amazon have already said "OK, it's a device for playing games, watching movies, and listening to music, etc." and are working on creating something they consider optimal for that.
While, personally, I suspect if I got a KF HD I'd do the same thing as I did with my existing KF (install Jellybean on it and use it as a normal tablet), it's at least interesting to see what Amazon are trying to do with their stuff.
Well, yeah, it does video, but then while USB doesn't do that, the microUSB port does.
In all seriousness, there's virtually NOTHING that the Apple dock connector provides that cannot be implemented on a micro-USB connector using publically available, widely implemented, standards.
Audio control? That's HID - you know, keyboards, multimedia keys have been standard for how many years now? Got to be more than a decade.
Audio in and out? That's also covered by HID. And audio out can also be implemented using MHD.
Video out? That's where MHD comes in.
USB and power? It's already USB!
In general, the usual response when I mention this is for someone to go "Ah, but I want analog video out!" or something similar. To which the obvious response is: why? You're not really going to want to connect it to a 1980s CRT TV using an RCA connector; and just about all the devices I can think of where you'd want something plugged into the USB port rather than the headphones port involve a USB controller in there somewhere anyway. Alarm clock radio with dock? How are you going to have the dock hit "play" on your device at the right time if it doesn't already have the USB circuitry to implement the HID protocol?
For that genuinely rare occasion where you'd need analog out, is a $5 adapter really going to be a hardship that isn't paid for in droves by the completely 100% standard, low profile, easily licensed, port in your phone?
There is absolutely no reason for any manufacturer to be offering anything other than microUSB (with a separate 3.5mm headset port, simply because that's so common right now) at the moment. No manufacturer should be implementing anything using proprietary connectors. Period.
1. Email. You receive email. You click on data: link. Where does phishing form send your crap to?
2. Forum. You see a message on a forum requesting you log in to Amazon and re-enter your credit card. Wait. What? Anyway, this then takes advantage of the fact it's on a forum, a forum that doesn't have any CAPTCHA type stuff to prevent posting a new message, and nobody notices (a) the original post and (b) the information being posted back to the forum.
3. One of the other sites on the Int...
Look, either way, it's sending data that can be blocked. There's little or no difference between this and just getting a throwaway domain and sending people to that.
I'm trying desperately to find an advantage. One where someone can use this to circumvent the need to have a server that can be shut down. All the ways in which data is passed back require a server that can be shut down. It might not belong to the phisher (but they're already running botnets and stuff, right?) but it needs to exist.
OK, talk me through this. I want to steal a credit card number, Amazon login, or person's favorite color, using this technique. To prevent myself from being shut down before I can harvest the information, I encode the entire form, designed to look like my bank's home page/Amazon.com's login page/MyFavoriteColor.com, as a data: URI. The user enters the information into the dubious form and clicks "Submit".
...what then? How does the information get back to me without a domain that can be blacklisted?
If you're EA, or some other major developer with huge amounts of money, power, and influence (but I repeat myself), which would you prefer? A platform that has high barriers to developer entry, or one with low barriers?
Slashdot Mirror
I've lost the ability to care about whether abortion gets banned or not. Seriously. One party seriously can't expect electability on the basis that no matter how far to the right it drifts, at least it won't ban abortion!
He voted for it as part of a larger bill, and stated at the time that while he was opposed to warrantless wiretapping and would continue to fight it, he couldn't veto the entire bill it was a part of because the balance was better than worse.
He betrayed that promise.
Whoosh.
I was making exactly that point. People who announce they're libertarians and then go to pains to explain that libertarianism isn't about getting rid of all laws, oh no, it's just the bad ones, are really not adding anything to the discussion or the politics or to understanding.
Bearing in mind that most people seem to decide to become libertarians, that is, decide to use that label, because they look at a bunch of things that the government is doing they feel shouldn't be done, I'm moving forward with the opinion that actually libertarianism is a false concept. It doesn't exist. It doesn't really have a counterpart and opposite. It's not ultimately based upon any real principle.
I'm a liberal. I too believe that the government should get out of my private life and avoid regulating my private behavior. I also believe that the government should only do things that aren't better done by private citizens and institutions.
My friend is a conservative. He believes the government should respect the money and property of private individuals. He also believes that the government should only do things that aren't better done by private citizens and institutions.
What are libertarians genuinely bringing to the table here? Listen to some and you think they're combining the first principle of my view, and the first of my friend's view, with the last bit, but that actually doesn't make sense and it's not true anyway. Most libertarians, in my experience, actually are fine drawing lines about private behavior and about property and taxes.
Does libertarianism exist? My view is no. You can have a general sense that there are too many laws right now, or that your taxes are a little high, but it says nothing for your policies and actual moral views of government.
Understand where you're coming from, but let's not forget that a major part of the support of Mr Hope & Change was from people who understood his position to be against warrantless wiretapping, and this bill wouldn't be on any agenda if Obama had actually been the person with that position.
We're best off voting for a third party at this election for President (Congress is more of a local matter and can't be generalized like that.) No matter who wins, we will get this crap anyway. At the very least, though, votes for a third party for President are votes that analysts will recognize as votes that could have been for a major party, had either one shown any principle whatsoever.
Actually pretty much nobody's impressed with the iPhone 5. With the exception of a lone Samsung employee who as I write this is putting together a memo that'll cause Samsung much embarassment in a trial five years from now...
Well, the OP described it as "Dolby's codec", which would be extremely dubious. Dolby was only a contributor, one of many, and there's no suggestion they actually steered the process or were the primary contributor.
In my experience, whenever I've heard someone describe AAC as a Dolby thing, they have, on further proding, mistaken it for AC-3 - there's a remarkable number of people out there who think they're the same thing.
I'm sure, over the years, more than one memo has circulated around Culpertino about the risk about losing the market to Microsoft, and even occasionally documents by engineers (albiet rare) comparing Mac OS features to Windows features and deciding Microsoft has a better approach.
I still don't see how my Galaxy Nexus resembles an iPhone, except possibly in that they both have attrocious battery lives.
OK, that kind of phrasing annoys the hell out of me. Opus is a codec, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and stating it like that implies that the person you're talking to is unaware that Opus is a codec.
Leaving that aside, no, the correct place for data that explains why there are four channels is in the codec. You wouldn't rely on a container to have information about which channel is left, and which is right, for basic two channel stereo. And that metadata is required information if a decoder is going to play the audio correctly. I have four channels of audio. My player has two speakers. How should it combine the streams? Are you expecting that to be done by the container demuxer? Why?
Bear in mind this isn't something normally done by a container demuxer either. AC-3 and DTS both get considerable savings within the codecs themselves by combining the channels. If AC-3 and DTS both, for reasons unknown, decided that they should only support two channels per stream (why two?) and so anything that used them needed three independently encoded streams, with the demuxer post-processing the audio and sending it to the right speakers, then they'd become considerably less efficient.
This is a bad idea. If it were a good idea, then nobody would have standardized on AC-3 and DTS to begin with, because MPEG 1 already supported the ability to have multiple audio streams per container.
Not if Apple is refusing to pay the FRAND rates, which generally they've been refusing to do.
OK, so imagine yourself as a juror in three cases:
1. You're asked to aquit or punish a starving orphan who stole an apple from a fruitcart. Your choices are aquittal, $500, $5,000 or $50,000.
2. You're asked to aquit or punish a driver who drive at 20 miles above the speed limit on a freeway. Your choices are aquittal, $500, $5,000 or $50,000.
3. You're asked to aquit or punish a factory manager who used whips to force a group of starving orphans to work for 20 hours a day for a year. Your choices are aquittal, $500, $5,000 or $50,000.
Assuming they're all guilty as hell, would you really pick $5,000 for all three crimes simply because it's the middle option? Even allowing for the fact you'd be given one of these cases, not all three, and thus not know the other two?
For the Thomas case, one thing Slashdot's anti-music industry posters tend to forget is that Thomas is one of the file sharers who went overboard in making themselves look recklessly irresponsible to judge and jury alike. If she'd gone to court, said "Yes, I did it, I just wanted people to have copies of the music I love without them having to pay for it", she'd probably have had a sympathetic jury - made up of 12 ordinary people, who must have included some familiar with TEH NAPSTERS - award her the minimum. But that's not what she did.
Her denials, her pretending it wasn't her, combined with a culture that does, actually, want artists to be rewarded for their work, even if the "Have the publishing industry collect royalties and pay advances" model is far from perfect, made it easy (and, in my view, completely 100% justifiable) to paint her as a freeloading jackass who's willing to waste everyone's time and money.
You won't see many of the lower awards being paid, largely because the people who'd pay them are more likely to have settled before the case even reaches court.
Me too. I'd like to do away with the laws I disagree with, while keeping the ones do I agree with. Yay libertarianism!
I can't speak for RAR, but really, honestly, GZIP doesn't do waveform analysis. It just looks for repeating strings. If you managed to zip up a WAV and it ended up about the same size as a FLAC, then you were either very luckly, or had a WAV that was dominated by, say, zeroes.
OK, I have two instances, each having two channels. Which of the following is a valid assumption?
- The audio is diamond quadraphonic (f/b/l/r)
- The audio is square qudraphonic (fl, fr, bl, br)
- The audio is stereo, with a rear speaker, and a center speaker (fl, fc, fr, b)
- Other
(And what about an SW?)
To support more than two channels, you need to do more than simply increase the number of audio streams. It's important to include the appropriate metadata, and that metadata should be associated with the audio itself.
I'd say Opus missing this is as big a mistake as it was for MPEG 1 Layer1/2/3 audio back in 1991 and it effectly rules out using Opus for at least one popular audio task, especially in an environment in which we're less than a decade from the most popular surround sound codec (AC-3) going into the public domain.
I believe you're confusing it with AC-3. AAC is not the same thing, is in many ways a would-be competitor, and originated in an attempt to create a new "clean" codec during the MPEG 2 standardization. The MPEG Audio Layer 1/2/3 thing resulted in some good ideas, but Layer 3 in particular isn't exactly how you'd put together an audio standard if you started from scratch.
Where do you get "1000mb/s" for "4G"? And you do realize the "4G LTE" moniker merely means "We're actually running LTE, not HSPA+, to provide our fourth generation network", right? It has nothing to do with different versions of LTE.
And yes, I'm aware there's some controversy on whether early versions of LTE count as "4G" (which is ridiculous, because 4G is not a synonym for IMT Advanced, and virtually everyone who pisses into that particular pool relies upon the assumption it is), but that's not what the "4G LTE" thing refers to.
Here's the deal: LTE is a high throughput mobile network standard that supplies all services over IP. It's certainly next generation. LTE-Advanced is a tweaked version of LTE (which includes a necessary increase in data rate) to conform to IMT Advanced, the requirement list the ITU put together to define their next generation of networks. LTE Advanced absolutely conforms to IMT Advanced.
Because early versions of LTE didn't quite reach IMT Advanced rates, an enhancement to UMTS, called HSPA+, was put forward as a legitimate alternative, as it reached similar data rates and it too could be run in an IP-only mode. That's what lead to the arguments, which lead Verizon and AT&T to start branding 4G and "4G LTE" as separate things.
But that's it. "4G LTE" is not "a version of LTE that's not 4G", it's a branding that includes LTE in its basic next generation form, and LTE-Advanced.
No, the editor's wrong. Here's why: the editor is knowingly and willingly putting false information in Wikipedia.
That's what this boils down to. In the morass of rules being quoted, interpreted, re-interpreted, noted, clarified, justified, defended, and other BS, what's forgotten here is the simple question of "Which fact is correct?" And saying "I am compelled to lie on Wikipedia - that is, to explicity state something is fact, in a context where I am trying to convince people of that fact, when I know it to be false, because "WP:RULECITED" applies, is not a defense.
At the very least, you remove the information you know to be factually incorrect. There is nothing about Wikipedia that suggests that if someone, somewhere, makes a statement, and somehow gets it published, that you absolutely must copy it verbertim to the Wiki. And basic professionalism and ethics says that you NEVER willingly mislead someone simply because you can get away with it.
The problem with Wikipedia is not merely that it has stupid rules: it's that people use those rules to justify intentionally bad behavior. Stop it.
They did? The first search result on the word "Santorum" is for the Wikipedia page on the Santorum neologism. The second, reasonably enough, is for the homophobic jackwagon himself. The third is the "Spreading santorum" blog.
After that you get links largely about the politician. The fact that the first link is still about the fluid, despite the fact Santorum spent most of the last year and a bit in an election campaign for president, suggests to me Google hasn't done anything. (Which is fine, I'm not criticising them, I just think they're not as hands on as you think.)
Kindle Touch is an entirely different OS, it's not Android based like the Fire range.
My comments, marginally related to yours:
One thing I really like about the Kindle Fires is that Amazon actually has something that Apple and Google do not: a vision for how their devices will be used. Apple and Google are trying to create a "useful touch-based computing device", while Amazon have already said "OK, it's a device for playing games, watching movies, and listening to music, etc." and are working on creating something they consider optimal for that.
While, personally, I suspect if I got a KF HD I'd do the same thing as I did with my existing KF (install Jellybean on it and use it as a normal tablet), it's at least interesting to see what Amazon are trying to do with their stuff.
Well, yeah, it does video, but then while USB doesn't do that, the microUSB port does.
In all seriousness, there's virtually NOTHING that the Apple dock connector provides that cannot be implemented on a micro-USB connector using publically available, widely implemented, standards.
Audio control? That's HID - you know, keyboards, multimedia keys have been standard for how many years now? Got to be more than a decade.
Audio in and out? That's also covered by HID. And audio out can also be implemented using MHD.
Video out? That's where MHD comes in.
USB and power? It's already USB!
In general, the usual response when I mention this is for someone to go "Ah, but I want analog video out!" or something similar. To which the obvious response is: why? You're not really going to want to connect it to a 1980s CRT TV using an RCA connector; and just about all the devices I can think of where you'd want something plugged into the USB port rather than the headphones port involve a USB controller in there somewhere anyway. Alarm clock radio with dock? How are you going to have the dock hit "play" on your device at the right time if it doesn't already have the USB circuitry to implement the HID protocol?
For that genuinely rare occasion where you'd need analog out, is a $5 adapter really going to be a hardship that isn't paid for in droves by the completely 100% standard, low profile, easily licensed, port in your phone?
There is absolutely no reason for any manufacturer to be offering anything other than microUSB (with a separate 3.5mm headset port, simply because that's so common right now) at the moment. No manufacturer should be implementing anything using proprietary connectors. Period.
OK, let's go through the options:
1. Email. You receive email. You click on data: link. Where does phishing form send your crap to?
2. Forum. You see a message on a forum requesting you log in to Amazon and re-enter your credit card. Wait. What? Anyway, this then takes advantage of the fact it's on a forum, a forum that doesn't have any CAPTCHA type stuff to prevent posting a new message, and nobody notices (a) the original post and (b) the information being posted back to the forum.
3. One of the other sites on the Int...
Look, either way, it's sending data that can be blocked. There's little or no difference between this and just getting a throwaway domain and sending people to that.
I'm trying desperately to find an advantage. One where someone can use this to circumvent the need to have a server that can be shut down. All the ways in which data is passed back require a server that can be shut down. It might not belong to the phisher (but they're already running botnets and stuff, right?) but it needs to exist.
How do you access the remailer from a webpage? At best you'd be able to insert a "mailto:" link and have the user manually approve the email to send!
OK, talk me through this. I want to steal a credit card number, Amazon login, or person's favorite color, using this technique. To prevent myself from being shut down before I can harvest the information, I encode the entire form, designed to look like my bank's home page/Amazon.com's login page/MyFavoriteColor.com, as a data: URI. The user enters the information into the dubious form and clicks "Submit".
That does surprise me. Thanks! That's an interesting link.
If you're EA, or some other major developer with huge amounts of money, power, and influence (but I repeat myself), which would you prefer? A platform that has high barriers to developer entry, or one with low barriers?
The fact Samsung asked for 2.5% in royalties for its 3G patents is a matter of public record, as it came out during Apple vs Samsung.