SCHecklerX wrote: [Mozilla has]
Cookie management on a per-site basis
My whole deal with Mozilla's cookie management is that it's EXTREMELY incomplete (as far as information given to the user) in comparison to IE -- in Mozilla, you get a "yes" a "no" an "always" or a "never" -- but you don't know what the cookie IS or what it CONTAINS. This is compounded by the fact that the program I use to manage my cookies, Cookie Crusher, will not work with Mozilla because it can't get the information.
With Cookie Crusher, whenever there's a cookie, you get the following information and selection choices:
domain/subdomain the cookie is from
the cookie's name
the cookie's content
the cookie's expiry date
an option to always/never accept JUST that cookie, or JUST that domain/subdomain, or ALL subdomains and the domain
Just to give a more complete explanation, here's what its documentation writes (long, written in layman's, but probably invaluable to anyone that thinks this is a GOOD IDEA and wants to have complete documentation on exactly how it works):
This page displays two lists of web sites (or servers) from which cookies will be automatically accepted or rejected. In addition, you can specify how cookies not on these lists should be handled.
The lists contain servers (or web site names) in the form of their domain names or IP addresses. For example, you could add "www.thelimitsoft.com" to the reject list to always reject any cookies you receive from The Limit Software's web site, or you could add 209.68.15.185 to the accept list to always accept cookies from the web server at address 209.68.15.185.
For more stringent control over cookies originating from any web site (or server), you can add the server name, followed by a semi-colon, and finally the cookie name. For example, if "www.thelimitsoft.com;SAFE_COOKIE" was listed in the "Reject from" list, only SAFE_COOKIE would be rejected from the domain www.thelimitsoft.com. All other cookies from that domain would be handled in accordance with the "Unknown Cookie Option" selection (see below).
Accept cookies from
This list displays the servers that you will always accept cookies from. You can click on the "Add" button below this list to add a new server to the list, or you can select a server from the list and click on the "Delete" button below the list to delete a server from the list. To modify an item currently in the list, click on the item and then click on the "Edit" button below the list.
Reject cookies from
This list displays the servers that you will always reject cookies from. You can click on the "Add" button below this list to add a new server to the list, or you can select a server from the list and click on the "Delete" button below the list to delete a server from the list. To modify an item currently in the list, click on the item and then click on the "Edit" button below the list.
Cookie Crusher stores the site filtering files in "FILTER.DAT" and "FILTER2.DAT." The former handles the accept list, while the latter handles the reject list. Both files can be manually edited with a text editor, since they are stored as plain ASCII text files. This makes it easy to accept or reject items by pasting them from your bookmark or favorites list.
Using wildcards in filters
You can use the wildcard character (*) in filters to accept or reject cookies from all web sites on a given domain. The asterisk can be used at the start of a domain name or at the end of a numeric domain address.
For example, specifying "*thelimitsoft.com" as a filter will match www1.thelimitsoft.com, www2.thelimitsoft, and xyz.thelimitsoft.com.
Cookies from unknown servers
The options in this group allow you to specify what should be done when a cookie is received from a server not in either of the two lists above. You can choose from the following three options:
Reject all - Set this option to automatically reject any cookies received which are not in the "accept from" cookies list. Accept all - Set this option to automatically accept any cookies received which are not in the "reject" cookies list. Ask for confirmation - Set this option to bring up a dialog box whenever a cookie is received from a site that is not in the above lists. The dialog will display information about the cookie and then will ask whether or not you want to accept the cookie. You can answer using one of the following buttons in this dialog box:
Reject only those that expire - If this option is selected, Cookie Crusher will reject unknown cookies that expire. In other words, any cookie that would be stored on your system and listed under the Cookies tab would be rejected. Temporary cookies that are not stored on the system would be accepted.
The Cookie Alert Window Accept - Selecting "Accept" will accept the cookie just this one time. If the cookie is received again in the future, you will be notified again. Reject - Selecting "Reject" will reject the cookie just this one time. If the cookie is received again in the future, you will be notified again. Always - Selecting "Always" will accept the cookie and then add the name of the server from which the cookie was received to the "accept from" list. Whenever any cookies are received from this server in the future, they will automatically be accepted. Never - Selecting "Never" will reject the cookie and then add the name of the server from which the cookie was received to the "reject from" list. Whenever any cookies are received from this server in the future, they will automatically be rejected.
Cookie Classification
The cookie classification option gives you Cookie Crusher's best estimated opinion on what the cookie's function is. The degree of certainty would be indicated as checkmarks next to the button with this classification.
4 Checkmarks - Extremely certain of the cookie's function 3 Checkmarks - Very certain of the cookie's function 2 Checkmarks - Somewhat certain of the cookie's function 1 Checkmark - Educated guess
If you click on the button with the classification's name as the title, you can receive more information on what the cookie does.
Wildcard Domain Checkbox
When the confirmation window pops up, a checkbox will appear in the lower left hand corner of the window. The checkbox allows you to use a wildcard server name, such as "*thelimitsoft.com," instead of the server name that sent you the cookie. This feature is useful when you click the always or never buttons because it stores the wildcard server name into the appropriate site filter listbox. This way you will accept or reject cookies from the entire domain, instead of just an individual server.
Cookie Name Checkbox
When the confirmation window pops up, a checkbox will appear in the lower right hand corner of the window. The checkbox allows you to use the cookie name with the server name. This feature is useful when you click on the always or never buttons, and want to restrict the program to automatically handling a particular cookie from the server. This option can be used in conjunction with the Wildcard Domain Checkbox (see above).
I warned you it was long. If you're still here, then you probably like how Cookie Crusher works -- go tell the Mozilla team and mod this up! Oh, and apologies if your browser doesn't like some of the quotation marks/apostrophes above -- the help file "helpfully" had angled quotes.
No, they just target them at the 25% stupidest, most gullible and easily-amused individuals. I say, just give them a link to The Center for the Easily Amused and leave it at that.
Remember that story a few years back about how someone breeched security at Microsoft (wow, how'd THAT happen?) and gained access to their systems? Remember how they said that none of their Windows code was compromised?
Something small but nice...maybe something artificial right near the equator in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. A place where geeks roam and there is no censoring of anything. Fiberoptic high-speed internet straight from everyone's house to the internet (server not included). No, even better, from everyone's house to a gigantic island-wide LAN! Of course, you'd get your choice of satellite or digital cable, and your operating system would only be limited to *nix, BSD, Lindows, OS/2, and pre-WindowsXP! Rather than partake in wars, we'd just have Q3A tournaments online. No taxes. Time-shared fabrication facilities and class-100 cleanrooms for citizens. Of course, everyone would have to pass a standard entry test or be exported. Immigrants? No problem! We'll just invent a REAL firewall and put it around the island! Y'know, like the Ring of Fire! Of course, you'd be allowed to bring non-technophile family members -- but only immediate family! Cloning would be legal -- we'd make a mint cloning and exporting body parts!
Then, of course, there are lots of institutions that would want to be established there...especially some really good Chinese delivery places.
Yep, sounds like the perfect place for me. Now all that needs to be figured is out how we're gonna get any women.
Funny, I could've sworn that FTPs were resumable, and that sFTP could be used to secure FTP channels. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe these guys are just full of shit. Hmm...
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the fact remains that this worm DID carry a payload which was totally unnecessary. If they wanted to play with code and see how propagated they could get something, or whatever the hell they were thinking, they shouldn't have put anything malicious in there. But they did. As far as the analogous rantings of slackergod goes, the email included with the attachment (yeah, that's backasswards, but don't blame me) didn't say "DON'T OPEN THIS, IT'S A VIRUS!" It's more analogous to, for example, your mother telling you to not jump in puddles, but the puddle is right THERE.
I listened to my mom like a good kid. Besides, puddles make you wet, and I don't like being wet.
VHS has several quality modes. VHS in its purest form is mono-EP. Low sound quality, low video quality, lots of stuff fit on a tape. Now there's Hi-Fi VHS, stereo-SP. High(ish) sound quality, high(again,ish) video quality, not so much fits on a tape. So which is VP3? Probably the former.
I submitted a story I felt was quite significant about VISA using a GPS-ish tracking system that found WHERE purchases were made --both TO and FROM-- and decided what you could and couldn't buy based on what they determined was legal in your area. But nooo, that was never added to slashdot. Oh, well. Can't beat the system...yet...
However, most relegions rely on ignorance anyway so I doubt that this development will affect them in anyway.
Well, really, religion relies on both ignorance AND stupidity to control people. (What did you think it was for, keeping the peace? Yeah, "thou shalt not kill" -- unless, of course, it's in the name of God. Duh. I mean, God can't kill people himself, nope, he didn't create the Universe... --hello, wake the FSCK UP!)</end religious commentary> =)
Everyday lots of people die because there are no donor organs available.
I think the number is around 8,000-per-day. I mean, think of how many people could be SAVED.
And even if there is a donor organ it is uncertain whether the transplantation will succeed.
Not to mention transplantees have to spend the rest of their life taking tons of drugs to inhibit rejection and having constant check-ups to make sure the organ isn't being rejected. If it's the same organ, only cloned, the body thinks it's the original organ and is nice and happy with it. Imagine, no more people needing to rely on the misfortune of others in order to save their lives. It can't be very nice wishing someone you don't know dies so you can live..
Anyway, that's all I'm gonna say. I could go on and on forever on how stupid it is to not want this research to occur, including pointing out the hypocrasy of Dubya and the sorry state the United States' scientific institutions are in. We don't do this, some other, smarter, less IGNORANT country will.
What's this $10 saving off of? The Home Edition price? The Professional Edition price? One multi-user license? Two? Ten? I mean, you can say "we're saving you $10" but it's all relative. If someone can buy the Home Edition for $199 or the Family Edition for $289, which do you think they're going to get? I've met very few people that put respecting Microsoft's anti-piracy laws over their wallet.
Sure, this may SOUND good, but if you've ever seen a show that had a military airplane or tank simulator in it (or if you've been to one) you'd notice the lack of any kind of decent graphics. While this new simulator sounds incredible, I'm wondering just how much it's lacking in that concern. I mean, they shell out billions of dollars on these things and they can't even install a copy of *shudder* Microsoft Flight Simulator (or some reasonably modified facimile)?
Hmm..okay, yes, there are terrorists in Somalia. There are terrorists everywhere. If that's the only ISP they have, then gee, wonder how there could be terrorist links to it...
One, the Arab oil countries will start supporting the Taliban if people start using alternate energy (I'm talking a widespread usage, not 3% of the populous) -- nearly all the money they get is from oil.
Two, in a word, "boom". Unless they've made some really good advancement in the containment of the fusion reactions, I don't want one of those puppies within 10 miles of my house.
Nearly as much? HBO and Showtime don't have ANY advertising. They promote their shows between the end of a movie and the beginning of the next (or show, or whatever).
This Useless Post Brought To You By Home Box Office.
Give me the ability to carry all the music I've bought over the last 15 years in my pocket, and the ability to navigate easily among all the songs, and I'll be all over it.
The solution is (almost) already here: DVD-R. Sure, it's still a bit flakey and the media is expensive, but in time I know the prices will come down, and I think that DVD audio will become another de facto standard. Just think about it: A double-sided dual-layer DVD-R can hold, what, about 20GB of music? Compress that to MP3 or OGG, and have an onboard logic to decode the stream, and you can store the last ten years of music on one disc.
At least AOL doesn't pop-up and pop-under new windows at every given opportunity, including when you close the current browser window (man, I hate that).
They don't? Huh, funny, last time I checked (albeit it was over 5 years ago) AOL popped up about 20 advertisements when you FINALLY managed to log on. When you were done sifting through them you got logged off for being "inactive".
Wouldn't it be great if, instead of just posting files to simply encode these formats from WAVE files, they offered something more useful, like encoding these formats from MP3 format? I'd really like to see an MP3 OGG VQF MP3 converter.
And for those that will debate that there is an Ogg Vorbis encoder plug-in for Winamp, I'm not talking real-time conversion, I'm talking FAST conversion. Maybe add a normalizer since people don't seem to know how (or why) the hell to normalize anything. Ever. At all. Period. Yep, that would DEFINITELY be nice.
Oh, as a side-note to all you repeat visitors, ICQ UIN 1305571 would like to be trolled since he thinks that all/.ers are, and I quote, "communist anti-american fucks." Just don't tell him I sent you or he'll drive over to my house and shoot me, because "back in the day we used to shoot these people." And no, I'm not kidding.
Now I don't mean to get off on a rant, but... Someone remind me how the RIAA can charge $15 per CD, get $14 of that, and say that they aren't getting enough money? What about the artists, man?! I'd hope that they deserve something. I mean, god forbid that the RIAA would ever have to lose any of their precious, precious money. What are they even managing to spend it on that they need it so badly? That'd be an interesting story: Where The Money Goes: A VH1 Exclusive Look At The Lives Of Record Company Executives.
The most pathetic thing is they don't realize that by trying to squeeze every last dime out of the market they're pissing more and more people off and, in effect, endorsing the P2P transferring. While I think the RIAA should crash'n'burn, at the same time, some things I agree with them on. Downloading entire albums should not happen (support artists!), but unfortunately human instincts are to Cheat, to Lie, and to Steal (and the artists don't get much, anyway). I mean, can anyone honestly say that they haven't ever been tempted to cheat on a test, or that they haven't ever lied to get out of something, or ever wanted to steal something so they wouldn't have to pay outrageous prices (see: Adobe, heh). No, I didn't think so.
I seem to have gotten a bit off track. I think that someone (or some people) should start a new music union. Fuck if I know how it'd manage to grow, but I think that if there was something like that that would give more money to the artists, charge less for CDs, and, most importantly, not combat P2P sharing but support it, the world would be a better place.
"Don't you hate pants? I hope he tells us to burn our pants."
Okay, here's how everythings fits into place.
GIF: Static size based on dimensions, lossless, animated, raster
PNG: Dynamic size based on image complexity, lossless, raster
JPEG: Dynamic size based on image loss ("compression"), lossy, raster
FLASH: Dynamic size based on content, lossless, animated, vector
So, this said, GIF files suck most of the time (unless someone decides that they don't want the flash plugin, which is insanely stupid, but hey, it's not my computer). PNG files are good for simple images--interfaces, etcetera. JPEG files are good for complex images. FLASH files are good for low-bandwidth animation.
Finally, does anyone else notice how JPEG files are always darker than the original?
What happens if "explorer" crashes? God knows that it happens at least once-per-day to every Windows user. Would that be an unacceptable threshold? Would explorer be put on the banned driver list (putting aside the fact that it isn't a driver, heh)
This is why everyone should NORMALIZE THEIR MP3s. It's a rediculously simple thing to do. 90% is what I use on everything I record.
Honestly, you audiophiles are a bit too religious about sound quality. I mean, I can hear a fly buzzing 10 feet away, I can hear the ring of a television, but I can't for the life of me hear the difference between a 160Kbps MP3 and a 320Kbps MP3. And I'm not using little tinny POS speakers, either. I shelled out nearly $500 for my sound system (Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater 5.1), and a SoundBlaster Live! Platinum sound card. So don't tell me that I'm just using inferior equipment. I also spent a wad on a set of professional-quality headphones.
Now I'm not here to start a flame war. I'm just here to point out that some people take these things a little too far.
Slashdot Mirror
With Cookie Crusher, whenever there's a cookie, you get the following information and selection choices:
- domain/subdomain the cookie is from
- the cookie's name
- the cookie's content
- the cookie's expiry date
- an option to always/never accept JUST that cookie, or JUST that domain/subdomain, or ALL subdomains and the domain
Just to give a more complete explanation, here's what its documentation writes (long, written in layman's, but probably invaluable to anyone that thinks this is a GOOD IDEA and wants to have complete documentation on exactly how it works):I warned you it was long. If you're still here, then you probably like how Cookie Crusher works -- go tell the Mozilla team and mod this up! Oh, and apologies if your browser doesn't like some of the quotation marks/apostrophes above -- the help file "helpfully" had angled quotes.
No, they just target them at the 25% stupidest, most gullible and easily-amused individuals. I say, just give them a link to The Center for the Easily Amused and leave it at that.
*grumble* Stupid movie studios...
Remember that story a few years back about how someone breeched security at Microsoft (wow, how'd THAT happen?) and gained access to their systems? Remember how they said that none of their Windows code was compromised?
...yep, that's right. They lied again.
Something small but nice...maybe something artificial right near the equator in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. A place where geeks roam and there is no censoring of anything. Fiberoptic high-speed internet straight from everyone's house to the internet (server not included). No, even better, from everyone's house to a gigantic island-wide LAN! Of course, you'd get your choice of satellite or digital cable, and your operating system would only be limited to *nix, BSD, Lindows, OS/2, and pre-WindowsXP! Rather than partake in wars, we'd just have Q3A tournaments online. No taxes. Time-shared fabrication facilities and class-100 cleanrooms for citizens. Of course, everyone would have to pass a standard entry test or be exported. Immigrants? No problem! We'll just invent a REAL firewall and put it around the island! Y'know, like the Ring of Fire! Of course, you'd be allowed to bring non-technophile family members -- but only immediate family! Cloning would be legal -- we'd make a mint cloning and exporting body parts!
Then, of course, there are lots of institutions that would want to be established there...especially some really good Chinese delivery places.
Yep, sounds like the perfect place for me. Now all that needs to be figured is out how we're gonna get any women.
Funny, I could've sworn that FTPs were resumable, and that sFTP could be used to secure FTP channels. Guess I was wrong. Or maybe these guys are just full of shit. Hmm...
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the fact remains that this worm DID carry a payload which was totally unnecessary. If they wanted to play with code and see how propagated they could get something, or whatever the hell they were thinking, they shouldn't have put anything malicious in there. But they did. As far as the analogous rantings of slackergod goes, the email included with the attachment (yeah, that's backasswards, but don't blame me) didn't say "DON'T OPEN THIS, IT'S A VIRUS!" It's more analogous to, for example, your mother telling you to not jump in puddles, but the puddle is right THERE.
I listened to my mom like a good kid. Besides, puddles make you wet, and I don't like being wet.
VHS has several quality modes. VHS in its purest form is mono-EP. Low sound quality, low video quality, lots of stuff fit on a tape. Now there's Hi-Fi VHS, stereo-SP. High(ish) sound quality, high(again,ish) video quality, not so much fits on a tape. So which is VP3? Probably the former.
I submitted a story I felt was quite significant about VISA using a GPS-ish tracking system that found WHERE purchases were made --both TO and FROM-- and decided what you could and couldn't buy based on what they determined was legal in your area. But nooo, that was never added to slashdot. Oh, well. Can't beat the system...yet...
However, most relegions rely on ignorance anyway so I doubt that this development will affect them in anyway.
Well, really, religion relies on both ignorance AND stupidity to control people. (What did you think it was for, keeping the peace? Yeah, "thou shalt not kill" -- unless, of course, it's in the name of God. Duh. I mean, God can't kill people himself, nope, he didn't create the Universe... --hello, wake the FSCK UP!)</end religious commentary> =)
Everyday lots of people die because there are no donor organs available.
I think the number is around 8,000-per-day. I mean, think of how many people could be SAVED.
And even if there is a donor organ it is uncertain whether the transplantation will succeed.
Not to mention transplantees have to spend the rest of their life taking tons of drugs to inhibit rejection and having constant check-ups to make sure the organ isn't being rejected. If it's the same organ, only cloned, the body thinks it's the original organ and is nice and happy with it. Imagine, no more people needing to rely on the misfortune of others in order to save their lives. It can't be very nice wishing someone you don't know dies so you can live..
Anyway, that's all I'm gonna say. I could go on and on forever on how stupid it is to not want this research to occur, including pointing out the hypocrasy of Dubya and the sorry state the United States' scientific institutions are in. We don't do this, some other, smarter, less IGNORANT country will.
What's this $10 saving off of? The Home Edition price? The Professional Edition price? One multi-user license? Two? Ten? I mean, you can say "we're saving you $10" but it's all relative. If someone can buy the Home Edition for $199 or the Family Edition for $289, which do you think they're going to get? I've met very few people that put respecting Microsoft's anti-piracy laws over their wallet.
Sure, this may SOUND good, but if you've ever seen a show that had a military airplane or tank simulator in it (or if you've been to one) you'd notice the lack of any kind of decent graphics. While this new simulator sounds incredible, I'm wondering just how much it's lacking in that concern. I mean, they shell out billions of dollars on these things and they can't even install a copy of *shudder* Microsoft Flight Simulator (or some reasonably modified facimile)?
Hmm..okay, yes, there are terrorists in Somalia. There are terrorists everywhere. If that's the only ISP they have, then gee, wonder how there could be terrorist links to it...
One, the Arab oil countries will start supporting the Taliban if people start using alternate energy (I'm talking a widespread usage, not 3% of the populous) -- nearly all the money they get is from oil.
Two, in a word, "boom". Unless they've made some really good advancement in the containment of the fusion reactions, I don't want one of those puppies within 10 miles of my house.
Well, if you don't like the UI Windows has, you can always use litestep. Unless you're afraid of doing something simple like that, too...
Nearly as much? HBO and Showtime don't have ANY advertising. They promote their shows between the end of a movie and the beginning of the next (or show, or whatever).
This Useless Post Brought To You By Home Box Office.
Give me the ability to carry all the music I've bought over the last 15 years in my pocket, and the ability to navigate easily among all the songs, and I'll be all over it. The solution is (almost) already here: DVD-R. Sure, it's still a bit flakey and the media is expensive, but in time I know the prices will come down, and I think that DVD audio will become another de facto standard. Just think about it: A double-sided dual-layer DVD-R can hold, what, about 20GB of music? Compress that to MP3 or OGG, and have an onboard logic to decode the stream, and you can store the last ten years of music on one disc.
There's already a stand-alone DivX ;-) codec. It comes with DivX ;-) 4.01 (possibly with 4.00, too). Fun, huh?
They don't? Huh, funny, last time I checked (albeit it was over 5 years ago) AOL popped up about 20 advertisements when you FINALLY managed to log on. When you were done sifting through them you got logged off for being "inactive".
Nope, no pop-ups there.
Wouldn't it be great if, instead of just posting files to simply encode these formats from WAVE files, they offered something more useful, like encoding these formats from MP3 format? I'd really like to see an MP3 OGG VQF MP3 converter.
/.ers are, and I quote, "communist anti-american fucks." Just don't tell him I sent you or he'll drive over to my house and shoot me, because "back in the day we used to shoot these people." And no, I'm not kidding.
And for those that will debate that there is an Ogg Vorbis encoder plug-in for Winamp, I'm not talking real-time conversion, I'm talking FAST conversion. Maybe add a normalizer since people don't seem to know how (or why) the hell to normalize anything. Ever. At all. Period. Yep, that would DEFINITELY be nice.
Oh, as a side-note to all you repeat visitors, ICQ UIN 1305571 would like to be trolled since he thinks that all
Now I don't mean to get off on a rant, but...
Someone remind me how the RIAA can charge $15 per CD, get $14 of that, and say that they aren't getting enough money? What about the artists, man?! I'd hope that they deserve something. I mean, god forbid that the RIAA would ever have to lose any of their precious, precious money. What are they even managing to spend it on that they need it so badly? That'd be an interesting story: Where The Money Goes: A VH1 Exclusive Look At The Lives Of Record Company Executives.
The most pathetic thing is they don't realize that by trying to squeeze every last dime out of the market they're pissing more and more people off and, in effect, endorsing the P2P transferring.
While I think the RIAA should crash'n'burn, at the same time, some things I agree with them on. Downloading entire albums should not happen (support artists!), but unfortunately human instincts are to Cheat, to Lie, and to Steal (and the artists don't get much, anyway). I mean, can anyone honestly say that they haven't ever been tempted to cheat on a test, or that they haven't ever lied to get out of something, or ever wanted to steal something so they wouldn't have to pay outrageous prices (see: Adobe, heh). No, I didn't think so.
I seem to have gotten a bit off track. I think that someone (or some people) should start a new music union. Fuck if I know how it'd manage to grow, but I think that if there was something like that that would give more money to the artists, charge less for CDs, and, most importantly, not combat P2P sharing but support it, the world would be a better place.
"Don't you hate pants?
I hope he tells us to burn our pants."
Okay, here's how everythings fits into place. GIF: Static size based on dimensions, lossless, animated, raster PNG: Dynamic size based on image complexity, lossless, raster JPEG: Dynamic size based on image loss ("compression"), lossy, raster FLASH: Dynamic size based on content, lossless, animated, vector So, this said, GIF files suck most of the time (unless someone decides that they don't want the flash plugin, which is insanely stupid, but hey, it's not my computer). PNG files are good for simple images--interfaces, etcetera. JPEG files are good for complex images. FLASH files are good for low-bandwidth animation. Finally, does anyone else notice how JPEG files are always darker than the original?
What happens if "explorer" crashes? God knows that it happens at least once-per-day to every Windows user. Would that be an unacceptable threshold? Would explorer be put on the banned driver list (putting aside the fact that it isn't a driver, heh)
This is why everyone should NORMALIZE THEIR MP3s. It's a rediculously simple thing to do. 90% is what I use on everything I record.
Honestly, you audiophiles are a bit too religious about sound quality. I mean, I can hear a fly buzzing 10 feet away, I can hear the ring of a television, but I can't for the life of me hear the difference between a 160Kbps MP3 and a 320Kbps MP3. And I'm not using little tinny POS speakers, either. I shelled out nearly $500 for my sound system (Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Theater 5.1), and a SoundBlaster Live! Platinum sound card. So don't tell me that I'm just using inferior equipment. I also spent a wad on a set of professional-quality headphones.
Now I'm not here to start a flame war. I'm just here to point out that some people take these things a little too far.