Like it or hate it, win8 is what we are going to use in the future
I don't think that's true, at all. There were a ton of people who never touched Vista, whatsoever. They had XP and then they had Windows 7. These are likely many of the same users who will stick with Windows 7 until Windows 9. Unless we're at the end of meaningful desktop interfaces (which sometimes seems the case -- across all three primary platforms), in which case we'll all eventually be forced by obsolescence into whatever "the new thing" is and all start using a single window/app at a time on our 30" touch-screens two feet in front of our faces, with apps we've purchased through a built-in store on our designed platform.
Or we'll all just shrug off technology entirely and go live as hermits in the mountains. That's my plan.
Why are there scroll bars on a touch device if they're not meant to be used as part of the navigation method? One thing I've noticed on the iPad is that there typically aren't scroll bars (or, at least, buttons) -- leading the user to intuitively use dragging/flicking.
I don't see how the store is relevant, though. VLC is free and Windows 8 is not a walled-garden, so there is absolutely no need for it to be on the "Microsoft Store". The iOS is different, in that the only way to install something (short of rooting your device) is via the store.
Let's remember that they're asking us for donations to help develop a Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 version of VLC. You need a convincing reason to get my money and "Windows 8!" isn't compelling enough for me or a number of other people.
I wasn't always opposed to Windows 8 and I generally look forward to new operating systems of all flavors with excitement. The same way I look toward new game consoles and new video cards. It wasn't until I was able to try it for myself that I soured on it. True, you can (more or less) have a (primarily) Windows 7 experience. However, it's still too Frankenstein-ish. I don't like the bland look, the focus on single-application interfaces, the Live-tie-in, and the touch-focus.
That said, even if they refused to change most of these things in Windows 9, simply getting rid of the stitched-together stuff would be an improvement so it was all one thing or all another and even with a touch-focus, it would ideally more properly wrap the new style around more traditional input methods for people not looking to have an iPad "one thing at a time" experience.
I don't expect Windows 9 to take an entirely new direction and shrug off all these changes that they seem to be pivoting the entire company around, but I believe it will be more refined, more targeted, and less schizophrenic. I want to see a change to that as quickly as possible and I think that a lack of community and developer support of Windows 7 would only drive the urgency of that focus and production to Microsoft.
There are a lot of things VLC could work on that I'd chip in $10 or $20 for, but Windows 8 isn't one of them (even though I'm sure they would justify it as a necessary thing, to maintain the continued relevance of VLC through Windows 8 and into the next iteration of the OS beyond it).
My thought, exactly. I saw it almost immediately after it went life. I've backed more than 400 crowd-funded projects. I dig VLC. I use VLC all the time. I understand the desire to spread VLC to everyone, everywhere. However, I can't bring myself to chip in even a few bucks to a project that just encourages Windows 8 and the Windows 8-style environment and presentation, which I'd like to see die as soon as possible, so they'll have more reason to get their sanity back for Windows 9, sooner.
Maybe I'm being petulant, but at least I'm not contributing to Windows 8.
While interesting to play with and look at for two minutes on a shelve in a novelty store, none of these things sound like something I'd feel comfortable giving as a gift to anyone. I'd assume they'd react to it the same way I would if I received it. That is, that they're neat, but now I have some useless novelty thing taking up desk, shelf, or other space that is already a precious commodity.
As for receiving . . . Well, I discourage getting me gifts, because I'm an adult male.
The only thing that terrifies me more than getting something like Alzheimer's and being robbed of my memories and experiences and personality is the idea of having any form of brain surgery. Thinking about this story is the kind of shit that keeps me up at night.:)
So yeah they'll probably have developers targeting a console which is what developers already do, but those games should run on PC too since it'll be the same thing.
It's not a point of the games running on PCs or not. The point is what they will be aiming their development for. If everyone has weak console-grade systems (Steam or otherwise), then there is no reason for them to develop games that make the most of additional power. We already have plenty of games developed for the console today that "run on PC too", but when you play on PC and make the investment into PC hardware, you're not looking to "be able to play it". You're looking for a better experience. A lot of today's games which are targeted for consoles and "run on PC too" run poorly on the PC and don't make the most of the power they have. You end up with ports that don't look much better on a $1,000 GPU than they do on a $300 eight year old console. Not because of any limitation of the PC, but because they simply didn't have any compelling reason to do anything extra for it. (Though, occasionally, you'll see them make a half-attempt at appeasing PC users by putting out an additional downloadable "HD textures pack" to install).
When we've moved a lot more people to Steam Boxes that compete with existing consoles, we're not looking at rising water lifting all boats. There will be less reason to develop anything that exploits additional processing power and the lack of that software will, in turn, mean there's no reason to build a nice rig for yourself (gaming-wise, at least). I mean, if a $300 console is all software is made to take advantage of (again, look at a lot of the ports from consoles today that look just about as bad on the highest end rigs as they do on eight year old consoles), then why bother spending a couple grand or more on something else?
And while that might seem fine, in a way, to some -- think about what games we have seen that demand more processing power and would have been difficult or impossible to pull off (to that degree, at least) in today's games. I don't think you'd have the equivalent of Civilization V, EVE-Online, Red Orchestra 2, or even BF3 (which is drastically different on current higher end hardware versus the console versions).
We're not just talking about "graphics". We're talking about things like multiplayer number caps of 24 on the console versus 64 on the PC. We're talking about complex systems in Civilization, Sim City, Shogun and other games which bog down CPUs processing each turn today --- and would be unbearable on a console.
I would love it to be a case of "both world's can co-exist", but I see it more as PC potentially laying down and giving up and being content with having whatever those console guy's are having -- because an expanding PC audience driven by things like more potential complexity, better graphics, more concurrent events occurring in games, more simultaneous players in a game and so on is the only thing that will keep developers interested in the platform.
(And for the record, I'm not a PC-only gamer - I own and enjoy all of the platforms).
Irrelevant. Slashdot and other outlets have been telling me that email and instant messaging are both dead and only twitter and facebook are used for communication anymore.
Exactly. It's taking the incentive away from playing on a beefy PC gaming rig to get access to PC games and transitioning those people into just more "console players", further dwindling the "PC gaming market", which in-turn diminishes the potential return for developers to target high end gaming systems (or, rather, anything other than console-quality hardware systems).
To be of any use, your high end gaming rig needs software developed for it that will take advantage of it. To compel developers to create demanding and impressive software and engines that need the power of a decent PC rig, there must be a large market. Putting out a Valve-Console improves the Steam market/audience at the cost of the more general "PC gaming" market.
And the circle is complete. Fewer people gaming on PC, fewer developers developing for it as a result, and fewer things for you to play, which means less reason for you to buy beefy hardware and so on and so on.
Performance is irrelevant, when the developers will have little incentive to create games targeted at anything but the lowest-common-denominator -- and with these commodity "steam box" things, you'll just be chewing into the PC market and transitioning them to "low-end-common-denominator console gaming" numbers.
So . . . you're suggesting that the console market (including Steam Box) will stick with their $60 or $70 (whatever it is next generation) titles and gamers with high end rigs will some how get games created just for our dwindling market and they'll be sold at a $100 premium or something? Because we're talking about full-fledged full-price games, in both cases, here, otherwise. Not $5 casual console games and $60 PC games...
How come, when we have one or two cold days, all the nutjobs come out and say "SEE, HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING WHEN IT WAS REALLY COLD THIS WEEKEND?!".
There are plenty of nutjobs on each side. It seems irrefutable that global warming exists. The only concern is what the cause is and whether it is just a natural part of the cycle that we aren't actually impacting. This is all compounded by the assholes turning the global-warming thing into a cottage industry with the whole "carbon credits" scam and other "green initiatives" that are less good-natured and more cynical and preying on people.
Either way, I don't really give a fuck. I'll be dead before any of it matters. As long as I'm not up to my neck in a melted iceberg in the next few decades, I'm fine.
It doesn't matter. The "cheap valve box" owners will quickly rise in numbers and the "real PC gamers" will be dwarfed by this. The incentive to develop games for anything beyond the four low-end-hardware-consoles (MS, Sony, Nintendo, Valve) that cost less (combined) than even half of the cost of your gaming PC will be gone. Why sink the expense in something that will grind high end rigs when you can just hit the same target you were hitting six or eight years ago?
Good intentions, I'm sure, but the outcome will be awful.
It's a terrible thing for gamers, because it reduces the target for PC development to that of shitty low-end aged hardware, just like the consoles run. Yes, we can still build and run our own rigs of any extreme, but there won't be nearly as many of us as there are console-owners and Valve-Box owners. So they'll port their shitty games to the shitty "PC Console" and that will be that. No sense developing expensive engines with insane textures and complexities when you can just port it to the $300 Valve Box and say "there, we've done our PC job".
The problem is that they will always have to work with a specific set of commodity hardware. You and I might spend $1,000 USD just on our video cards for our new rig, but most people don't want to spend even the $300 for a brand new gaming console, let alone anything more. So, that means Valve will be forced to (as they said, themselves) focus on one specific set of hardware that their turnkey "PC gaming rig" will come with.
For the rest of us, we can use their software and services to enjoy the same sort of experience, but with as much hardware power as we want to throw at it, by building our own systems.
Unfortunately, this is not going to be a BOON to PC gaming. It is going to be the DEATH OF PC GAMING.
As it is, developers primarily focus on consoles and then make shitty PC ports. With a Steam system on a specific set of commodity hardware, they'll now be developing for three sets of shitty, out-dated, cheap commodity hardware. There will be no incentive to make any software/games that will really bring your $3500 rig to its knees. In which case, you might as well just have an XBox or Playstation, in the first place.
When most people hit a pay wall, here is what we do: Copy title of article we wanted to read, past it into google, read what google gives us from another source that is offering it for free.
True. My comment was fairly simple, in that it ignored how it is stored on the server/system side, which is unfortunately out of your control (and if we're using that to say that a long password is weak, then it's fair to say EVERY password is weak, simply because there are sites out there that don't allow more than eight characters and don't even hash them). And when hashing, there is potential for collision, I suppose (I'm not a cryptographer, so I don't know where we stand on current algorithms, but I remember when at least a couple were always alleged to have been found to have significant flaws), as you mention.
At any rate, the point still stands that the assertion that this "super computer" can crack everything in a matter of seconds is kind of silly. It's entirely dependent upon the preparation of the person administrating the systems end and the effort of the user. Makes it sort of a puff "scare story".
That said, I'm also a big fan of two-factor authentication, which is becoming more common, and I thin the era of passwords is closer to an end than we think.
But my point still remains. So maybe the potential length for cracking said password length might include one or two fewer "trillion" centuries in it.:P
It doesn't matter if it is random or not, as long as it isn't a single dictionary word or something guessable. A program trying to brute-force a password has no idea what is in a password string or the depth of the character set. It still has to deal with the same search space and try every possible permutation of characters and lengths, until it happens upon the right one.
True, GOG doesn't force it on you, but the others do. And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list. They are the least annoying of every one, though.
The comparison to music is fair enough, I suppose. Except that almost ten years into mainstream digital distribution, we are way on the other stream of where we were ten years into digital music distribution. And I don't like the solution you pose as the ultimate evolution of it, either. I prefer Steam and GOG (even though I don't care for Steam-ish DRM), but I don't want everything else to fail and for there to "be only one". I want them to act like a laundry soap manufacturer would. To make games and sell those games at every possible point of distribution possible. I don't want one single digital store selling every possible game. I want *every* online digital game store selling *every* possible game. Just like almost every grocery store sells the same products.
They shouldn't be competing on "Ooh, only Origin has Dragon Age and Sim City!" or "only Beamdog has the Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition!". They should be competing on interface, speed, customer service, price, and community.
It doesn't devour "strong" passwords in seconds. It devours weak passwords, in seconds. A fourteen character password is, by definition, pretty weak.
For comparison, the password to an account I use fairly often is 128 characters. At 348-billion password attempts per second, it would practically take eternity. Even if it made attempts 40 times faster (one hundred billion times per second), it would take (according to SGC's haystacks calculator) "76.10 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion centuries".
I might use a fourteen character password on a trivial site that I don't care about, but probably not even then.
No we won't. I pay $8 a month for unlimited viewing of a ridiculous amount of content. If they could add even more (and recent) content to that, it'd be worth a lot more. I currently pay $13/mo for most of my entertainment ($8 for Netflix and $5 for MOG, where I get my unlimited music). Netflix is a steal at $8. It'd be a deal at $16. It'd be fair (but starting to push it) at $24/mo.
Slashdot Mirror
Like it or hate it, win8 is what we are going to use in the future
I don't think that's true, at all. There were a ton of people who never touched Vista, whatsoever. They had XP and then they had Windows 7. These are likely many of the same users who will stick with Windows 7 until Windows 9. Unless we're at the end of meaningful desktop interfaces (which sometimes seems the case -- across all three primary platforms), in which case we'll all eventually be forced by obsolescence into whatever "the new thing" is and all start using a single window/app at a time on our 30" touch-screens two feet in front of our faces, with apps we've purchased through a built-in store on our designed platform.
Or we'll all just shrug off technology entirely and go live as hermits in the mountains. That's my plan.
Why are there scroll bars on a touch device if they're not meant to be used as part of the navigation method? One thing I've noticed on the iPad is that there typically aren't scroll bars (or, at least, buttons) -- leading the user to intuitively use dragging/flicking.
I don't see how the store is relevant, though. VLC is free and Windows 8 is not a walled-garden, so there is absolutely no need for it to be on the "Microsoft Store". The iOS is different, in that the only way to install something (short of rooting your device) is via the store.
Let's remember that they're asking us for donations to help develop a Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 version of VLC. You need a convincing reason to get my money and "Windows 8!" isn't compelling enough for me or a number of other people.
I wasn't always opposed to Windows 8 and I generally look forward to new operating systems of all flavors with excitement. The same way I look toward new game consoles and new video cards. It wasn't until I was able to try it for myself that I soured on it. True, you can (more or less) have a (primarily) Windows 7 experience. However, it's still too Frankenstein-ish. I don't like the bland look, the focus on single-application interfaces, the Live-tie-in, and the touch-focus.
That said, even if they refused to change most of these things in Windows 9, simply getting rid of the stitched-together stuff would be an improvement so it was all one thing or all another and even with a touch-focus, it would ideally more properly wrap the new style around more traditional input methods for people not looking to have an iPad "one thing at a time" experience.
This is the image that popped into my head, when I tried Windows 8.
I don't expect Windows 9 to take an entirely new direction and shrug off all these changes that they seem to be pivoting the entire company around, but I believe it will be more refined, more targeted, and less schizophrenic. I want to see a change to that as quickly as possible and I think that a lack of community and developer support of Windows 7 would only drive the urgency of that focus and production to Microsoft.
There are a lot of things VLC could work on that I'd chip in $10 or $20 for, but Windows 8 isn't one of them (even though I'm sure they would justify it as a necessary thing, to maintain the continued relevance of VLC through Windows 8 and into the next iteration of the OS beyond it).
My thought, exactly. I saw it almost immediately after it went life. I've backed more than 400 crowd-funded projects. I dig VLC. I use VLC all the time. I understand the desire to spread VLC to everyone, everywhere. However, I can't bring myself to chip in even a few bucks to a project that just encourages Windows 8 and the Windows 8-style environment and presentation, which I'd like to see die as soon as possible, so they'll have more reason to get their sanity back for Windows 9, sooner.
Maybe I'm being petulant, but at least I'm not contributing to Windows 8.
While interesting to play with and look at for two minutes on a shelve in a novelty store, none of these things sound like something I'd feel comfortable giving as a gift to anyone. I'd assume they'd react to it the same way I would if I received it. That is, that they're neat, but now I have some useless novelty thing taking up desk, shelf, or other space that is already a precious commodity.
As for receiving . . . Well, I discourage getting me gifts, because I'm an adult male.
The only thing that terrifies me more than getting something like Alzheimer's and being robbed of my memories and experiences and personality is the idea of having any form of brain surgery. Thinking about this story is the kind of shit that keeps me up at night. :)
So yeah they'll probably have developers targeting a console which is what developers already do, but those games should run on PC too since it'll be the same thing.
It's not a point of the games running on PCs or not. The point is what they will be aiming their development for. If everyone has weak console-grade systems (Steam or otherwise), then there is no reason for them to develop games that make the most of additional power. We already have plenty of games developed for the console today that "run on PC too", but when you play on PC and make the investment into PC hardware, you're not looking to "be able to play it". You're looking for a better experience. A lot of today's games which are targeted for consoles and "run on PC too" run poorly on the PC and don't make the most of the power they have. You end up with ports that don't look much better on a $1,000 GPU than they do on a $300 eight year old console. Not because of any limitation of the PC, but because they simply didn't have any compelling reason to do anything extra for it. (Though, occasionally, you'll see them make a half-attempt at appeasing PC users by putting out an additional downloadable "HD textures pack" to install).
When we've moved a lot more people to Steam Boxes that compete with existing consoles, we're not looking at rising water lifting all boats. There will be less reason to develop anything that exploits additional processing power and the lack of that software will, in turn, mean there's no reason to build a nice rig for yourself (gaming-wise, at least). I mean, if a $300 console is all software is made to take advantage of (again, look at a lot of the ports from consoles today that look just about as bad on the highest end rigs as they do on eight year old consoles), then why bother spending a couple grand or more on something else?
And while that might seem fine, in a way, to some -- think about what games we have seen that demand more processing power and would have been difficult or impossible to pull off (to that degree, at least) in today's games. I don't think you'd have the equivalent of Civilization V, EVE-Online, Red Orchestra 2, or even BF3 (which is drastically different on current higher end hardware versus the console versions).
We're not just talking about "graphics". We're talking about things like multiplayer number caps of 24 on the console versus 64 on the PC. We're talking about complex systems in Civilization, Sim City, Shogun and other games which bog down CPUs processing each turn today --- and would be unbearable on a console.
I would love it to be a case of "both world's can co-exist", but I see it more as PC potentially laying down and giving up and being content with having whatever those console guy's are having -- because an expanding PC audience driven by things like more potential complexity, better graphics, more concurrent events occurring in games, more simultaneous players in a game and so on is the only thing that will keep developers interested in the platform.
(And for the record, I'm not a PC-only gamer - I own and enjoy all of the platforms).
Irrelevant. Slashdot and other outlets have been telling me that email and instant messaging are both dead and only twitter and facebook are used for communication anymore.
Exactly. It's taking the incentive away from playing on a beefy PC gaming rig to get access to PC games and transitioning those people into just more "console players", further dwindling the "PC gaming market", which in-turn diminishes the potential return for developers to target high end gaming systems (or, rather, anything other than console-quality hardware systems).
To be of any use, your high end gaming rig needs software developed for it that will take advantage of it.
To compel developers to create demanding and impressive software and engines that need the power of a decent PC rig, there must be a large market.
Putting out a Valve-Console improves the Steam market/audience at the cost of the more general "PC gaming" market.
And the circle is complete. Fewer people gaming on PC, fewer developers developing for it as a result, and fewer things for you to play, which means less reason for you to buy beefy hardware and so on and so on.
Performance is irrelevant, when the developers will have little incentive to create games targeted at anything but the lowest-common-denominator -- and with these commodity "steam box" things, you'll just be chewing into the PC market and transitioning them to "low-end-common-denominator console gaming" numbers.
So . . . you're suggesting that the console market (including Steam Box) will stick with their $60 or $70 (whatever it is next generation) titles and gamers with high end rigs will some how get games created just for our dwindling market and they'll be sold at a $100 premium or something? Because we're talking about full-fledged full-price games, in both cases, here, otherwise. Not $5 casual console games and $60 PC games...
How come, when we have one or two cold days, all the nutjobs come out and say "SEE, HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING WHEN IT WAS REALLY COLD THIS WEEKEND?!".
There are plenty of nutjobs on each side. It seems irrefutable that global warming exists. The only concern is what the cause is and whether it is just a natural part of the cycle that we aren't actually impacting. This is all compounded by the assholes turning the global-warming thing into a cottage industry with the whole "carbon credits" scam and other "green initiatives" that are less good-natured and more cynical and preying on people.
Either way, I don't really give a fuck. I'll be dead before any of it matters. As long as I'm not up to my neck in a melted iceberg in the next few decades, I'm fine.
It doesn't matter. The "cheap valve box" owners will quickly rise in numbers and the "real PC gamers" will be dwarfed by this. The incentive to develop games for anything beyond the four low-end-hardware-consoles (MS, Sony, Nintendo, Valve) that cost less (combined) than even half of the cost of your gaming PC will be gone. Why sink the expense in something that will grind high end rigs when you can just hit the same target you were hitting six or eight years ago?
Good intentions, I'm sure, but the outcome will be awful.
It's a terrible thing for gamers, because it reduces the target for PC development to that of shitty low-end aged hardware, just like the consoles run. Yes, we can still build and run our own rigs of any extreme, but there won't be nearly as many of us as there are console-owners and Valve-Box owners. So they'll port their shitty games to the shitty "PC Console" and that will be that. No sense developing expensive engines with insane textures and complexities when you can just port it to the $300 Valve Box and say "there, we've done our PC job".
The problem is that they will always have to work with a specific set of commodity hardware. You and I might spend $1,000 USD just on our video cards for our new rig, but most people don't want to spend even the $300 for a brand new gaming console, let alone anything more. So, that means Valve will be forced to (as they said, themselves) focus on one specific set of hardware that their turnkey "PC gaming rig" will come with.
For the rest of us, we can use their software and services to enjoy the same sort of experience, but with as much hardware power as we want to throw at it, by building our own systems.
Unfortunately, this is not going to be a BOON to PC gaming. It is going to be the DEATH OF PC GAMING.
As it is, developers primarily focus on consoles and then make shitty PC ports. With a Steam system on a specific set of commodity hardware, they'll now be developing for three sets of shitty, out-dated, cheap commodity hardware. There will be no incentive to make any software/games that will really bring your $3500 rig to its knees. In which case, you might as well just have an XBox or Playstation, in the first place.
When most people hit a pay wall, here is what we do: Copy title of article we wanted to read, past it into google, read what google gives us from another source that is offering it for free.
Not until we've perfected the targeting system, so it will only kill brown people and indigenous populations.
True. My comment was fairly simple, in that it ignored how it is stored on the server/system side, which is unfortunately out of your control (and if we're using that to say that a long password is weak, then it's fair to say EVERY password is weak, simply because there are sites out there that don't allow more than eight characters and don't even hash them). And when hashing, there is potential for collision, I suppose (I'm not a cryptographer, so I don't know where we stand on current algorithms, but I remember when at least a couple were always alleged to have been found to have significant flaws), as you mention.
At any rate, the point still stands that the assertion that this "super computer" can crack everything in a matter of seconds is kind of silly. It's entirely dependent upon the preparation of the person administrating the systems end and the effort of the user. Makes it sort of a puff "scare story".
That said, I'm also a big fan of two-factor authentication, which is becoming more common, and I thin the era of passwords is closer to an end than we think.
Screw you, math!
But my point still remains. So maybe the potential length for cracking said password length might include one or two fewer "trillion" centuries in it. :P
It doesn't matter if it is random or not, as long as it isn't a single dictionary word or something guessable. A program trying to brute-force a password has no idea what is in a password string or the depth of the character set. It still has to deal with the same search space and try every possible permutation of characters and lengths, until it happens upon the right one.
True, GOG doesn't force it on you, but the others do. And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list. They are the least annoying of every one, though.
The comparison to music is fair enough, I suppose. Except that almost ten years into mainstream digital distribution, we are way on the other stream of where we were ten years into digital music distribution. And I don't like the solution you pose as the ultimate evolution of it, either. I prefer Steam and GOG (even though I don't care for Steam-ish DRM), but I don't want everything else to fail and for there to "be only one". I want them to act like a laundry soap manufacturer would. To make games and sell those games at every possible point of distribution possible. I don't want one single digital store selling every possible game. I want *every* online digital game store selling *every* possible game. Just like almost every grocery store sells the same products.
They shouldn't be competing on "Ooh, only Origin has Dragon Age and Sim City!" or "only Beamdog has the Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition!". They should be competing on interface, speed, customer service, price, and community.
It doesn't devour "strong" passwords in seconds. It devours weak passwords, in seconds. A fourteen character password is, by definition, pretty weak.
For comparison, the password to an account I use fairly often is 128 characters. At 348-billion password attempts per second, it would practically take eternity. Even if it made attempts 40 times faster (one hundred billion times per second), it would take (according to SGC's haystacks calculator) "76.10 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion centuries".
I might use a fourteen character password on a trivial site that I don't care about, but probably not even then.
No we won't. I pay $8 a month for unlimited viewing of a ridiculous amount of content. If they could add even more (and recent) content to that, it'd be worth a lot more. I currently pay $13/mo for most of my entertainment ($8 for Netflix and $5 for MOG, where I get my unlimited music). Netflix is a steal at $8. It'd be a deal at $16. It'd be fair (but starting to push it) at $24/mo.