The article mentions Youtube, without giving any specifics. Seems they're shipping the plugin greyed out, disabled etc. and then WebRTC stuff will work (does anyone have either used that?) and then maybe you'll be able to use html5 video in some future version, maybe.

You don't need H.264 for Youtube. You can watch everything there, and at several other sites using the "Video WithOut Flash" plugin:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

It works pretty damn well.

The geek sees everything in terms of the "open" web.

But there is more to digital video than video distribution through the web.

The "distribution" is orthogonal to the codec being used. Most of the things that make a good "digital video" codec for the "web", also make it exceptionally good for physical media, dedicated hardware, etc., etc.

Which is why the mainstream commercial codecs dominate here.

No, MPEG codecs dominate, because they had NO open competitors, until *just now*.

VP3 was okay at the time, but it wasn't support by anything, Theora went nowhere for a DECADE and was awful compared to contemporary codecs, by the time they finalized their not-quite-VP3 format, and started pushing for adoption.

VP8 was a good codec, but it didn't get open sourced until LONG after H.264 had an overwhelmingly dominant installed base. The MPEG-LA also did their dammedest to threaten to sue anyone who used it, but now such challenges have been conclusively settled in court.

It's only just now, this year, that VP9 is being released for unencumbered use right about the same time as HEVC/H.265 came out. So it's only now that we'll see if the market is ready, willing, and able to adopt open formats.

So you have some perverse idea of what feminism is meant to be [...] (b) is your own invention in the first place.

Bullshit. I pulled the assertion straight from TFA. You can't blame me for it. Did YOU bother to read TFA?

From TFA:

"people think men and women receive the same harassment online. They do not."

"The Myth: Everyone in the games industry experiences harassment. Women are just too sensitive about it."

"If you are a woman in the industry with a critical opinion, you will get a disproportional amount of criticism, hostility, and scrutiny compared to men."

"male privilege makes them feel free to lash out."

You're insane.

I'm merely stating the logical conclusion of GP's self-justifications. What part of my statement is inaccurate? Of course demonizing anyone who disagrees with you is so much easier than honestly addressing the issues they bring up.

pick one that doesn't also apply virtually equally to women.

Women are seriously beaten and murdered at FAR LOWER rates than men. You seem to have a real problem with FACTS.

I'm supposed to walk around armed at all times (illegal here),

There's no territory in the world where it's illegal to carry a modest-size knife.

and if I don't, then it's my fault and its not really rape?

I never said anything of the sort. I simply said that you have options, and being deathly afraid of everyone is not necessary, nor is being physically small an excuse to get the world to cater to you.

The goal is clearly to produce usable power, not to need more filtering.

You don't need to do more filtering. Most devices will run BETTER on square wave output than on sine wave output.

We all know prison rapes don't count. After all, only evil people are in prison to begin with.

It's an urban legend. Studies find that prison rape is actually rare:

http://nij.gov/topics/correcti...

Of course, if you try to solve the problem of "damaged personalities" you end up with a situation out of a bad sci-fi movie (e.g. the one with 'gun kata').

Of course the NSA illegally acquires data from most all email providers, ISPs, etc. Even the services that are explicitly based in privacy get NSLs, so to avoid that I could avoid using the internet at all. I'm going to use the internet, so the NSA will be able to snoop until that problem is handled using the three boxes - soap box, ballot box, and if absolutely necessary ammo box.

There are four boxes: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.

If you were careful, you MIGHT be able to get away from everything using cyanogenmod and opting to NOT install ANY google services but then you'd have a mostly useless overpowered dumb phone...

Maybe you could get one of these Firefox phones.

You realize that there's more difference between your average man and your average woman than between your average NFL linebacker and your average man, right? (seriously, compare the stats some time - height, average bench strength, etc). You do realize how commonly women are raped and abused by men, and how they might happen to be more sensitive to the implicit or explicit threats of violence from someone that they're highly unlikely to be able to fight off?

You know, if you complain about violence against your group yet dismiss violence against another group as inconsequential, you aren't likely to get - or deserve, for that matter - much sympathy, especially from that other group.

This is something many feminists - and other rights groups as well - seem to be unable to comprehend: you can get most people to back equality. You can't get them to back a power grab. No matter how justified you believe yourself, if you dismiss everyone's pain but yours then of course they're going to dismiss yours, and rightly so.

I'm tall, 182 centimeters, and I still once had a guy literally pick me up and carry me back to his apartment when I tried to walk away from him.

And I had a guy pull a knife on me. But that doesn't matter since I'm a man, and thus don't have a woman's sensitivity, right? Testicles make me immune to fear and pain, thus violence and threats against me don't count. Only real human beings like you matter. I can bloody well just "stop being a sissy", since unlike you, I don't have feelings. Someone attacking you is a tragedy, but someone attacking me is of no importance because, after all, I have a penis.

Sexist creep.

I don't think it matters whether we take Exodus or the US Government. I'm not really sure why being a mercenary is so bad? What is the difference if the US Government pays Exodus or hires the people working for Exodus to write exploits directly?

The difference is motivation. If you're partisan -- if you're motivated because you think the cause is just -- then maybe it's ethical to fight. If you're motivated by money and otherwise don't care, it's clearly unethical.

(I say "maybe" because it's not ethical to fight if you're mistaken in your belief that the cause is just -- it has to genuinely be so. But if you don't care, fighting is unethical even before considering the justness of the cause because it's not your fight.)

And yes, people are using Tor to fight against the US; certainly hackers and terrorists use Tor. (I don't believe more than a small fraction of Tor users are malicious, but malicious users undoubtedly exist.

If the American Revolution were happening today, the Founding Fathers would be labeled "hackers and terrorists" from the perspective of the British Crown. In other words, unless you're purposefully targeting innocents, those sorts of labels are a matter of perspective. I'm not at all convinced that using TOR to fight against the US government is actually a bad thing.

If you have responsibly disclosed every exploit you know about, you are not going to be able to hack into the computer which triggers the bomb. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious. Unless somehow your "responsible disclosure" allows for holding on to exploits until you need them for dire situations, you have no way to stop such a computerized device.

Let's be more concrete here: someone has hooked up a Raspberry Pi to detonate a bomb, which is triggered, say, over Tor. Whoever made this wasn't stupid: it has a heartbeat which will detonate the bomb if it fails, so you can't just jam it or cut off internet access. It has normal motion sensors, etc. You have 1 hour to disable it. I propose that given the possibility of such a scenario (or scenarios like this; obviously this is an extreme and contrived example to try to prove a point), it is ethical to withhold disclosure of vulnerabilities. In your proposed scenario, the government has "emptied its cyber arsenal". It has nothing it can do to prevent such an attack. I believe it is superior to have the capability to prevent such an attack.

First of all, I understood your previous scenario to be that you're discovering a new exploit in the process of defusing the bomb, and deciding whether to responsibly disclose it afterwards or to keep it in your pocket for later use. That's different from what you wrote this time, which is that you're using a previously-discovered but undisclosed exploit to defuse a bomb at the present time.

The problem with your scenario is that you're presupposing it "will" happen, and judging your actions after the fact. That's not a valid mode of reasoning, since there's no way to know that the scenario will actually occur (or even that it's more than infinitesimally likely to occur) at the time you're making the decision to disclose or not.

In other words, you're saying that it's perfectly ethical to do actual harm now because you guess that it might lessen the possibility of doing potential harm later. If you don't understand the problem with this, there's nothing more I can do to explain it to you more clearly.

It's like saying we shouldn't have fought in Wold War II against Hitler, because war is bad. The Allied forces were the "lesser of two evils"--evil, of course, because war is unethical just like hacking is. Why choose to actively help the lesser of two evils? We should have remained neutral.

That's exactly what we did do until the Japanese attacked us directly at Pearl Harbor. I think we acted pretty appropriately in that case!

Incorrect. You jump to some really broad interpretation of the article really fast. Maybe this hits a little to close to your behavior?

On the contrary, you've just proven my point!

Things change when you toss in the second or the third rich person. They will need to offer more than a candy bar.

And don't actually cost that much.

I doubt they do. And I doubt that lack of technical expertise is actually an obstacle. After all, prior to constructing the LHC, Europe didn't have that expertise either and yet all those devices got built just the same.

I bet the EU could do that too. But it'd require changing how they build such things.

Also, I think any sort of root system would become less effective as the size of the anchored volume increases. For example, doubling the spatial scale of the volume to be anchored means that you have have four times the surface area to anchor to bedrock, but eight times the mass that needs to be anchored.

Suppose your landslipe was exactly a twentieth the mass and volume of the Oso one. Then your slide area would have about 2.7 less mass per surface area for roots to anchor. Get a large enough unstable area and nothing can anchor it. That's why Earth is an oblate spheroid in the first place.