I'd be more concerned about the severity of the exploit than the number of them.
Let's keep in mind that it is US companies that sell the software to handle massive site blocking like this.
WebM codecs such as VP8 and VP9 are also supported on nearly every device. W3.org, Google and the companies supporting ARM have put their full force behind the VPx codecs, and thus the WebM container format. Every Chrome and Firefox user can view it, and if you have device without browser support, you can download either a third party browser such as Firefox or the wikipedia app for most devices, and that will support it.
Support for WebM codecs is very widespread. As of companies backing VP8 and VP9, they include nVidia, AMD, Intel, Google, and the major manufacturers of ARM chipsets. Many of these companies are implementing hardware optimizations and hardware support for the VP8 and VP9 codecs.
Yes, but you can write new software to decode it without an issue.
The standard is open.
With Google's support of WebM codecs, those will recieve support soon enough.
Also, WebM provides much better quality and compression than MP4.
Hardware decompression is not necessary on modern hardware to provide good rendering of video.
Is it really going to be just Fedora 21?
I sort of like the name Null Nadda!
For plugins like silverlight that run code rather poorly sandboxed, you should lock them to a whitelist, so that only web sites you have preapproved can use them.
Additionally, you should only run them on an unpriviledged user. (Something many Windows users don't do with anything as a regular practice.)
These two measures won't eliminate your risk, but they will dramatically reduce it.
Low persistance displays are a tricky issue.
They obviously don't have the issues that high-persistance displays have of holding frames for too long. However, they have another annoying effect, commonly referred to as the strobe effect. This has to do with each pixel being lit for only a minute duty cycle on the display. This causes bad flicker at low refresh rates.
Early low persistance displays obviously were not very good on this issue. This is because the displays used very slow technologies such as oscolating mirrors.
By the details I've read on their blog, I'm pretty certain Valve has gotten down that they need a high refresh rate to get the VR to work right. They have identified strobe effect as a problem, and have identified that while the traditional 60Hz rate, while tolerable, is far from ideal for low persistance displays. They seem to believe they can push the refresh rate high enough to deal with strobe effect. I have confidence that they can.
Higher refresh rates also have other advantages for gaming as Internet router designs improve and ping times drop, the latency produced by interpolation becomes more substancial, and the best way to reduce it is to push more physical frames. If you are pushing more physical frames, there are clear advantages to pushing more visual frames to match.
I don't have a complete list.
However, a lot of hardware has quite open specifications for making drivers, even if open source drivers aren't available yet.
(For instance all Radeon hardware has had complete developer's documentation released, but the Open Source drivers for the latest cards are far from complete.)
I guess you could say both are relevant on the basis that they are protesting misguided laws designed to protect us from ourselves.
I've always thought they should replace the single "hosts" file with a "hosts.d" directory.
This would reduce conflicts between programs that edit the file, and improve flexibility.
p.s. we don't need 2 paragraphs about why all your posts are currently downgraded. (A single one line is fine.) Furthermore, you don't need to make such a long argument on your main post either. More words just make it seem you like to hear yourself talk.
Lets face the facts: That privacy culture is exactly why they are the target of these investigations.
I agree, it is unfair that Google is being held to such a higher standard. However, I also think with their privacy culture, they SHOULD be putting their money where their mouth is, like this, and hire a team of specialists to address privacy issues with their products.
The fact that other companies sweep their problems under the rug and that we instead complain about Google for the problems we admit, only propagates the problem of sweeping privacy issues under the rug.
I don't know why people focus so much on Google. A lot of other companies have far worse privacy practices, and many of those companies make absolutely no attempt to provide proper privacy or user data security.
Just take Facebook for example.
From what I've experienced here in Ohio, people who talk on the cell phone while driving do so anyways even with the laws banning it.
The people who do this are the self-absorbed reckless fools who feel those sorts of laws apply to everyone but them. They are the kind of person that will nearly wreck into you while talking on the cell phone, then blame you for it. It's not them who are reckless, it's everyone else. They are convinced they can drive perfectly safe while talking on the cell phone, so the law doesn't apply to them, it's not like they will get caught, or so they tell themselves.