I think for me, it's a kind of coping thing where I secretly hope that the next software will be the one thing I was missing the entire time and from here on out learning will be a breeze. Of course, that's not going to happen ... or will it? I am sure the next thing I find will be it!
> The site was created in 2006 with little knowledge of security, so passwords were stored in md5() hashes without salt
Sorry, but this is no excuse. It has been 15 years and there were so many breaches that even many casual people know about databases leaks and that passwords have to be stored in some special way. I don't know this guy's background, but he at least knows that md5 is not sufficient here. And then it never crossed his mind to do a check up on this? That's just negligent.
It's not just subtitles - it's all the login information stored there as well. Email addresses to send spam to, passwords that have likely been reused on another site.
Just as an fyi, that's pretty massive tape used in a broadcast studio.
The first consumer video camera (camera that recorded to tape rather than film) wasn't until the BetaMovie in 1983 with VHS coming months later. Heck, _home_ video recorders were still 15-20 years off at the time.
I assume all the times I've watched it, it's been from video format. I really doubt they were playing the 8mm every time live and broadcasting. So... I guess it's now a video and not film.
As a generalization: Video, going back to before the digital era, refers to images recorded on magnetic videotapes, such as VHS or Betamax. This is in contrast with film, which is images recorded using light sensitive silver halide crystals. Video tapes are viewed by scanning the magnetic strips and displaying on a monitor with scan lines. Films are viewed by shining a light through the developed film and displaying the whole image on a reflective screen.
Not quite. Video is generally an electronic medium for moving pictures and can be sent over cables or radio waves from the camera to the TV, without touching a tape. A video signal can be recorded on a tape, but isn't necessarily.
Yes, you are right. Looks like you squeezed in your comment before I was able to put the "as a generalization" disclaimer on it! :)
I was thinking more of the situation where some people might be confused with the Zapruder recording, that it could be on videotape instead of film, which is why I didn't try to cover all the corner cases.
It still doesn't say that video includes "film". You can make a video recording of a film of course, but that's different.
And even if it didn't, what did you think I meant? And how is that even relevant to the question?
It seems you were confused about something that used to be a very obvious distinction, that not too long ago no one would trip up on (the difference between "video" and "film"). It's not especially relevant of course, it was just weird.
Your stance on this is intriguing to me. I'm treating this thread as a neat little obscure, pedantic fact that I learned today- that historically the word "video" had a distinct meaning from "film".
Because never once in my 40-some years as an English speaking American have I ever seen this distinction. The two words are functionally synonyms in common usage, or perhaps the common usage would be something like "film" is a subset of "video".
Perhaps it varies with geography or industry? Maybe Americans use the terms interchangeably but Brits don't? Or maybe within the entertainment or photography industries experts use the terms with more precision than the average citizen?
I think you're just not old enough. Back in the 1960s, film and video were distinct mediums. For one thing, film had a lot higher resolution. For another, they ran at different frame rates. There were tricks to convert film to video (3:2 pulldown), but nobody went from video to film - the resolution was so limited, it would look terrible.
