Daniel Fowler9 said:Timothy Turner11, you aren't wrong, but does it even matter? It wouldn't surprise me if these idiots shut this thread down or ban you just because you poked holes in their precious Firefox (and the whole Open Source crowd, generally speaking). The fanatics on this forum are more extreme than anywhere else; they already nuked my previous thread about this: Wait a minute! Just watch out that you don't end up on this group's blacklist too. You might find yourself getting persecuted and banned just like me, all because they can't handle an opinion that differs from theirs. 👎
Daniel Fowler9🙄
We only ban you because you look so sexy when you're angry. 🙂
That’s nonsense. Internet Explorer has way more vulnerabilities, and most of them are classified as critical, whereas the bugs in Firefox are usually pretty harmless.
Besides, Norton isn't exactly the gold standard anymore. If you check what Secunia—the folks who actually find the most holes—has to say, they're likely the ones who know best.
They provide data on how many flaws fall into each category, so just look at the numbers.
While Internet Explorer shows 14% as extreme, Opera might show 71% as moderate—meaning there aren't any serious issues there, and moderate is two levels below extreme.
So, I’d suggest not falling for the marketing hype.
WinRAR doesn't actually use an SFV file; it has its own built-in verification within the RAR format. The SFV is just there to make your life easier—it's faster and offers a context menu, making it more practical for checking files.
By "checking," I mean verifying if the checksum is correct, not actually unpacking everything.
Henry Morales32 said:Thanks for the input. Just a quick tip for anyone else dealing with this: those files ending in .001 and .002 are actually just RAR archives. The issue is that WinRAR doesn't recognize them through the right-click context menu; you have to manually launch the WinRAR program and navigate to them using its internal browser. Once you find them, they extract just fine.
Thanks again, everyone.
Usually, there's at least one standalone .rar file, or if they're following the newer naming conventions, every single part is labeled as a .rar. Besides, splitting files like that is pretty much industry standard for the scene—just like using an SFV to make sure everything is intact—especially on major US tracker networks.
Like frozenheron25 mentioned, we're talking about a checksum. It’s basically the same thing as the more common MD5, though SFV seems to be the standard in the underground scene.
I’d suggest grabbing QuickSFV. It handles SFV and, since the latest update, it supports MD5 too, which is a nice touch.🙂
On sites like DC, it's pretty much mandatory—standard practice alongside WinRAR for the larger files.
poirot said:Honestly, I’m not feeling the OGG hype at all. It feels a bit too stripped down to me—kind of just a slightly improved WMA.👎
It really depends on how you're ripping. I use LAME with VBR at max settings, so even OGG won't hold up as much in that bracket.😉 I'm still on the fence about it, though. Maybe MP3 is still the king? At those bitrates, does the difference even matter anymore?
It’ll be Xvid, but I’m using a Matroska container instead of AVI.
Actually, it's going to be Xvid paired with an Ogg stereo audio rip.🙂
I'll run some tests once I can track down a DVD. Most of my collection is back in Sweden. 😢 (though I might just borrow one from someone around here 😁 )
I strictly stick to my PC. Besides, I figured the folks over at my local meetup would appreciate being able to grab some of those harder-to-find movies too. 😉
As for those old line players and stuff? Honestly, I couldn't care less. 😁
It’s a different story if you're looking to rip into a Matroska container instead of an AVI. Besides, I have zero interest in re-encoding old footage, so spare me the whole "DVD Remake" gimmick.
Is there anything worth ripping right now? I'm not really feeling like burning discs, and since I don't have any DVD-Rs lying around, having some 1.4 GB rips on my hard drive would be ideal.
It should be relatively easy, though I'd probably pack them into a Matroska container and downsample the audio to stereo. Why bother with a subpar picture just to keep a useless AC3 track? I'm only using stereo speakers anyway, so why stress over surround sound?
Henry Morales32 said:Look, on any mail server, you have the option to choose whether you want your registered "real name" attached to your message or not. So, it’s entirely up to the sender if they want to show it; it isn't some random intermediate server stripping it away. If someone doesn't want their name visible, they usually have a reason.
All this security overhead is probably what's crashing your system.
Also, try formatting your posts so they're actually readable; it’s exhausting to follow. Next time, just write down the exact error message word for word so we know what we're looking at.
But is there any way to actually figure out who sent it, like from home?
Not really. You can check the headers to see when it hit which server, and go from there. In other words, you'd have to track down the admin of that first server and beg them to check their logs... you know how it goes.
Adam Wright56 said:I’m on the same page... it seems perfectly logical that the sender should be visible in the header.
The funny thing is, this happened to a friend of mine, and she actually asked me how to "uncover" who sent it. She was convinced it was "hidden."
I guess it might be my fault for assuming people actually know their way around a computer; when she said "hidden," I took her literally. 😬
Whatever. I suppose I'll have to see it for myself sometime. 🤔
Like I said. It can easily be hidden, spoofed, or whatever else you want to call it. Of course, better providers like Comcast block these tricks, but if everyone were competent, we wouldn't have spam in the first place. 😁
Daniel Fowler9 said:Haha, you didn't really need that "to avoid confusion" disclaimer. Did you honestly think anyone would mistake you for being the "forum's greatest genius" if you left out those brackets? (Referring to Leonard, of course!)😁
Daniel Fowler9🙄
I wouldn't dream of stealing the spotlight from my true love.🙂
Morgan Moore37 said:Thanks, Daniel Fowler9, I'll check it out. Goodnight to everyone else—try to keep your wits about you. I’m just defending myself here, not picking fights. If you want to treat a serious forum like a playground, maybe find somewhere else where you can be the punchline instead of the target.
The target? You’re the one who kicked things off with that "brilliant" post. Honestly, why not just say you're running an SQL server from the start instead of waiting for the smartest guy on this board—Daniel Fowler9, just so we're clear—to figure it out for you?
Listen, genius, acting entitled when you’re the new guy on the block just makes life harder for yourself. It’s basically a signal that you aren't worth a serious answer, just some jokes at your expense.
Secondly, writing without any punctuation or spacing is exhausting to read, which does nothing to help anyone understand what you're actually struggling with.
If a problem is clear and well-explained, answering is easy. Otherwise, we're all just left guessing what you meant behind that wall of unreadable text.
PS: Being new and making your first move an insult toward the moderator isn't exactly a brilliant strategy. 🙂
Kitty said:I’ve written actual papers in Word before and never felt like it was lacking anything. I use Word every single day and honestly don't find it bad—if anything, every new version seems better. Of course, you can't expect the software to just read your mind or expect to be a pro from day one, especially when trying to force it to do exactly what you need, slycrane94! 😛 😬 (for that, you'd basically need to be Bill Gates! 😁) So maybe don't trash the program if you haven't mastered it yet. 😛 😁
Look, I get it. I used it myself until I started working on massive 100–200 page documents packed with math, graphs, and strict formatting requirements. Honestly, just dealing with how Word moves images around is enough reason to quit.
Compare a document written in LaTeX to one in Word. Then look at how much less effort the LaTeX version takes. Everything is automated, and you can even use online databases for citations where all the data is pre-filled, making the bibliography effortless.
It is what it is. Word (or OpenOffice) works fine for most people, but certain tasks demand more serious tools. It's like Excel; it's perfectly fine when you're playing around with small datasets. But once you start processing hundreds of megabytes, you realize it just wasn't built for that scale. And let's be real, neither Word nor Excel were designed for those heavy-duty tasks, so why does everyone get so worked up when I point that out?