Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Technology

Theora Ahead of H.264 In Objective PSNR Quality 313

Posted by timothy
from the why-ayn-never dept.
bigmammoth writes "Xiph hackers have been hard at work improving the Theora codec over the past year, with the latest versions gaining on and passing h.264 in objective PSNR quality measurements. From the update: 'Amusingly, it also shows test versions of Thusnelda pulling ahead of h.264 in terms of objective quality as bitrate increases. It's important to note that PSNR is an objective measure that does not exactly represent perceived quality, and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora. This is also data from a single clip. That said, it's clear that the gap in the fundamental infrastructure has closed substantially before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest.' Momentum is building with a major Open Video Conference in June, the impending launch of Firefox 3.5 and excitement about wider adoption in a top-4 web site. It's looking like free video codecs may pose a serious threat to the h.264 bait-and-switch plan to start charging millions for internet streaming of h.264 in 2010."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Theora Ahead of H.264 In Objective PSNR Quality

Comments Filter:
  • by EvilToiletPaper (1226390) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:05PM (#27870227)
    This might not pose that much of a threat to H264, sounds like another OGG or FLAC. Superior in a lot of qualities but largely ignored by the majority

    Unless some major device manufacturers or youtube like heavyweights get behind it, it's gonna be pretty much limited to the geek community.
    • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:09PM (#27870281)

      This might not pose that much of a threat to H264, sounds like another OGG or FLAC.

      Theora sounds like another OGG, huh? Imagine that.

    • by eqisow (877574) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:17PM (#27870389) Homepage
      Like FLAC? FLAC is certainly not as popular as mp3, but that's hardly a fair comparison. It is, by far, the most popular lossless audio codec. A simple search on any torrent site will show that.
      • First off, most people don't care about lossless compression. It's a niche market. After all, even on extremely good sound gear, you are hard pressed to pick out 256k MP3 from uncompressed in blind tests. Also, popular though it might be, it wasn't popular enough for the big boys to pick up. Both Apple and Microsoft did their own lossless formats. Windows Media Audio has a lossless mode, and Apple uses ALAC. Now while Windows Media Player will happily play FLAC if you install a DirectShow codec (don't know

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Draek (916851)

          First off, most people don't care about lossless compression. It's a niche market. After all, even on extremely good sound gear, you are hard pressed to pick out 256k MP3 from uncompressed in blind tests.

          And this matters because...? high definition video is also a niche market, as Blu-Ray vs DVD sales analysis would show. Yet obviously we're talking about popularity within its scope, otherwise not even the iPod would be popular, if we were to consider the entire human race.

          Also, popular though it might be, it wasn't popular enough for the big boys to pick up. Both Apple and Microsoft did their own lossless formats.

          Remember WMA? and AAC? no, the "big boys" ignored FLAC not because it wasn't popular enough, it was because both have *very* strong NIH sentiments against it, as they did with MP3.

        • by mgblst (80109) on Friday May 08, 2009 @01:23AM (#27872521) Homepage

          You know what else is a niche market, PCs. Most people in the world don't own one, so it is a niche market. And you know what isn't a niche market, stupid fucking wankers talking shit.

      • by schon (31600)

        FLAC is certainly not as popular as mp3, but that's hardly a fair comparison. It is, by far, the most popular lossless audio codec.

        Sorry, at this point, I must point out that wav would be the "most popular" lossless audio codec.

        A simple search on any torrent site will show that.

        Sorry, that only proves that it's the most popular amongst geeks who download from torrent sites.

        Talk to average users, and ask them "what is a flac file?", and "what is a wav file?", then ask them "which one would you use to record audio?". 99.999% would say "wav".

        • by rts008 (812749) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @09:53PM (#27871489) Journal

          Talk to average users, and ask them "what is a flac file?", and "what is a wav file?", then ask them "which one would you use to record audio?". 99.999% would say "wav".

          Actually, that percentage of your 'average users' would just *blink* with glazed over eyes...and not have a clue what you are talking about.
          I say this after having worked tech support for Creative Labs, dealing with mp3 players and your 'average users.

          Now I will agree that more 'average users' will recognise a *.wav file as a sound file compared to recognising a *.flac file as a sound file...if we leave 'lossless' and other qualifiers out of the equation.

          But 99.999%????...'average users'???
          Hah! I would not touch that statistic with a bleach-soaked 10 foot pole, because I know where you pulled it from, and it's drawing flies already, because it stinks so bad!

    • With audio it was like "what you don't support mp3 all my stuff is in mp3! screw you!" With video it's like "durr video files?" and big business can use the best option without alienating users.
    • by kelnos (564113)
      Yeah, unfortunately that's been my feelings about Theora as well for some time. It seems like a great project, and the alleged freeness of the codec is a big plus to me as an OSS advocate... but no mainstream hardware device supports it, and no major content provider uses it. Most companies are used to paying royalties for these sorts of things, so H.264 adoption isn't really slowed down by the cost.

      Vorbis has been around for over 10 years, stable for 7 or so, but mainstream use just isn't there yet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Goaway (82658)

      Except that Theora is pretty much inferior in all qualities except being free.

  • Remember (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CSFFlame (761318)
    The vast majority of the streaming is flash encapsulated. The host can use any codec they want and it is transparent to the client. By doing this, the client never notices, and they don't pay royalties. It's more likely than you think.
    • The host can use any codec they want and it is transparent to the client. By doing this, the client never notices, and they don't pay royalties.

      The manufacturer of the playback device (if not a PC) pays royalties to Adobe for Flash Player and passes these on to the client.

      It's more likely than you think.

      What is "centipedes in my vagina"? Oh wait, this isn't Jeopardy!.

  • Problems..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:10PM (#27870293)
    Sure, Theora is great, so is OGG Vorbis and FLAC... Unfortunately I can't really play any of those formats save for on my computer, and if I'm using something other than Linux, I most likely will have to install extra software in order to play them. So no, I don't think this will be some big improvement until I can play them on everything without extra software.
    • Re:Problems..... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:35PM (#27870621) Homepage
      My Cowon D2 can play Vorbis and FLAC.
    • by obi (118631)
      To play H.264 content you also need to install extra software (on Windows). Installing a Theora codec in addition to a H.264 codec isn't really a big deal is it?
      • Codec downloads are bad; users will go elsewhere rather than expend extra effort downloading something that *might* be a trojan, *might* not work on their machine, and *will* require the administrator rights that they don't have at work.

        Video sites really struggled before the Youtube era because codecs had to be downloaded and no solution worked properly on every platform. Everyone remembers Windows Media, the pisspoor Realplayer and the unspeakably dire Quicktime. Youtube bypassed that cruft, which is why

  • the launch of Firefox 3.5 is impeding?

    Is Firefox being impeded by the conference, or is Firefox impeding the conference?

    Or was it an impending release?

  • It's looking like free video codecs may pose a serious threat to the h.264 bait-and-switch plan to start charging millions for internet streaming of h.264 in 2010.

    Either it's true, or I missed Slashdot's article.

    • by martijnd (148684)

      The Bait&Switch comment seems a little vague -- but a practical reason for free high quality codecs can be found on WikiMedia [wikimedia.org]:

      Why are free codecs important? Wikimedia (and anyone else that wants to switch to free formats) wonâ(TM)t have to pay millions of dollars to in licensing costs to use the h.264 codec and wonâ(TM)t have to sacrifice quality in the process. More importantly it means anyone can encode or decode these files without paying for a license to do so. This means both free and proprietary software can support this format. Where as previously only controlled free as in beer distributions like adobe flash could support video on the web. It enables free software projects like firefogg to package the encoder and give it away for free. It helps opens up the video communication platform for distributed two-way communication.

  • What? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sexconker (1179573) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:17PM (#27870381)

    H.264 is a specification, not a codec.

    There are various codec implementations of it.
    x.264 being the most popular.
    Main Concept being the best overall.
    Nero being one of the first to market and as usual being slow and bloated and buggy.
    DivX as usual being late to market but driving the push for playback in embedded devices, while being at the top in terms of quality and decoding speed.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by uhmmmm (512629) <uhmmmm AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @09:08PM (#27871037) Homepage

      Main Concept being the best overall.

      Oh? this [doom9.org] (and this [doom9.org] follow up post) seem to indicate that it's not so clearcut. Looks like x264 beat MainConcept in most tests, and the major tests it lost in were rather unrealistic.

      But in the interest of full disclosure, Dark Shikari is one of the main developers on x264, so he's got an obvious bias. Doesn't necessarily make him wrong though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Is x.264 really the most popular? It's GPL'd, which means that it can't be included with any non-GPL'd software. I'd be willing to bet that Apple's Quicktime H.264 implementation is the most popular, as it's bundled with every Mac and downloaded by a lot of Windows machines.
  • by glwtta (532858) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:19PM (#27870407) Homepage
    test versions of Thusnelda pulling ahead of h264 in terms of objective quality as bitrate increases

    Please tell me that's not an actual product name.
    • Vorbis, Ogg, Theora
      And you are surprised by Thusnelda?

      But is only the name of the new Theora encoder code base. When it is done it will just be Theora to the masses.

    • by rts008 (812749)

      Well, looking at your UID, I won't ask if you are new here, but....

      'Bring up the GIMP!'[my pardons to Quentin T.]

  • I mean, let's dump flash and mp3s and begin to seriously promote .ogg. But the picture now is that you will see mp3 streams well before .ogg streams on Linux and OSS friendly sites. It's absurd!

    • Well, the only reason I ever had to encode an MP3, was because my el-cheapo MP3-player only plays... guess what. ^^

      Other than that, my whole CD collection is now OGG. Unfortunately I did some serious ABX tests, and apparently on my current set-up, I can't distinguish a lossless WAV from a 128 kb/s MP3. *cries*

  • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:24PM (#27870483) Homepage

    I don't mean to belittle Theora, I've really been rooting for them over the years. And this recent test does look fantastic.

    But I can't help wonder what settings they are testing x264 with. x264 has recently been shown [doom9.org] to be highly sensitive to clips like the Akiyo one tested here -- it also lost to some other H.264 encoders that it usually beats fairly consistently. The version and settings used to encode this one make a WORLD of difference.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Since the last update and alpha release, work has centered on two basic tasks: correcting the substantial energy leakage in Theora's forward DCT and optimization of the quantization matricies (and matrix selection). Here's an early example of Thusnelda with some early quant matrix tuning, along with the new forward DCT versus Theora 1.0 discussed below (same encoder parameters, equal bitrates):

    Greg Maxwell has been doing automated regression and comparison testing of the ongoing Thusnelda work against previ

    • by xiphmont (80732)

      Why would either Slashdot or Streisand apply here? Just wondering. Slashdot traffic isn't exactly likely to bother MITnet much, and I'm hardly likely to censor my own post or have MIT remove it.

      I *had* been thinking of adding some gradient improvement screencap examples though.

  • What happened when GIF patents threatened just about everything on the internet? PNG... and we all know how well that caught on... you've probably never even heard of PNG right?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:48PM (#27870787)

      Nope, and as a developer for Internet Explorer, I thought I'd heard of every image format already!

    • by kelnos (564113)
      I'm not sure you can really apply the same reasoning here. Back when the GIF patents were an issue, people (and companies) were way less interested in throwing money into internet-related activities. Nowadays, licensing yet another codec seems like the norm.

      Also the cost of reencoding a huge video library may be more than the cost of just paying the patent fees. And you also have the chicken/egg problem to deal with: who's going to sell/distribute Theora video when no (or very few) hardware players sup
    • by CSMatt (1175471)

      You're kidding, right? GIF is fading away into obscurity, save for animation and simple graphics, and PNG is dominating in the field of lossless images.

      GIF's LZW patents may have expired worldwide in 2006, but GIF's suckiness sure hasn't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by erroneus (253617)

        Yes, I was being sarcastic. I was actually showing that free solutions CAN catch on and dominate.

    • You haven't worked in the web development business for the last 5 years have you?
      We now use one large PNG image map for the site's UI imagery. And JPEG for photo-like images.
      Mainly because 256 colors and one bit transparency just suck. Especially for gradients. An JPEG can't do neither transparency, nor well-compressed, good-looking gradients.
      Also, semi-transparent stuff is all the hype now.

      You *can* actually do them in Internet Explorer too. Because, as weird as it sounds, you can actually add DirectX filt

      • by erroneus (253617)

        How is it that people actually missed the sarcasm??? Do I need to hold up a "Sarcasm" sign? (No! I don't have a sarcasm sign!)

  • ... to the Slashdot crowd, anyway. To the rest of the world, not so much.

  • You know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:53PM (#27870843)

    I'm less worried about benchmarks, more worried about, you know, seeing an actual production, ready for end-user codec released. This only finally happened end of 2008 to all of no fanfare (I didn't see it on /. or anywhere). That is a loooong time they've been messing with it (2001 was when VP3 with open).

    The problem is, if you take forever to make it "perfect" you miss the boat. The reason MP3 got so popular is not because it was the first compressed music standard capable of near CD quality. It was also not because it is the best lossy compression standard. It is because it was good enough, at the right time. It's compression level was small enough that people found it usable (as opposed to things like ADPCM which do knock the size down, but not enough) on the technology of the day, and it did it while giving quality good enough people liked it.

    So in my opinion it really is to late, they needed to release a couple years ago. As it stands, I think they've missed the boat. Blu-ray is done and uses VC-1, MPEG-4, and MPEG-2, ATSC is done, uses MPEG-2, Flash Video uses H.263 and VP6 (and also H.264), mobile stuff uses MPEG-4 (part 2 and 10). They have just missed the boat. So they release a codec in a year or two or five that's maybe a little better than MPEG-4 part 10... Ok so what? Nobody will really care. Net connections only get faster, harddrives get larger, so even if you offer 20% better compression it doesn't matter, people will stick with the standard.

    Vorbis had more of a chance since it actually did get released around the time that there was interest in upgrading from MP3 to something better for some things. However they largely lost out (it does have some use, in game engines for example) in part because of their silly naming and in part because of their poor surround support. However Theora is too little too late as far as I can tell. The world is already settling in to their HD codecs and once the standards get entrenched, they'll stay there until there's a compelling reason to switch.

    Timing is important. If your product isn't ready when it is needed, it isn't going to get used no matter how awesome it is in the end.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      [...] in part because of their silly naming and in part because of their poor surround support.

      You really are serious about this, aren't you? I thought you were serious until I read this. So how is the surround support in MP3 (That is not even a name. It's an abbreviation. For a name that also contains an abbreviation. How stupid is that?)? (Hint: It has none.)

      Everything else in your comment looks goo. So what is your point with this?

      And you were so close...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rts008 (812749)

      So in my opinion it really is to late, they needed to release a couple years ago. As it stands, I think they've missed the boat.

      Overall, I generally agree with your post, but I am not so quick to write Theora off.

      What I do propose though, is to call this phenomenon the "Duke Nukem Forever Effect", in honor of DNF dying.[tongue_in_cheek]

      All joking aside, you raise valid points, but I hope you are wrong about Theora being 'too little, too late'*, as I see a lot of benefit to the end user overall with it in use.

      Timing is important. If your product isn't ready when it is needed, it isn't going to get used no matter how awesome it is in the end.

      How very true, and will be more of a factor as we 'progress in technology'.

      I will offer a small counter argument though: somet

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by trawg (308495)

      It is because it was good enough, at the right time.

      This is such an awesome, succinct way of explaining the sometimes-inexplicable success of so many things. I will be sure to use it again!

      I actually don't think it's too late for Theora to have an impact though.

      The big thing is the tag that is being considered for HTML5. If Firefox and Opera and Chrome all bust out solid support in release builds soon, we'll be converting our video library to support it (catalogue of video game trailers on ausgamers.com - I realise one site isn't enough, but if others feel

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)
        The other roadblock is Safari. Both Apple and Microsoft license H.264 and ship enough units that the flat rate (rather than the per-license rate) applies. By supporting it, and not Theora, for video tags, they can provide a de-facto standard that F/OSS browsers can't easily copy. Other browsers on Windows or OS X can use DirectShow / QuickTime for playback, but on *NIX they have to use something like x264 (GPL'd, so can't be used by MPL'd engines like Gecko or LGPL'd engines like WebKit) or rely on an ex
  • by westlake (615356) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:55PM (#27870879)
    It's important to note that PSNR is an objective measure that does not exactly represent perceived quality, and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora. This is also data from a single clip.

    The benchmark that looks good in the lab.

    YMMV.

    The "objective" benchmark that has been "especially kind to Theora."

    What the hell am I to make of that?

    It's one clip -

    apparently of a geek dead on his feet after pulling one too many all-nighters.

    You can drown in techno-babble.

    I want to see video.

    Richly detailed backgrounds.

    Textures. Wood and fur and cloth and grass. Subtle rendering of flesh tones.

    Give me a real taste of how well your codec handles action. Take your camera outdoors. In the rain. Out on a boat. Take it on stage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      Richly detailed backgrounds.
      Textures. Wood and fur and cloth and grass. Subtle rendering of flesh tones.
      Give me a real taste of how well your codec handles action. Take your camera outdoors. In the rain. Out on a boat. Take it on stage.

      Show me *any* geek who has ever done that. Or even seen any of that. We have only one action. With one skin tone. And you don't wanna see any part of it. Believe me. ^^

  • Flawed test (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The PSNR graph [mit.edu] is quite interesting. To get comparable PSNR values from a recent x264 for the given source, you will have to use ridiculously low settings. I got about 700fps, with the required (lowest) settings, which still give better PSNR at 250kbps (47.333db) and above (300kbps is 48.222db), than is marked on the graph. This is with the lowest possible x264 settings, one-pass ABR. Also note, how the PSNR graph for x264 looks like a perfect logarithmic curve. None of the other plots are as smooth. Now, i
    • by xiphmont (80732) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @09:33PM (#27871303) Homepage

      You have to measure the PSNR of each codec with the same tool, silly (and avoid doing colorspace conversions which are lossy in the interchange. Keep the output in YCb'Cr' format). If you're using the x264 encoder's reported PSNR *cough*ahem* it's known to be wrong. It always reports way higher than other tools, like it's forgetting chroma is subsampled or its log-space algebra is just wrong or something.

      Let me check myself with the clip linked in the article....mmmm lessee.... yep! that's what you're doing. So, BZZZT, no gold star, try again.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The results are real:

      x264-0.0.0-0.20.20080905.fc10.x86_64 was used.

      PSNR computed with dump_psnr (tool that ships with Theora), so that the same tool could be used with multiple formats. I compared the decompressed lossless yuv4mpeg files. You can easily reproduce these results: Grab http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/y4m/akiyo_qcif.y4m and the current Theora Thusnelda SVN, the above mentioned x264 and go to town. Encode with defaults. Constant QI in both cases. (CRF and other common wisdom x264 knobs hurt PS

  • I like the concept of theora, but to be perfectly frank, it just isn't well supported enough to be useful for me. If I use mp4, I can use the same files on my Winders box, my linux box, and my recently purchased DVD player. With theora, it is a bit of a struggle to get anywhere close to that level of interoperability (not aware of any common DVD players that support it at all).

    Sure, I might be able to pull it off if I was extremely anal about my purchases, but who has the time for that?

    Best,

  • PSNR not only does "not measure perceived quality", it's also of next to zero worth in determining the effectiveness of a codec. For one, x264's psychovisual optimizations actually drop the PSNR and SSIM of the output compared to a non-psychovisually optimized encode. For an example of how meaningless PSNR is, look at

    http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/x264vsElecard/ [x264.nl]

    Of worth noting is that in these screenshots, Elecard has a higher PSNR than x264.
  • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @10:46PM (#27872049) Homepage

    Image quality vs bitrate means very little without mentioning CPU/memory usage. H.264's greatest weakness is the heavy CPU load on playback, it's just not friendly to low-cost and/or mobile devices. If Theora can get within the ballpark in terms of quality, but beat H.264 in speed, that could be the edge it needs to hit the mainstream.

    Right now it's little more than an academic experiment. Floating point everything can give you fantastic quality, but it will crawl so slowly that people will choose a lesser-quality alternative that runs faster.

  • Turns out there was an error in the methadology used in the original comparison, which hit x264 for more than 4 dB of difference.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8iphn/theora_encoder_improvments_comparable_to_h264/c09eyvc [reddit.com]

    Edit: HAHAHA! We figured out what was wrong--thanks a ton, gmaxwell, for coming on IRC and resolving this! Turns out his testing methodology was flawed... but not in the way I thought!
    Turns he out he did everything correctly... but he used ffmpeg for outputting the raw y4m file to have its quality measured by dump_psnr (but not for theora). Apparently, ffmpeg flags the output chroma as "420mpeg2" instead of "420", which results in over 4db of PSNR being slashed off of x264's results unfairly.
    Oops. We already have a patch submitted to ffmpeg for the problem and a retraction of the Theora comparison results is in the works. Thanks to gmaxwell for taking the initiative and David Conrad (Yuvi) for finding the bug!

    The Doom9 thread on the same topic:
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146893 [doom9.org]

    Anyway, given H.264 is a more recent codec that is highly optimized for PSNR and has had many years of refinement in a number of implementations, it's hard to conceive of how Theora could even approach it in compression efficiency, let alone beat it.

  • by tomzyk (158497) on Friday May 08, 2009 @10:41AM (#27876487) Journal

    Schmoopy Ahead of ED-209 In Objective WKRP Quality
    Posted by tomzyk on Thu May 08, '09 10:41 AM
    from the whats-the-whozits-huh dept.
    [ Media ] [ Technology ] somebody writes
    "Bliggerblah hackers have been hard at work improving the Schmoopy codec over the past year, with the latest versions gaining on and passing ED-209 in objective WKRP quality measurements. From the update: 'Amusingly, it also shows test versions of Quasimodo pulling ahead of ED-209 in terms of objective quality as bitrate increases. It's important to note that WKRP is an objective measure that does not exactly represent perceived quality, and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Schmoopy. This is also data from a single clip. That said, it's clear that the gap in the fundamental infrastructure has closed substantially before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest.' Momentum is building with a major Open Video Conference in June, the impending launch of Firefox 3.5 and excitement about wider adoption in a top-4 web site. It's looking like free video codecs may pose a serious threat to the ED-209 bait-and-switch plan to start charging millions for internet streaming of ED-209 in 2010."

    yeah. so um... this article has something to do with "video codecs". gotcha. And I only got that after reading the article multiple times and bolding some of those keywords in there.

    Shouldn't an "article summary" at least summarize what the hell it's talking about? Even a simple "[an open video codec]" inserted right after the initial mention of "Theora" would have done wonders to the layman's comprehension of it, thus preventing my head from asploding in trying to understand this gibberish. Maybe we could even add in some more useful links to the summary to make it easier on us folks that aren't in-the-know? (H.264 [wikipedia.org] Theora [theora.org] PSNR [wikipedia.org] etc...)

    Or is this too much to ask?

    (Yes, I know... "Welcome to Slashdot!" and "You must be new here.")

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...