+<p>De nye norske biometriske passene kan enkelt leses av på avstand og
+kopieres med RFID, slik at de som ønsker det kan å se bilde av
+nordmenn i nærheten, og informasjon om fingeravtrykk, høyde, hårfarge
+og det meste av informasjon om innehaveren. For meg virker det som en
+massiv sikkerhetsrisko, og det er meg et komplett mysterium at
+Stortinget og regjeringen har gått med på RFID-merking av pass.
+<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport">wikipedia har
+mer</a> om de nye biometriske passene.</p>
+</description>
+ </item>
+
+ <item>
+ <title>The video format most supported in web browsers?</title>
+ <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</link>
+ <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</guid>
+ <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
+ <description><p>The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
+contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H.264 and WebM. Most video sites
+seem to use H.264, while others use Ogg Theora. Interestingly enough,
+the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
+H.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
+the Wikipedia article on
+<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">HTML5 video</a>,
+this is not true. Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
+different browsers there. The format supported by most browsers is
+Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
+Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
+BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
+The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
+Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
+Firefox. H.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
+Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
+Explorer. Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
+Safari can install plugins to get it.</p>
+
+<p>To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
+without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
+HTML5 video tag. Of course to reach all those without a browser
+handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms. In
+<a href="http://www.nuug.no/">NUUG</a>, we provide first fallback to a
+plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
+we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
+Theora. This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an <a
+href="http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20110111-semantic-web/">example
+from last week</a>.</p>
+
+<p>The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H.264 is
+the least supported is simple. Implementing and using H.264
+require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
+are incompatible with free software licensing. If you believed H.264
+was without royalties and license terms, check out
+"<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
+Free That Matters</a>" by Simon Phipps.</p>
+
+<p>A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
+available from
+<a href="http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos">the
+Xiph.org wiki</a>, if you want to have a look. I'm not aware of a
+similar list for WebM nor H.264.</p>
+
+<p>Update 2011-01-16 09:40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
+realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
+&lt;video&gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
+provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.</p>
+</description>
+ </item>
+
+ <item>
+ <title>Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt;</title>
+ <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</link>
+ <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</guid>
+ <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
+ <description><p>Today I discovered
+<a href="http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome">via
+digi.no</a> that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
+<a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html">yesterday
+announced</a> plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt; in
+the browser. The argument used is that H.264 is not a "completely
+open" codec technology. If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
+to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
+"<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
+Free That Matters</a>". It is not free of cost for creators of video
+tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
+terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
+licensing the patents needed for H.264. Some background information
+on the Google announcement is available from
+<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome">OSnews</a>.
+A good read. :)</p>
+
+<p>Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
+promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
+the Internet. This can only be done by publishing using free and open
+standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
+for these free and open standards. At the moment there seem to be two
+camps in the web browser world when it come to video support. Some
+browsers support H.264, and others support
+<a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg Theora</a> and
+<a href="http://www.webmproject.org/">WebM</a>
+(<a href="http://www.diracvideo.org/">Dirac</a> is not really an option
+yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
+and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
+H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
+Wikipedia keep <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">an
+updated summary</a> of the current browser support.</p>
+
+<p>Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
+promoting H.264, and John Gruber
+<a href="http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions">presents
+the mind set</a> of these people quite well. His rhetorical questions
+provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
+<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM">presenting
+the issues with H.264</a>. Both are worth a read.</p>
+
+<p>Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn't free,
+they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin. This
+argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
+<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm">todays
+blog post</a>, which I find to put the issue in context. To me it
+make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
+browser while still allowing plugins.</p>
+
+<p>I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
+is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
+feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse. A lot of TV
+broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
+of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
+could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
+publishing. Suddenly this belief is shaken.</p>
+
+<p>An interesting question is why Google is doing this. While the
+presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
+present the argument if the change make sense from a business
+perspective. One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
+with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
+feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
+Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
+Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
+to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
+video format not requiring royalties at all. A third reason might be
+that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
+Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
+I guess time will tell.</p>
+
+<p>Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
+<a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html">more
+background and information on the move</a> it a blog post yesterday.</p>
+</description>
+ </item>
+
+ <item>
+ <title>Skolelinux-intervju: Viggo Fedreheim</title>
+ <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Skolelinux_intervju__Viggo_Fedreheim.html</link>
+ <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Skolelinux_intervju__Viggo_Fedreheim.html</guid>
+ <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
+ <description><p>Jeg fortsetter min intervjuserie med folk i
+<a href="http://www.skolelinux.org/">Skolelinuxprosjektet</a>. Denne
+gang er det en av folkene som har vært med lenge og som har tatt i
+bruk Skolelinux på alle skolene i Narvik kommune som skal i ilden.
+Han er styremedlem i
+<a href="http://www.friprogramvareiskolen.no/">foreningen
+FRISK</a>.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Hvem er du, og hva driver du med til daglig?</strong></p>
+
+<p>Mitt navn er Viggo Fedreheim, og jeg er pedagogisk og teknisk
+IKT-veileder for alle skoler i Narvik kommune. Jeg drifter totalt 17
+servere basert på Skolelinux og Debian. Jeg holder i tillegg noen kurs
+mellom all driftingen. For tiden arbeider jeg med en sentral
+LDAP-tjener for alle skoleservere samt våre Moodle- og
+Joomla-installasjoner.</p>