Not quite. It's true that for the majority of western music it performs just as well as AAC and Vorbis, however there are certain classes of audio that it does poorly with, in particular polyphonic music. This is an inherent limitation (steming from the pre/post comb filter), that cannot be overcome in future encoders.

For streaming audio, this isn't a big deal as it is somewhat of a corner case and people don't hold streaming audio to flawless standards. However, for a music library, you want an audio format to encode anything you throw at it to transparent level of quality, without thinking about the technical details or limitations.

Opus uses less computational resources than Vorbis, to the point where doing it in hardware is almost pointless for a smartphone (especially for streaming where the radio will be active and using more power than the encoding/decoding), and ultra-low power dedicated MP3 players are becoming scarcer. So it's less of an issue that it was in Vorbis's day.

Opus wasn't designed for audio files, but for streaming audio. In that realm it's adoption looks very promising. It has already been integrated into the Skype codebase and will likely be used in the next major release of Skype. It is also one of two mandatory audio codecs for in the draft for WebRTC, which is a new standard for browser-based chatting.

Too lazy to write a cross-platform website? No worry dawg, we put a browser in your browser, so you can suck while you suck.

It is actually quite easy to do, and RMS has been talking about it for a while, this recent article mentions it in passing and links to something a more detailed reference. Think of those VISA debt gift cards that you can buy today. If you are allowed to pay cash for them without showing ID, then they are truly anonymous (unlike bitcoin), and can be used both online and in person. The systems he has in mind are basically refined versions of that basic concept.

The main thing holding back HTTPS is advertisements. Browsers (especially IE) complain if your encrypted page includes unencrypted content (like iframes served from a a third party ad server) and rightly so. Google can get away with it because they serve their own ads, and Wikipedia doesn't have any ads. Arstechnica ran an article a few years back describing the reasons why they couldn't switch to HTTPS by default, but most of it boils down the fact that they can't get rid of the third party content in their pages.

Dude, they reverted your posts because what you posted was flat-out wrong, not because they are shills. You stated that Dan Pulcrano owns backpage.com, but he doesn't own it, operate it, or have any direct control over what goes on it. His newspaper does business with it, but that is a far cry from what you actually posted.

Sure, my main point was that you need to take time to dispute this with credit agencies, which will be much easier to do as soon as you learn about the fraudulent charges than later on. Taking the GP's attitude of "it's the banks problem not mine, they can deal with it" will just make your problems worse.

That said, I've known a handfull people who have disputed fraudulent reports in their credit history. All of them were successfull in getting the fraudulent reports either removed or marked as such. However, the ones that had good credit scores before this happened ended up with scores that were lower than before, even after "successfully" disputing the fraudulent reports. One of them ended up with a score so low, he couldn't get a car loan from anywhere; not those "we finance everyone" dealerships, not the credit union he previously had gotten a loan through and never missed a payment, no one. He ended up having to get his parents to co-sign a loan, and is still rebuilding his credit.

These people didn't look into suing the credit agencies, however I imagine it's harder to win a libel/defamation dispute over an opaque rating number than incorrect factual statements, which the credit agencies did correct.

It works for the purposes of avoiding paying that bill, but it doesn't avoid having your credit score being completely ruined.

Like it or not, this is your problem, if you ever want to take out a loan ever again, and the sooner you deal with it the sooner you can start rebuilding your credit.

Just to be clear, since the link isn't: this isn't a real time-lapse video of Cassini flying as the movie shows. It is an artificial flyby made using images that Cassini has taken, and then manipulating them to create the appearance of changing perspective. Some of it is pretty realistic while others parts are are not (like having all the moons so big and close together in one shot). Still really cool.

No, it's not like what you are describing at all. Verizon will not install FiOS in Boston, period. They don't like the regulatory/tax structure there, so they won't build-out FiOS there, regardless of whether you are willing to pay to get the last mile installed. But they will use the city as a backdrop when advertizing FiOS.

No, however large parts of the website were interfaces to services provided by the USDA which require people working to fulfill. Since this was about saving money, it wouldn't make sense to spend a bunch of it figuring out what parts of the website was just static information that could be left up, and which parts were not applicable during the shutdown and needed to be replaced with a static message, and then making all those modifications. Then there is the security issue - do you really want the government running hundreds of websites with no one to maintain them, in circumstances that they haven't encountered before (queues filling up with no-one to process requests). Easier to just take the whole thing down and replace it with a simple locked-down static message.

Okay, the headline was somewhat misleading, but does anyone on this site even read the summary anymore, or have we devolved to commenting based only on the headlines?

Half the posts here are about whether Doubleclick is the lesser of the two evils, but the guy doesn't work at Doubleclick any more, and Doubleclick isn't involved in the lawsuit in any way shape or form. This is like saying "Yay Paypal" because of what Elon Musk is doing with Space-X.

So you bought brand new hardware, and expected it to work with an OS/drivers that entered feature freeze almost a year ago, and which was released slightly before the hardware was? I'm sorry, but that is no one's fault but your own. Haswell works fine in distros that were released after the hardware was. Even Debian Testing has Haswell support (as of a week or so ago).

At home it's nearly 100% open source (just video card driver is proprietary, and that's changing with my new computer). At work it's split 3-ways pretty evenly between open source, internally written and proprietary software. The proprietary applications I use at work are:
BeyondCompare (much better than any other diff program I have ever used),
Matlab (I use Octave at home, but use our Matlab site license at work to ensure better compatibility),
Intel C++ compiler, because it generates faster code (especially on the few Itanium machines we still have around),
FogBugz (So much nicer than bugzilla)
MS Windows/Outlook/Office (because I'm required to)