The ones I typically get are from my gas or electric company, and for service plans involving washer/dryer/furnace/etc. I'm pretty sure my tiny local bank with only a handful of branches is not the one sending the "checks".
I really don't see how it could be legal to sign up or agree to anything, especially if you cross it out and/or write explicitly "I do not agree". Then, the worst that I think could happen is the check bounces I would hope.

I gotta wonder how this applies to unsolicited "checks" sent in the mail. You know, the ones that claim you agree to sign up for some useless monthly service plan if you cash it.
Can that really be legally binding? What if you cross off any words on the check itself that indicate your agreement, write "I do not agree" and then endorse the check, and your bank cashes it. Can your local utility really sign you up for a useless service plan and legally make you pay for it at that point?

And yet Chrome still can't do CSS3 gradients right..... http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41756#c71

Chrome's Javascript is terrible in my experience. Every time I write something that needs speed, both Firefox and IE are way better. The last example was a page that did nothing more than scroll and resize images across a page, so they were bigger when in the middle of the page, and smaller by the edges. The page just runs the images in an infinite loop, and the images are only about 600 pixels big, and there are only 70-80 of them. For maximum smoothness, I ran setInterval at 4ms for 250fps, and easily obtained 250fps on both Firefox and IE. Chrome and Opera, however, could barely manage 40fps on the same machine! On slower computers, it got worse too, with Chrome falling to 22 fps while Firefox still managed 250. The javascript is so basic and simply I could probably paste it in a comment right here.

The decline is solely from Chrome becoming mainstream and Google advertising it on their site, where lots of mom and pop Firefox users probably "accidentally" switch to Chrome because of some warning or advertisement from Google.

The reality is both Chrome and Firefox are great browsers, and only a tiny fraction of people are upset with the changes from version to version. Generally, most of us should just be happy that people are NOT using IE6 anymore.

Although personally, Chrome has not kept up with important CSS3 features nearly as well as Firefox, and now IE10 and IE11 have passed Chrome in my book. I mean, something as BASIC as linear gradients you'd expect to work in all modern browsers, but only Firefox and IE10+ can get it right. See bug 41756 - http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41756#c71

The amount of things that completely suck in IE8 and IE9 mean that pretty much all new HTML5 sites I develop target IE10+. Not that anybody really uses IE of any version anyway, but if you do, it had better be IE10+ or you're SOL.

IE8 isn't even an HTML5 browser. It was the first version actually good for HTML4, back in the day, but that day is long past now. IE8 doesn't support opacity, rgba, box-shadow, calc, or transform, just to name a few really useful CSS3 features.
IE9 at least will work with HTML5 sites, and just look a little ugly. You really need IE10+ for text-shadow, gradients, and transitions, and then you're getting on par with Firefox and Chrome.

The tools aren't as great, but they're there at least. I prefer to debug in Firefox most of the time still.

I think it's nice that Chrome and Firefox update so fast, quickly adding HTML5/CSS3 features so after a short while the majority of people have browsers that can use those features. Even with the difference in release models, IE10 manages to get quite a lot of things right that Chrome still hasn't fixed, like CSS3 linear gradients over large areas without horrible dithering for example, and CSS3 font-stretch support.

Press F12.

Personally, IE10+ has surpassed Chrome with regard to being a modern HTML 5 browser.

I guess, since it seems like every time I see somebody with a 2560 or 2880 width monitor, it's effectively pretending to be 1280 and 1440 anyway...
"Why does this website go off the edge on my monitor?"
"I don't know, it looks good for me, I'm using 1920 width, what's your computer set to?"
"Says 2880"
"Send me a screenshot"
Screenshot is basically 1440 pixels blown up to 200%....

That's great and all, and actually it's typically called I, P, and B frames, with B in this case being a frame that requires both the previous and the future I-frame information to base changes off of. Even with-out B-frames (which I'm not sure are actually used in real-world MPEG-2 or H.264, etc much anyway), the issue is MPC-HC has no trouble frame stepping forward, and VLC does, on the same videos.

What about restaurants like Denny's (and there are many others around me) that just list every food item under a specific seat number on the paper receipt they bring you for your bill. You can then cash-out by paying either the entire bill or a specific seat number, or even group of seat numbers. It's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

Really? I have no problem with MPC-HC just using the keyboard arrows to do that in just about any video. Some videos don't like going backward one frame though.

I have the same issues he sees, and pretty much gave up on VLC. Why does MPC-HC work so much better, and feel so significantly less bloated? Isn't that all open source too?

A single AAA battery can be lethal, if you connect each end with something sharp directly inside your veins on each arm, bridging the 1.5v DC (or less) circuit across your heart.

Maybe that was the problem - I didn't want to keep buying newer and newer versions of OS X just to run Xcode, and the last version of Xcode refuses to do anything useful now as far as iOS is concerned. It is a 2007 edition with OS X 10.4 on it still. This is still quite the problem, as my Windows Vista computers from the same exact year (2007) and my copy of Visual Studio 2008 (from 2007) still function just fine for all programming needs. Even my older Windows XP computers and copies of Visual Studio 2003 are still usable. Eclipse runs on all these computers too, without paying for OS upgrades.

Basically, with anything Apple, you get into this perpetual rat-race of upgrades, and have to constantly spend money (on hardware or software) just to keep things usable from a basic functionality standpoint. You simply don't have to do that with Windows, Linux, or Android development. The things you buy still work just fine a couple of years later, and you're never forced to spend money on upgrades just to keep developing.