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.
I would like to be spied on by a free market intelligence agency, where I pay a subscription to be spied on, and can optionally opt-out. Ideally, this agency would be run by Cowboy Neal.
I don't think they can actually do that.
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.
Ironically, just last month we got a letter from the state, saying that our name was found on a list at the house of a guy arrested for ID theft. So we are advised to go through all the hoopla to 'ensure' our good credit. Screw it. If the guy used my name, or if twenty other wastes of oxygen do so, it isn't my problem if I don't let it be my problem.
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.
That's hilarious. Sure, why not throw in a a few more of false dichotomies? Banning censorship in science is like mandating that puppies need to be murdered, and candy should be taken away from children. Why not? Right?
We've got that one, and the christmas special. Then it's another year of waiting. Those bastards at the BBC just love screwing with our heads.
If sports teams couldn't get tax payers to flip the bill for stadiums, there would be fewer stadiums. At least fewer in small towns where the taxes are unsustainable.
They are in fact changing the comments system to 'Comments are Magic' - and slashdot will henceforth be known as 'My Little Slashy'.
I draw the line at slashdot becoming a pony cartoon. Anything short of that I think I'm okay with... especially if it pisses off the hipsters.
The only outcome of censorship, logically, is less of whatever it is you are trying to censor. So yes, if the objective is more science, and you would hope it would be, then you do not want the government interfering with it.
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.