It may not have been designed for audio files, but it's pretty damn good at them anyway - the hydrogen audio chaps rate is as equivalent to AAC and vorbis at the same bitrate, as well as having excellent quality at low bitrates along with low algorithmic delay. It appears to be a "cake and eat it" codec at present.
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.
Now the problem that#s always plagued vorbis... will we see widespread hardware support for it?
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.
Already has good adoption
on
Opus 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
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.
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.
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?
This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup
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).
Code on GitHub is no different from comments on slashdot or images on Flicker any other website in that regard. All the posts are covered by copyright, which is held by the original poster. All the sites have TOS which state that the poster gives the site permission to reproduce the content. Furthermore, even if the user didn't read the TOS, they intentionally made the posts knowing full well it would be republished (that is the entire reason for posting on any of those sites), so they have already given implied consent.
Where the difference comes into play is making it clear what third parties can do with the content. Flicker gets this right by assuming all rights reserved unless otherwise specified, while up to now GitHub has been putting their heads in the sand. This is a disservice to all their users as it makes the site far less usefull, but it isn't really a legal liability for GitHub itself.
You have to, without question, use the cable company's box. No other box will work.
Most 3rd party DVRs and VCRs these days have IR output capability, so they can change the channel on the cable box and then record the output. You still have to use the cable box as a tuner, but you can record using anything after that.
The first Calliga release was a little over a year ago, although the Calliga fork occurred about 2.5 years ago. It was a mass-exodus fork where nearly all the developers and maintainers went to the new project.
(and I assume Words is Kword 2).
Nope, Calliga Words was written from scratch over the last few years. Kword is the only KOffice application that did not become a Calliga application.
You should RTFA more often :)
on
The H Shuts Down
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Their stories were posted on slashdot pretty regularly, at least weekly if I had to guess. I don't know how to search slashdot just for links in articles, but a general search brings up quite a few of them.
Skip the regergitated article and go strait to the press release to see the map, and a video (and a link to the paper if you have access or are willing to pay $30).
Any question over the legitimacy of these documents has long since been resolved. The information is out there, and at least some of it (the official documents at least if not Snowden's commentary) is confirmed to be accurate. You can't put that cat back in the bag, so the military is not revealing anything by blocking those sites - especially since the block is broad and doesn't shed any light on whether specific portions of what was said is accurate.
The other (and arguably more important) purpose for continuing to treat classified information as classified until it is officially declassified is to prevent disclosure of even more secrets. Without doing a carefull study of exactly what has been released, what has become widely spread and confirmed or not, and how it impacts the mission at a high level, you are highly likely to inadvertantly reveal (or confirm, or draw associations between) other sensitive information.
There are lots of ways this can become complicated really fast. Someone working on some portion of a project may not realize why some information about another part is sensitive since it is harmless information for their part of the project. The leak itself may result in a change in what is classified. For example if X and Y are completely non-sensitive on their own but combined allow you to infer Z which is classified, it is customary to pick one of them to treat as classifed to protect Z, while the other remains FOUO. If X was being treated as classified and is now leaked, but Y and Z are still secret, then it may be prudent to start treating Y as classified going forward. It is also possible that even though a specific detail has been leaked, the enemy didn't understand it's significance or what it meant at all due to lack of context, so it does make sense to continue treating it as classified, even though it is already in the "public".
So until someone has carefully considered all these factors, developed a new classification guide, trained everyone on the new guide, and resolved any ambiguities that come up while implementing the new guidelines, it really does make sense to continue treating the leaked information as classified. Even if "common sense" might make you think it is a pointless exercise.
PS: This is a justification of the rules regarding legitimately classified information. I am not justifying the fact that these surveilence programs existed, or that their existance was classified in violation of the 4th ammendment.
There will always be disagreement on some issues of policy. Unfortunately, preserving our fundamental freedoms and the checks and balances that ensure them seems to continually take backseat to all these other disagreements. Committing to uphold the constitution should be a prerequisite to serving in government, not something that is so low on people's priority that none of the candidates even discuss it in their campaign, and all of them violate it when elected. Assembling a large number of people who will put freedom first when deciding who to vote for will be a wonderful influence on our government, even (and perhaps especially) if the people they elect are split on other economic and social issues.
The range bubbles are one way distance. To verify this look at the one surrounding Denver. Colorado is about 380 miles across, and the diameter of that bubble is slightly larger, so they have about a 200 mile radius. The advertized range for the two Tesla S models are 230 & 300 miles, so neither can drive from a charging station to the edge of a bubble and back.
They might try to fight the RIAA/MPAA in court next, or come up with a new way to find extra-solar planets, or create new physics, or even run for public office.
No we won't. This just confirms our belief that complaining about problems on slashdot is all that is needed to make a difference.
And to add to that, there already are a number of observatories scattered about which devote some/all of their time to educational and outreach. There aren't any space telescopes dedicated to that purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
It may not have been designed for audio files, but it's pretty damn good at them anyway - the hydrogen audio chaps rate is as equivalent to AAC and vorbis at the same bitrate, as well as having excellent quality at low bitrates along with low algorithmic delay. It appears to be a "cake and eat it" codec at present.
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.
Now the problem that#s always plagued vorbis... will we see widespread hardware support for it?
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.
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.
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?
This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup
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).
Code on GitHub is no different from comments on slashdot or images on Flicker any other website in that regard. All the posts are covered by copyright, which is held by the original poster. All the sites have TOS which state that the poster gives the site permission to reproduce the content. Furthermore, even if the user didn't read the TOS, they intentionally made the posts knowing full well it would be republished (that is the entire reason for posting on any of those sites), so they have already given implied consent.
Where the difference comes into play is making it clear what third parties can do with the content. Flicker gets this right by assuming all rights reserved unless otherwise specified, while up to now GitHub has been putting their heads in the sand. This is a disservice to all their users as it makes the site far less usefull, but it isn't really a legal liability for GitHub itself.
You have to, without question, use the cable company's box. No other box will work.
Most 3rd party DVRs and VCRs these days have IR output capability, so they can change the channel on the cable box and then record the output. You still have to use the cable box as a tuner, but you can record using anything after that.
I think the Calliga name is quite new...
The first Calliga release was a little over a year ago, although the Calliga fork occurred about 2.5 years ago. It was a mass-exodus fork where nearly all the developers and maintainers went to the new project.
(and I assume Words is Kword 2).
Nope, Calliga Words was written from scratch over the last few years. Kword is the only KOffice application that did not become a Calliga application.
Their stories were posted on slashdot pretty regularly, at least weekly if I had to guess. I don't know how to search slashdot just for links in articles, but a general search brings up quite a few of them.
Skip the regergitated article and go strait to the press release to see the map, and a video (and a link to the paper if you have access or are willing to pay $30).
Any question over the legitimacy of these documents has long since been resolved. The information is out there, and at least some of it (the official documents at least if not Snowden's commentary) is confirmed to be accurate. You can't put that cat back in the bag, so the military is not revealing anything by blocking those sites - especially since the block is broad and doesn't shed any light on whether specific portions of what was said is accurate.
The other (and arguably more important) purpose for continuing to treat classified information as classified until it is officially declassified is to prevent disclosure of even more secrets. Without doing a carefull study of exactly what has been released, what has become widely spread and confirmed or not, and how it impacts the mission at a high level, you are highly likely to inadvertantly reveal (or confirm, or draw associations between) other sensitive information.
There are lots of ways this can become complicated really fast. Someone working on some portion of a project may not realize why some information about another part is sensitive since it is harmless information for their part of the project. The leak itself may result in a change in what is classified. For example if X and Y are completely non-sensitive on their own but combined allow you to infer Z which is classified, it is customary to pick one of them to treat as classifed to protect Z, while the other remains FOUO. If X was being treated as classified and is now leaked, but Y and Z are still secret, then it may be prudent to start treating Y as classified going forward. It is also possible that even though a specific detail has been leaked, the enemy didn't understand it's significance or what it meant at all due to lack of context, so it does make sense to continue treating it as classified, even though it is already in the "public".
So until someone has carefully considered all these factors, developed a new classification guide, trained everyone on the new guide, and resolved any ambiguities that come up while implementing the new guidelines, it really does make sense to continue treating the leaked information as classified. Even if "common sense" might make you think it is a pointless exercise.
PS: This is a justification of the rules regarding legitimately classified information. I am not justifying the fact that these surveilence programs existed, or that their existance was classified in violation of the 4th ammendment.
There will always be disagreement on some issues of policy. Unfortunately, preserving our fundamental freedoms and the checks and balances that ensure them seems to continually take backseat to all these other disagreements. Committing to uphold the constitution should be a prerequisite to serving in government, not something that is so low on people's priority that none of the candidates even discuss it in their campaign, and all of them violate it when elected. Assembling a large number of people who will put freedom first when deciding who to vote for will be a wonderful influence on our government, even (and perhaps especially) if the people they elect are split on other economic and social issues.
The range bubbles are one way distance. To verify this look at the one surrounding Denver. Colorado is about 380 miles across, and the diameter of that bubble is slightly larger, so they have about a 200 mile radius. The advertized range for the two Tesla S models are 230 & 300 miles, so neither can drive from a charging station to the edge of a bubble and back.
They might try to fight the RIAA/MPAA in court next, or come up with a new way to find extra-solar planets, or create new physics, or even run for public office.
No we won't. This just confirms our belief that complaining about problems on slashdot is all that is needed to make a difference.
And to add to that, there already are a number of observatories scattered about which devote some/all of their time to educational and outreach. There aren't any space telescopes dedicated to that purpose.
No, it indicates that these files were intentionally curated child porn, as opposed to files in a browser cache that ended up there accidentally.
He made short flights a lighter shade of blue than long flights, which over-emphasizes dense areas with lots of nearby airports.