Slashdot Mirror

Well from the ISP's perspective there are two problems. One is the MPAA/RIAA or some front organisation connecting to the tracker, getting a list of ISPs and complaining. In that case they need to send out a warning letter.

The other is if P2P traffic is consuming all their bandwidth. In that case they'd use deep packet inspection and throttle all torrents regardless of legality.

Though, interestingly, the FCC ruled that illegal before the 2015 Net Neutrality ruling

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-...

Then again Pai said throttling bittorrent is OK and that it's basically up to consumers and the media to expose bad behaviour

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

I.e. throttling for network management purposes is OK, but anti competitive throttling is not. However consumers, not the government, should decide that.

What you want is a netbook. They were $3-400 machines with an Intel Atom. E.g. I had one of these with 2GB ram for a couple of years. The problem is that Chrome bloated to the point that it run like crap on an Atom and Windows slows down too for reasons that are a bit unclear.

Of course people like Asus decided to stop promoting netbooks. That's not the same as stopping making them. E.g.

https://www.newegg.com/Product...

$229 machine with an Intel Celeron N3350, 4GB Ram and 64GB of eMMC. The only difference between that the original netbooks is that you've got a slightly less bad screen. 11.6" 1366*768 instead of 10" 1024*600. It's Windows 10 S but you can upgrade to normal Windows. I bet it'd run Linux too.

Net neutrality does not mean you get to copy copyrighted material. If you do that, stop having an iot thermostat.

But the ISP would be cutting off your internet connection merely because the copyright holder thinks you're pirating their material.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

How do we know the copyright holder isn't making a mistake?

Falsely Accused ‘Pirate’ Wins $101,000 in Attorney Fees

Grandma endures wrongful ISP piracy suspension

Samsung is estimated to earn $110 (roughly £83/AU$140), due to the Samsung-manufactured OLED displays and memory chips that go into each device.

You may well be right -- I based my comment on this article: https://www.cnet.com/news/how-...
Personally, I've tried wrist, earlobe, and handgrip monitors, and none of them have given me a consistent reading.

lynx https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/b...

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

So they got fined by the FCC and stopped doing it

https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

COMCAST: In 2005, the nationâ(TM)s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

The FCC ruled against them and they said they'd move to different mechanisms to handle 'high bandwidth customers'.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

TELUS: In 2005, Canadaâ(TM)s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

This is bad. On the other hand Google and Facebook have also blocked content on political grounds on Youtube and Facebook and everyone told me 'private company, First Amendment doesn't apply'.

Obviously it's Canada so the First Amendment doesn't apply, and neither do FCC rules. It seems very bad though

https://thetyee.ca/News/2005/0...

AT&T: From 2007â"2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such âoeover-the-topâ voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

Apple operate a walled garden and if AT&T convinced them to block apps from their store, they can do that. Net Neutrality doesn't affect this

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstreamâ(TM)s own search portal and results.

They were exposed in the press and backed off the change.

https://www.dslreports.com/sho...

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizonâ(TM)s court challenge against the FCCâ(TM)s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agencyâ(TM)s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

The service seems pretty terrible but who cares? It's not like you don't have a choice of other mobile carriers if you don't like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" Slate's Farhad Manjoo panned the service by suggesting that MetroPCS was able to

What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...

It was a government agency going against the explicit wishes of congress.

It has nothing to do with the technical merits of NN, everyone agrees NN is a good thing. It had to do with a government agency overreaching their authority to make rules, and as it happened in opposition to explicit directions already given by congress.

FCC tried to enforce NN starting roughly 2004, and got shot down in federal court for not having the authority.

FCC then reclassified ISPs under Title II and tried again, in 2015. The reclassification was widely regarded as legally dubious.

In the telecommunications act of 1999, Congress had stated explicitly that the internet be unregulated, so the FCC enforcing NN was seen as a gross overreach. A federal agency simply cannot override the explicit wishes of congress, no matter how good the idea may seem.

You can draw a parallel with Obama's executive orders on immigration. In that case, the president was, in effect, enacting new laws in opposition to the actual laws that congress had passed.

That practice is very bad for a country, and so it the FCC thing.

Get the big companies to make up suggested legislation and get a senator or representative to submit them. It would probably pass,and would solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction.

A while back, Elon tweeted something about having a quiet evening with some wine and ambien. Fortunately, Elon is wealthy enough that someone else is probably driving if he has to go anywhere under this mix. Elon has also commented that he could be bipolar.

So, sometimes one wonders if Elon is just toying with us, or if he's high.

I think there's one very good thing about this recent spate of announcements and the self-designations that some of them are fake. There was a certain class of young Elon Musk fan (I'm looking at you, Reddit /r/spacex) who didn't believe that Elon Musk lied. No, I'm not kidding. I just figure that all corporate executives lie and that it's part of the job, but not those young fans. But now, Elon seems to be putting out enough consciously conflicting messages that some of them will turn out to be lies, and the fan base can adjust its adoration accordingly.

I do think he's done a whole lot of great things. And I think you need someone like him to do them.

Or WhatsApp. It scrapes every user's contacts and shares the data with fb. The nice thing about this is you don't need WhatsApp yourself, any one of your friends with the app, your name and phone number will do https://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to...

For those who don't know BLU, I had never heard of them either, so I assumed it is some sort of small Chinese OEM, but actually it seems BLU (Bold Like Us) phones are popular with the Latin population in the Americas. They have been known to to send data to China, so I guess their reputation is not top notch...

Plus of course Intel probably do everything they can legally to keep OEMs from using anything but Intel CPUs.

They've done lots of illegal things as well. They paid Michael Dell (amongst other OEMs) millions to reduce AMD volumes during the Athlon 64 years, when AMD CPUs beat out Intel CPUs on almost everything that wasn't compiled using the ICC (Intel's compiler). They were found guilty and ordered to pay a ~1.25 billion USD fine. A fine they still haven't paid. This did massive damage to AMD at a time when they were expecting increased revenues as the fruit of their investment in R&D.

So I'd like to AMD to be competitive. Right now it seems like AMD is competitive for desktop machines, not so much on mobile. Which is a shame.

It seems to be competitive enough, it just needs a better laptop surrounding it, and the Vega iGPU needs better drivers. The problems seem fixable in few months time.

Last time I was in California AT&T did. Something like this

https://www.pcworld.com/articl...

If that $49 deal for an iPhone that AT&T has been running for months didn't entice you to buy one of Apple's smartphones, how does a free iPhone sound to you?

AT&T's 'Free' iPhone Will Cost at Least $1,355.76. The much-maligned carrier is offering new and old iPhone users alike an 8GB 3GS iPhone with a two-year contract for free. Even shipping is free.
AT&T's voice contracts range from $39.99 a month with 450 anytime minutes to $69.99 a month with unlimited minutes. Data plans range from $15 a month for 200MB of data to $45 a month for 4GB of data and mobile hotspot support.

If you want to text on your phone, it'll cost 20 cents per message or 30 cents per video or image, or you can get unlimited messaging plan for $20 a month.

Add all the costs together, plus a $36 activation fee, and you'll be paying AT&T $2075.76 over the life of the contract, if you stay under the talk, text and limits in your plan.

I.e a 'free' phone that costs at least $2K over a two year contract, or about $86 a month even if you stay inside your limits.

More recently

https://www.cnet.com/news/veri...

Free iPhone 6 in 2014 with a $50 contract. I'm guessing the TCO will end up being more.

Of course iPhones have got quite a bit more expensive since then.

They'll start doing what they were doing before 2015, like they did to Netflix. A major ISP (Comcast, IIRC) throttled Netflix's throughput for a few months. The issue with Netflix content appeared rather abruptly, and then after Netflix agreed to pay an undisclosed amount it magically went away - as if their pipes could suddenly, almost magically, could handle the traffic again.

There were no longer allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality rules, and with Ajit Pai saying F U to everyone not from an ISP that kind of abuse will happen again.

This was Microsoft's stand for the longest time, it cost too much for the extra time it took to test.

"It all comes back to one programmer being careless," Paller said. "You wrote a program, asked someone for input, gave them space for a certain amount of characters, and didn't check to see if the program could take more. You are incompetent, and you are the problem. One guy making that mistake is creating all the work for the rest of us." https://www.cnet.com/news/stud...

According to this article

https://www.cnet.com/news/atsc-3-0-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-future-of-broadcast-television/

They will be able to send you targeted ads because "most devices will be Internet-connected". That is, they're using the internet connection to identify each individual viewer. Smart TV's for everyone!

They had to use FLIR to get an accurate enough scan.

Which is available in phones.

https://www.cnet.com/products/cat-s60/

That's Apple's own expectation.

No it isn't. https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-expects-people-to-use-their-iphones-for-3-years-on-average/ 3 years is - and then they fully expect you to habd it to somebody else to use it for some more time.

Lower your fanboy ranting a level.

I prefer Intel CPUs and NVidia GPUs given a choice.

What I said is true for x64.

https://www.cnet.com/au/news/a...

The lawsuits started in 1987. Rich Lovgren, former assistant general counsel for AMD, recalled that AMD founder Jerry Sanders sat through "every second" of one of the trials. "There were certainly bridges that were burned," he said.

Under the terms of the settlement, both companies gained free access to each other's patents in a cross-licensing agreement. AMD agreed to pay Intel royalties for making chips based on the x86 architecture, said Mulloy, who worked for AMD when the settlement was drafted. Royalties, he added, only go one way. AMD does get to collect royalties from Intel for any patents Intel might adopt.

AMD also agreed not to make any clones of Intel chips, but nothing bars Intel from doing a clone of an AMD chip, Mulloy added.

While the terms may seem one-sided, AMD has benefited from the agreement as well. Without the clean and enforceable right to make x86 chips granted by the agreement, AMD would not have been able to produce the K6, K6 II, K6III, Athlon, Duron, Athlon 64 or Opteron chips without fear of incurring a lawsuit.

Intel probably doesn't have access to the graphics patents AMD picked up when it bought ATI though. There were rumours it would licence them which it denied.

https://www.extremetech.com/ex...

Intel, however, has reached out to put the kibosh on such rumors. In a statement sent to Barrons, Intel stated, "The recent rumors that Intel has licensed AMDâ(TM)s graphics technology are untrue." The company has said that further information will not be provided.

Of course if it buys AMD GPU dies and puts them in the same package as Intel chips it doesn't need to licence all AMD's graphics patents, just agree on a price for the dies. It also doesn't need to hire a bunch of GPU engineers to reinvent a GPU based on AMD's technology. Intel have a rather poor record of performance GPU design. E.g. the last discrete Intel GPU was the disappointing i740.

And AMD have a pretty good record in building embedded GPUs for the PS4 and Xbox One.

I.e. it all makes sense. Intel and AMD don't need to agree on a licence fee for all AMD's graphics patents. Intel doesn't need to design a discrete GPU. AMD can just sell dies to Intel. Intel gets access to console or better class graphics, gets to show off its EMIB technology and can probably sell the resultant module to people like Apple. Intel and NVidia can continue to glare at each other.

Unless it's using something like Android TV or an embedded Chromecast, which some recent TV offerings do, the answer is a definitive no.
If it's a Samsung TV, then it's an pretty blatant and obvious NO, all caps. Samsung, LG and Vizio were already caught red handed with active spying practices, and some of them are facing or faced lawsuits because of it.
Just unplug it. Without smart TV features, it's just a plain TV, which is the safest option as it always was.

https://www.pcworld.com/articl...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
http://bgr.com/2014/10/31/smar...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
https://www.consumerreports.or...
https://www.cnet.com/news/sams...
http://bgr.com/2013/11/20/lg-s...

And no, it's not illogical to prevent some devices from connecting to the Internet. The reality of it is that the less stuff you have connected, the less chance you have of getting spied upon and your data being collected. This also applies to IoT devices and other Internet connected devices. If it does not make sense for a service to be connected to the Internet, it shouldn't be. You already have a proper dedicated device for all the "smart" needs, you don't need the often poorly updated with crappy hardware duplicate that came with the TV.

Basic principle of privacy and security standards, limit the stuff you have connected, always measure the convenience of devices versus the privacy risks they can bring. Something that it just seems that lots of people don't realize these days, which is why we'll soon miss the days we didn't have all details of our lives exposed to hackers, advertisers and big corporations.

A single smartphone and a computer is bad enough as is, adding security cameras, TVs, refrigerators, thermostats, smart bulbs, automated blinds, always listening assistants, and whatever more is out there is not simply wrong, it's just plain stupid. People barely have any knowledge or control of simple routers and their desktop computers, let alone all these smart home crap that most don't even really need. People and the tech industry in general are just marching towards a path of no return, we already have growing evidence on how damaging the move is, but people are usually blind to it because they still didn't face their first identity theft case, or something of the like. By the time most people realize the problem it'll already be too late. Data is out there, either publicly exposed or being sold in huge packages of information to be exploited on the dark web, and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Battery powered cars aren't the future. Hydrogen combustion engines, and if made safe nuclear cars. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/...

Re: "Why would they do this?" AC

To track the ip of everyone who looks.
An easy way to collect the locations of interested bloggers, the media, press, journalists, independent journalists, students, historians.
Recall
"NSA likely targets anybody who's 'Tor-curious'"
https://www.cnet.com/g00/news/...
".. selection rules that potentially add to an NSA watch list anybody who has not only used, but visited online privacy-protection tools .."

Re "malware". The security services get the ip, the actual ip behind most of the consumer grade VPN products used by people looking the site.
Cooking gov, mil grade malware into the files is just going to push out quality gov malware onto a lot of people who might have very good anti virus.
Better to sort the ip lists of people who looked and then push malware down to the interesting people. Less for the better quality AV products to find globally.
Push too much malware out and it gets detected. The results also have to be understood by gov/mil/contractors in real time.

Malware tends to be held back for interesting people. Everyone gets tracked. 4 hops of their connections, friends get reviewed.
Lots of friends in the elite north east of the USA? Interesting they looked, but not that interesting.

Lots of friends and connections globally? Human review. Appropriate malware considered for the system found, AV the person updated for, type of person.

That's a pretty new implementation, and doesn't work everywhere. My TV is 5 years old and doesn't support ARC, not sure many of them did back then. What is Audio Return Channel?

Depends on what the local version of a police grade DROPOUTJEEP collects?
"NSA spyware gives agency full access to the .. (Dec 31, 2013)
https://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-...
i.e. the push/pull files. SMS and contact list retrieval, voicemail, geolocation, hot mic, camera capture, cell tower location...

Actually strike what I said in that previous reply...Sprint has been saying that big upgrades are right around the corner, usually placing 3-6 month timespans, for the past 12 years. They have a tower upgrade map that always shows these short timespans, ranging anywhere from a month or a year, where they say the tower is being upgraded. Meanwhile, that entire time, the service kept getting worse and worse.

Oh and: https://www.cnet.com/news/spri...

It's well past that two years, and two years before that, Sprint said "pardon our dust":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/...

Seriously, this is nothing new with Sprint. I was with them for a very long time before I got tired of their shit, especially when they blatantly lied to me saying that my dropped call rate was 0%, and during that same call I got dropped, the rep actually called me back, I said WTF, and she said "I don't know what that was."

it is not even being alleged, that the devices are harmful to anyone other than the actual users.

They're at least as dangerous as the Note 7

Scripts are completely unnecessary. The web worked perfectly fine back before all these bells and whistles were added.

The real transition was around 2009. That was when the World Wide Web Consortium abandoned the idea of a webpage as a static document , and embraced the idea of a webpage as an interactive application . See

https://www.cnet.com/news/an-epitaph-for-the-web-standard-xhtml-2/

GM's OnStar was supposed to work the same way, but that didn't stop the FBI.

And the only problem the judge had with it was that it prevented the occupants from calling 911 in case of an emergency, which is OnStar's primary purpose. In fact, this is what triggered the original lawsuit. The wife of a Mafia member got into a serious car accident and the OnStar button wouldn't work because the FBI was using the line already.
https://www.cnet.com/news/cour...

Apple paid $100 million to creative for the rights to the music interface that Apple copied. Revisionist history doesn't work. But I get it, you're an Apple-lyte...

Yeah, I can read that article too:

A week later, Apple countersued, claiming Creative was infringing on Apple patents for user interfaces.

The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album, said Phil O'Shaughnessy, a Creative spokesman.

If you're not a patent troll supporter, that organization is just so flat out obvious and apparent that

"Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs

sums up exactly what probably everyone thinks about that patent, and its validity. Today, Jobs likely would have fought it tooth and nail to get tossed out as obvious.

Apple paid $100 million to creative for the rights to the music interface that Apple copied. Revisionist history doesn't work. But I get it, you're an Apple-lyte...

When you don't include an SDCARD and put it Live View Photos using a 20-quadrillion pixel camera, you have to do something to optimize space on the device. Hope HEIF and HVEC are good choices.

They are very good choices, HEIF offering much better than JPG compression, and more importantly allowing them to store exotic metadata like depth maps with each photo.

But on top of that, if you enable pushing photos out to iCloud, over time the originals will be removed from your system and kept in the cloud until you need the full size version. That enables you to store a ton of photos/video even on the 64GB devices...

Why on earth would you save a copy? Google'll find it again for you, even if the URL changes.

On some websites, archives of old stories may only go back a few years. Companies may go out of business, be sold to individuals with different interests, or just decide to give their website a "makeover" that includes removing all the pages that "aren't needed". Moreover, my experience is that Google is only good at finding fairly recent documents (say, within the last decade). Anything older than that is hit-or-miss.

Here's an example of a story that I read maybe 15 years ago, that I've been unable to find. The story was on Slashdot, and it linked to an interview with a tech executive at Sun or HP or another well-known company. The executive was praising the use of plain-HTML for the company's internal documents, and warning against the use of complicated GUIs and Javascript-like features. In hindsight, I think that it was the one article that most exemplified the pre-2009 vision of the World Wide Web. (2009 was the year that Tim Berners-Lee abandoned his previous vision of the web, and allowed Apple, Google, etc. to dictate the new apps-instead-of-documents HTML5 standard.)

There have been some suggestions that Southpark is making fun of anyone who bought an echo. And maybe they are, Southpark will make fun of anything. But I think the real weak link here is Amazon, or anyone who puts out a such a device with such an easy exploit path. XKCD already had a comic about messing with these ( https://xkcd.com/1807/ ). Clearly these need to have an option to rename the personality anything you choose, like your wireless network. Not that people wouldn't leave it at the default, but then you could at least call the user out for being lazy.

Oh, wait.
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/am...

Sorry. Carry on.

The reason it is longer in Europe is due to them wanting a "high level of consumer protection." There are certainly times when US law could take a lesson from others. This would likely be one of them.,

Yes but since this happened in the US, what do you expect Apple to do? Their warranty is covered under US laws.

Two-year contracts are now pretty much the de facto standard, and tend to define consumer expectation.

No they used to be the standard length of service. They are not anymore. While you can get a 2yr contract, there are more options and some cases, no annual contracts.

Every auto manufacturer could limit the factory warranty on every car sold in the US to one year regardless of consumer expectation or loan lengths, if they wanted to be a greedy dick about it.

And what you are advocating is that regardless of what the auto warranty says, my bank loan overrides the warranty even though the manufacturer never agreed to the terms. My 7 year car loan automatically forces my auto manufacturer to warranty my car for 7 years.

?Third party terms or product demand have far less to do with my argument than the bullshit claim that Apple makes a durable product. If they do, then prove it with a decent warranty that conforms to consumer expectations.

By your argument, any company that has made a "durable" product must offer unlimited lifetime warranties. A decent warranty for most electronics is 1 year and limited.

By not selling Kaspersky I feel much better now!

The CNET article was a bit more concise in its treatment of the Defenders question.

Netflix will keep the original Marvel TV series it produced, namely "The Defenders" and the four series focusing on each character, such as "Daredevil." As the Defenders are officially part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you may need both streaming services to keep up to date with the whole shebang.

In my case, this is all I care about. I see all Star Wars and Marvel movies at the theatre, and I almost never watch anything twice. So, I've never used Netflix to see one of those movies.

The original programming is a completely different story. I would have been very angry if the viewing time I'd spent on that were wasted (I'll never get a Disney service).

Oh AMD did sue Intel alright. It's just that the lawsuit was settled out of court for a huge payment by Intel (Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement).

Certain sporting events seem really choppy, such as when an ice skater does a triple axel. It seems like a series of still frames for a fraction of a second. I would really like to benefit from this technological advance. However, it does not seem possible given the limits of transmission technology.

What would the bandwidth be to eliminate that issue? My HD Homerun sends OTA 1920x1080 progressive scan or interlaced content at 30fps to my computer at roughly 15Mb/s. So an 8K TV would theoretically need a 480Mb/s to receive a signal of 7680 x 4320 progressive scan content at 60fps.

Not only is OTA unable to transmit at that speed (max 19.39 Mbps total for primary and secondary channels plus overhead), but cable companies are going to need to provide a guaranteed Gigabit to the premises for this to be remotely feasible. In fact, we are still struggling to implement 4K ATSC 3.0.

This technology is therefore more likely to show up in the Radiology lab of the local hospital than the Olympics.

Why lie? I've seen more than a dozen people try it, again since I work for a company that makes voice-controlled equipment, and I have never seen it work. We do this for a living. It does not work. The Apple fanbois resort to lying to protect Apple

We don't lie! Roll the tape!!!

Don't know about "Navigate To..." but "Directions To..." IS a standard Siri command:

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/th...

So, better check those pants of yours. They appear to be on fire...

As others have stated, either get a monitor, or get a Smart TV and just don't use the smart parts. In other words, don't connect it to your network.

Personally, the TCL 55P607 ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y... ) will likely be my next TV:

- it is 4K
- it has HDR (both HDR10 and Dolby Vision
- it has local dimming for better contrast
- it has built-in Roku (which you can just not use)

All for $650. It has pretty favorable reviews as well:

http://www.rtings.com/tv/revie...
https://www.cnet.com/products/...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

While I'd love to get an OLED from LG, they are just too expensive at the moment. Save for OLED, this TV checks off all of the boxes on my wishlist, and has a nice price to boot.

After what Vizio pulled recently with spying on their customers and collecting data on them without telling anyone (me included), and then paying a paltry $2.2M fine, I'm going to have a hard time coming around to buying something they make again. And that's after putting up with the shoddy Vizio quality (horrible remote responsiveness, apps didn't work right, etc.)...

He's like a car salesman that starts by showing you the cup holders.

He promises us the Hyperloop, then shows us the inside of its cabin.

He promises human flight to the ISS, then shows us the space, oh wait, I mean flight suit, that will be worn by travelers.

When will he show us what he promised to show us?

If every company showed nothing until everything was done we'd have quite a boring (and probably poor performing) market. This stuff, the sneak peaks, gets people excited about things now and makes them eager to see more. That's how it always works, I'm sure you weren't born yesterday? Instead of criticizing them for not delivering human space flight ahead of schedule, save your criticism for next year when they fail to meet their actual '18 Q2 delivery time. Then you'll actually have some ground to stand on!

He's like a car salesman that starts by showing you the cup holders.

He promises us the Hyperloop, then shows us the inside of its cabin.

He promises human flight to the ISS, then shows us the space, oh wait, I mean flight suit, that will be worn by travelers.

When will he show us what he promised to show us?

Are you suggesting the phone companies are in collusion with each other?

The U.S. carriers do collude in some cases. In 2008, all major U.S. carriers raised the price of each sent text message and the price of each received text message from 10 cents to 20 cents within a few months of each other. (Source)

I agree with most of your comment, particularly about how lack of classic extension support in v57 will be a huge problem for Firefox.
The worst thing about it is that at Mozilla they think they're going to win back a lot of users. Read this article to see what they think.
I think they're just delusional.
It's true that 57 will have some nice technical improvements but that won't likely attract many users back. Of the people who use Chrome or IE or Edge how many do because they're faster than Firefox? How many because it came with their OS (IE, Edge)/it was bundled with something else or publicited around all of Google's websites? (Chrome). Most of them, I'd guess.
How many non-geeks will even know or care that there's an improved version of Firefox? Not many I guess.
And one of the biggest reasons to use Firefox: Its unique extensions, will weaken significantly after 57 because many of them will stop working. And the reasons many won't be migrated to the new API is not only because of the huge work of rewriting them but because many aren't just possible with the new API.
They do have very good technical reasons for replacing the old API (too tied to the browser's internals, not compatible with multiprocess, etc) but when you have Fx's marketshare you just can't afford to do that.
I like what Firefox represents (a browser not controlled by a huge company, more independent) but their future looks very bad.

You might want to read this. "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition."

But don't worry, dear consumer. They promise to only send your data to "authorized" partners!

The abundant test drive reviews disagree with you.

Motor Trend - Exclusive: Tesla Model 3 First Drive Review - Motor Trend

Top Gear- Tesla Model 3 review: first drive of Elon Musk's affordable EV

The Verge - A closer look at Tesla Model 3's spartan interior

The Verge - Tesla Model 3 first drive: this is the car that Elon Musk promised

Bloomberg - Tesla’s Model 3 Arrives With a Surprise 310-Mile Range

Bloomberg[/COLOR] - Driving Tesla’s Model 3 Changes Everything

Car and Driver - 2018 Tesla Model 3: Everything We Know | Feature | Car and Driver

CNET - Tesla Model 3 is well worth the hype

Car Advice - Tesla Model 3 quick drive review | CarAdvice

Fortune - Here’s What Reviewers Think About Tesla’s Model 3 So Far

Ars Technica - All the things the Internet hates about the Tesla Model 3 have me excited

Mashable - Driving a Tesla Model 3 is pretty damn awesome

TechCrunch - Your smartphone is the key for the Tesla Model 3

But hey, feel free to live in your own little world and deny reality to your heart's content.

Another attempt to play catch up to Samsung.

Gee, if this review of the Gear S3 is any indication, I sure Hope not!

https://www.cnet.com/products/...