I never said other top of the line phones weren't overpriced. Apple does try to represent top of the line as the only viable option, but they're not that different from the rest.
It's hard to take AMP seriously when the specs demand emoji in the HTML tags. But Reddit probably didn't make the links open in a new page/tab, so Google didn't activate them. Anchor tags are supported otherwise, so this is probably either bad documentation of the standard or lazy testing.
You could probably think of it as a caching proxy setup. If your data meets certain requirements, they will handle bandwidth for free. But at the expense of losing your identity and making it very hard to know what web site you are actually on. Theoretically, every search engine could use AMP-formatted sites the same way.
Not saying I like the precedent, but it's legal all the same. It's so easy for ISPs to comply that there's no question they'll keep providing the state government with Internet service.
Local control is good, but phone ecosystem lock-in is not so good. Must be why I've never heard of it. Then again, true local control seems to not be available much at all.
The wake word isn't required. You can always manually activate it with a button. In fact, before Apple bought Siri, it was available on the iPhone 4. Therefore, it's an artificial restriction to require the 4S to use Siri. The wake words only worked with the phone on the charger at the time, anyway.
It's one thing to indicate that you do not agree and pass ruling, it is entirely a different thing to show the level of contempt Pai has had for the public at large. Considering past FCC Chairs, Pai has been the most antagonistic to the public since the FCC's inception.
Turns out that a "healthy economy" does not equate with better conditions for voters.
Which is why the California bill only applies to intrastate commerce (state contracts with ISPs). No ISP actually is required by law to do anything, but they won't get a state contract unless they do.
That's not how this works. Because any company following the California law would also be meeting the minimum requirements of federal law. And if you've looked at the bill, the state simply won't contract with an ISP that violates the principles of net neutrality. So they are enforcing it by means of intrastate commerce, which is fully within their jurisdiction.
Yeah, so the Apple cloud interprets it. And then the Apple cloud contacts your smart device manufacturer's server. Your phone literally does nothing with that but send the audio and maybe a confirmation response.
Most results can come back in some form of interpreted XML/HTML and you don't need new smarts locally to display/present them. Only having the phone itself perform an action would need to software on the client side.
And yet they restricted it to specific phones when it came out. Apple loves to pretend it's part of the phone and that it has more to do with their hardware and software.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said other top of the line phones weren't overpriced. Apple does try to represent top of the line as the only viable option, but they're not that different from the rest.
Why refute it? When the phone's this overpriced, I expect that level of performance. And maybe plated in silver too.
I think someone needs to transcode your comment. It doesn't appear to be in a parseable format.
It's hard to take AMP seriously when the specs demand emoji in the HTML tags. But Reddit probably didn't make the links open in a new page/tab, so Google didn't activate them. Anchor tags are supported otherwise, so this is probably either bad documentation of the standard or lazy testing.
You could probably think of it as a caching proxy setup. If your data meets certain requirements, they will handle bandwidth for free. But at the expense of losing your identity and making it very hard to know what web site you are actually on. Theoretically, every search engine could use AMP-formatted sites the same way.
Guess which one I'll choose?
Yeah, I'm sure they would be glad to announce that it is, in fact, gambling.
I don't disagree. It was always a gambling scheme. They're obviously not selling something worth what people are paying each time.
Not saying I like the precedent, but it's legal all the same. It's so easy for ISPs to comply that there's no question they'll keep providing the state government with Internet service.
Ah, so you're the nobody!
Local control is good, but phone ecosystem lock-in is not so good. Must be why I've never heard of it. Then again, true local control seems to not be available much at all.
Offline good. At the expense of ecosystem lock-in, bad.
That was a question. This is an unusual configuration at the very least.
You're using an AppleTV as the hub for your lights? You're the one that chose the example.
The wake word isn't required. You can always manually activate it with a button. In fact, before Apple bought Siri, it was available on the iPhone 4. Therefore, it's an artificial restriction to require the 4S to use Siri. The wake words only worked with the phone on the charger at the time, anyway.
It's one thing to indicate that you do not agree and pass ruling, it is entirely a different thing to show the level of contempt Pai has had for the public at large. Considering past FCC Chairs, Pai has been the most antagonistic to the public since the FCC's inception.
Turns out that a "healthy economy" does not equate with better conditions for voters.
Which is why the California bill only applies to intrastate commerce (state contracts with ISPs). No ISP actually is required by law to do anything, but they won't get a state contract unless they do.
can the States preempt the authority of the FCC here
Are the ISPs still going to be complying with FCC requirements if this passes? Yes. So the authority of the FCC has not been challenged.
Federal Laws supersede State laws.
That's not how this works. Because any company following the California law would also be meeting the minimum requirements of federal law. And if you've looked at the bill, the state simply won't contract with an ISP that violates the principles of net neutrality. So they are enforcing it by means of intrastate commerce, which is fully within their jurisdiction.
Not really part of the debate. First gen devices didn't have this hardware - you had to manually trigger it to listen.
set living rooms lights to 70%
Yeah, so the Apple cloud interprets it. And then the Apple cloud contacts your smart device manufacturer's server. Your phone literally does nothing with that but send the audio and maybe a confirmation response.
Most results can come back in some form of interpreted XML/HTML and you don't need new smarts locally to display/present them. Only having the phone itself perform an action would need to software on the client side.
And yet they restricted it to specific phones when it came out. Apple loves to pretend it's part of the phone and that it has more to do with their hardware and software.
They tried putting it on Bing, but nobody visits that site.
That's a fine metaphor, but I don't think that's how they are actually set up when it comes to routing calls to your non-GV numbers.
If you wait until college to learn to spell, that's a lot to take in with your other coursework and all.