I have Virgin Mobile. "Unlimited" data & texting and 300 minutes. $25/month (They just raised it to $35 unless you were grandfathered in). Optimus V that I paid $150 for.
I've rooted it and used it as my internet provider when on vacation with any problems. I use VOIP to get around the 300 minutes a month. For $25 it's absolutely worth it. And since it's prepaid it's $25 + sales tax on $25. Not "$25/month" + 911 fees + a ton of other fees so that it comes out closer to $40/month.
+1. I've got a Moto Triumph on VMobile at $25 a month and I love it. Coverage is relatively good in my area, although that's not the case elsewhere (e.g. there's literally nothing in Montana). If you can live with worse coverage, it's a great contract-free option.
Plus, data is still 100% unlimited, at least until some time next year. Even then the soft cap will be 2.5gb.
This summary implies that cutting back on nuclear power is a good thing...which it most definitely is not.
As long as the companies building them don't build them near potential disaster areas and don't cut corners on safety measures the benefits outweigh the costs.
I fail to see why IE 10 would not run on vista which is like 98% the same as Windows 7.
Did you know that 72% of statistics are made up on the spot?
But even if that is accurate, I think the answer is clear: the 2% that is different must be significant in some way when it comes to what they're doing with IE10. We don't even know what they plan to change in IE10. It could very well be a "Gazelle"-like project, totally different than IE9, in which case the need for the new development features of Windows 7 would be obvious.
Very few people, I would imagine, would upgrade their whole OS just to get a newer version of a browser (something many consumers don't even understand anyway). So there must be some good reason for MS to not support Vista.
Programmers already have to split efforts between Android and Honeycomb; the future will add ChromeOS, Chrome, and GoogleTV. So yes, Google desperately needs a convergence plan.
There's no difference between Chrome and Chrome OS, from a developer's perspective. And since all it runs are webapps, anything you write for Chrome or Chrome OS would also work fine on any other platform.
There's really no need to consolidate the different projects (except Gingerbread/Honeycomb), although different Google people have said that Android and CrOS will be merged at some point.
You complete turd, you have absolutely no evidence for what you state.
Google is the biggest shit corporate spyware technological empire with the most amount of user data as compared to any government (let alone software) agency out there. Do you have absolutely any idea how the hell they are the biggest money maker - far FAR bigger than Microsoft!
Google sell user data, user stats, user analytics and behaviour patterns, not to mention their web analytics data to any piss ant out there, just to make a tiny bit more money to their collosal empire..
Hmm, speaking of having no evidence.... Hypocrisy FTW!
I feel like taking the time to argue with you would be a waste, because you're clearly just spewing garbage without any rational basis for what you're saying.
If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.
Problem being that, in doing so, they would cut off oxygen to every site on the internet that uses ads for revenue (probably some massive percentage).
That's what bother me about ad blocking. As the owner of a small site that will be paid for by ad revenue (because I'm broke), I see this as an extremely bad thing. Maybe good from a consumer perspective, but bad from any other.
And as someone else said, it's possible many website owners would just tell anyone using IE w/ ad blocking to either jump off a cliff or switch to, say, Chrome.
I definitely agree. I don't like DRM any more than the next guy from a consumer perspective, but it's a necessary evil.
Look at YouTube, for example. YouTube has said that until there's an acceptable way for what is essentially DRM in videos, HTML5 won't become the default on YouTube.
HTML5 video simply won't replace flash until there's some way for publishers to secure their content.
Slashdot Mirror
I have Virgin Mobile. "Unlimited" data & texting and 300 minutes. $25/month (They just raised it to $35 unless you were grandfathered in). Optimus V that I paid $150 for.
I've rooted it and used it as my internet provider when on vacation with any problems. I use VOIP to get around the 300 minutes a month. For $25 it's absolutely worth it. And since it's prepaid it's $25 + sales tax on $25. Not "$25/month" + 911 fees + a ton of other fees so that it comes out closer to $40/month.
+1. I've got a Moto Triumph on VMobile at $25 a month and I love it. Coverage is relatively good in my area, although that's not the case elsewhere (e.g. there's literally nothing in Montana). If you can live with worse coverage, it's a great contract-free option.
Plus, data is still 100% unlimited, at least until some time next year. Even then the soft cap will be 2.5gb.
This summary implies that cutting back on nuclear power is a good thing...which it most definitely is not.
As long as the companies building them don't build them near potential disaster areas and don't cut corners on safety measures the benefits outweigh the costs.
I fail to see why IE 10 would not run on vista which is like 98% the same as Windows 7.
Did you know that 72% of statistics are made up on the spot?
But even if that is accurate, I think the answer is clear: the 2% that is different must be significant in some way when it comes to what they're doing with IE10. We don't even know what they plan to change in IE10. It could very well be a "Gazelle"-like project, totally different than IE9, in which case the need for the new development features of Windows 7 would be obvious.
Very few people, I would imagine, would upgrade their whole OS just to get a newer version of a browser (something many consumers don't even understand anyway). So there must be some good reason for MS to not support Vista.
Programmers already have to split efforts between Android and Honeycomb; the future will add ChromeOS, Chrome, and GoogleTV. So yes, Google desperately needs a convergence plan.
There's no difference between Chrome and Chrome OS, from a developer's perspective. And since all it runs are webapps, anything you write for Chrome or Chrome OS would also work fine on any other platform.
There's really no need to consolidate the different projects (except Gingerbread/Honeycomb), although different Google people have said that Android and CrOS will be merged at some point.
You complete turd, you have absolutely no evidence for what you state.
Google is the biggest shit corporate spyware technological empire with the most amount of user data as compared to any government (let alone software) agency out there.
Do you have absolutely any idea how the hell they are the biggest money maker - far FAR bigger than Microsoft!
Google sell user data, user stats, user analytics and behaviour patterns, not to mention their web analytics data to any piss ant out there, just to make a tiny bit more money to their collosal empire. .
Hmm, speaking of having no evidence.... Hypocrisy FTW!
I feel like taking the time to argue with you would be a waste, because you're clearly just spewing garbage without any rational basis for what you're saying.
If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.
Problem being that, in doing so, they would cut off oxygen to every site on the internet that uses ads for revenue (probably some massive percentage).
That's what bother me about ad blocking. As the owner of a small site that will be paid for by ad revenue (because I'm broke), I see this as an extremely bad thing. Maybe good from a consumer perspective, but bad from any other.
And as someone else said, it's possible many website owners would just tell anyone using IE w/ ad blocking to either jump off a cliff or switch to, say, Chrome.
I definitely agree. I don't like DRM any more than the next guy from a consumer perspective, but it's a necessary evil.
Look at YouTube, for example. YouTube has said that until there's an acceptable way for what is essentially DRM in videos, HTML5 won't become the default on YouTube.
HTML5 video simply won't replace flash until there's some way for publishers to secure their content.
This is for security. There's a command line flag for disabling this, I'm pretty sure.
Try --allow-file-access-from-files
If that doesn't work, you could go to http://codesearch.google.com/codesearch/p?vert=chromium#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc and look for one that does what you want.