In what way doesn't it follow the USB spec? Apple's USB charger implements the USB power spec exactly - it will deliver 500 mA at 5V DC to any USB device plugged into it, exactly as the spec requires.

It can also break the spec and deliver more current (1 amp) to an iPhone or iPad, or any other device that behaves the same way by measuring the resistance across the data pins. Many other types of USB chargers also do this since 500 mA is pretty low and when the spec was implemented it was never imagined that it would be used to charge high power batteries.

Now you're changing your argument again - you said you couldn't find any examples - in fact, you said (quote) "In fact, there's nary one citation on the internet for such a thing." and now you're saying that the three examples I found within a few seconds of googling (quote) "does not normalcy make".

So which is it? There are no examples or that the examples I found really quickly (there are thousands of others) are invalid because you've changed your argument again.

We're going round in circles here; you lost the argument because you misunderstood a very common English phrase and you're now trying to double down with a semantic argument that the omission of and implied adjective somehow totally changes the original poster's position. It is obviously what the poster means, but the qualifier "of iOS9" in a topic about the software update makes the adjective "new" redundant. It is grammatically correct in either form (i.e., included or omitted) and does not change the meaning of the sentence.

It is especially silly when you try to shore up your argument by trying to equate it with a piece of incorrect English. The two situations are not alike because one is perfectly solid English grammar and the other is a common but incorrect contraction of two words into a non word.

Let's not even get back to your totally ridiculous assertion that the original poster is a paid-for shill because you deliberately (or otherwise) misrepresented his comment.

I assume you just don't get called on being wrong very often and it has annoyed you. If you want to borrow a shovel to keep digging then I have one right here for you.

What secret? I'm perfectly happy to stand behind my comments.

You're trying to deflect the argument with a non-sequitur. Your original, highly antagonistic and accusatory post, that the original commenter was literally a paid shill for Apple, was based on you being unable to comprehend a basic piece of English language.

For example, here is a piece from the verge using the same turn of phrase: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9...

Here's Cnet talking about Windows 10 using the same phrase structure in a video: http://www.cnet.com/videos/bes...

Here's Extreme Tech using the same turn of phrase to discuss the iPhone 6: http://www.extremetech.com/mob...

Like I said, it was a pretty basic construction that is used frequently in common English, especially when paired with a qualifier as it was in the original poster's comment.

You either deliberately took the comment out of context to try and claim he was a shill or you just didn't understand the phrase. Either way you were wrong and have been trying to twist in the wind to try and bluster your way out of the argument. There's no way out though - your original comment was plain wrong.

How is that relevant to your inability to comprehend a pretty common piece of English language?

I never post as AC. Now you're ignoring basic and easily verifiable facts like the fact that people who disagree with you are logged in. It's no wonder you have trouble comprehending common English phrases.

You're doubling down on your argument, but it doesn't make it any more right.

It's a very common English turn of phrase that the original commenter used that you have chosen to deliberately (possibly, but maybe not, in which case I'm sorry for the heavy burden you carry day to day) misunderstand to make a ludicrous accusation that he is a paid-for shill.

Like I said, the red mist of apple hate is blinding you to the obvious.

They do. It's in the settings near the top and is pretty granular (you can turn 4G on and off, and also control specific apps).

The problem with the new feature was that it was on by default and the setting to control it was at the bottom of the app list in the cellular settings.

He said the "best feature of iOS9", as in "the best feature that was added with the update".

The phone already made calls. It wasn't a new feature added in the update to iOS9.

It seems like you've lost the ability to read and parse the English language as the red mist of apple hate has descended on you.

It's a kettle. It has low/no water safety shutoff as a given.

That's like criticising a computer for not advertising that the CPU has a thermal protection system built into it.

A coffee maker doesn't heat the water to sufficient temperature to make tea.

I doubt it. The voice training just makes Siri respond more effectively to you when there are other noises around during activation. It can still be activated by someone else saying "Hey Siri" even after this training step (although commands are more limited if the iPhone is locked).

Ah, yes, that would do it. Yes, the other commercial providers in the UK (ITV, Channel 4 etc) have adverts on their players.

Strangely the adverts are always in super high definition and load instantly while the content itself is potato quality and often fails to load. Was never a fan of Channel 4's player in particular unless it has been vastly improved.

Inter titles are the things they show between shows, like the channel branding or upcoming pieces for shows on the network.

On the iPlayer site (I live in the UK) these commercials are not present, nor are there any markers visible in the timeline that indicate where one would be. This was my confusion. I assume they appear in the same way that the ads do in youtube timelines?

If these are present in your version of iPlayer, I assume they are inserted by the vpn host or something? They are definitely not present in iPlayer as served up by the BBC in the UK.

Right now parliament is not where the BBC wants to go for support - the current conservative government wants nothing more than to cripple the BBC. They certainly want the licence fee to go away, or better yet, attach even more restrictive conditions to it that prevent the BBC from being able to compete with the wealthy donor to the tories - Rupert Murdoch.

Also, there aren't any adverts on iPlayer, unless you mean the intertitles?

The BBC doesn't estimate that number - that number has been suggested by third parties and the BBC has suggested that the number is nowhere near accurate.

The other point is that they *do* charge for access outside the UK, but via their for-profit arm BBC Worldwide, which handles distribution of their content to non-UK markets. Due to various legal reasons in the way the BBC is funded, they have to do it this way, and the profits they can receive back from BBC Worldwide from these overseas sales are limited by legal limitations.

They understand how big the market is but they are legally hamstrung in being able to access it.