I'd go even further than that and say that it depends on the type of scale being used as well.

When it comes to user reviews, if the reviews are thumbs up or down, I'll do the same as you and read the thumbs down reviews first, since it's easier to filter out the extreme reviewers and get a sense for the common issues. If it's a 5-point scale, I'll read through the 2s and 4s, since those reviews can give you a quick understanding of the pros and cons for the product, without nearly the level of overstatement that you'll need to filter through in the 1s and 5s. And I don't even bother reading reviews based on 10-point scales, since the way that everyday users grade on a 10-point scale is arbitrary to the point of uselessness (e.g. some people treat it like a 5-point scale with better granularity, while others treat it like an academic scale).

We already know that Apple and Google are doing it that way because it makes sense for them to do so (it's in Apple's best interests to not have the ability to hand over your data since that improves their hardware sales, and Google's best interests to secure your data against illicit use since using your data is where they make their money) and is trivial to verify. Just run Wireshark or something similar on your network and check to see whether your phone is phoning home constantly or not. Easy peazy to check, and companies that fail get raked across the coals. Plus, Apple has published white papers over the subject, detailing exactly what steps they've taken to secure the data and how they are using it.

The reason I presumed that Microsoft was doing the same as its other competitors is because they've already been raked across the coals regarding this exact topic even when they were doing it exactly that same way (see: the "Xbox, on" controversy), so there's no way they'd be stupid enough to try and do otherwise...at least not until the market comes to accept this stuff.

As for how cozy they are with the NSA, that's an entirely separate issue. One worth discussing, I believe, but one which is entirely tangential to this discussion here.

P.S. It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously if you stopped with all of the unnecessary scare quotes and question marks.

The issue here isn't simply that the audio is being sent off to be parsed. The bigger issue is that the audio is being sent off to be parsed without the user's awareness. In the case of Siri or Google, I have to press a button or use a keyphrase (e.g. "Ok Google" or "Hey Siri") before the device will start sending audio off to be parsed at remote servers. And having read through Apple's white paper over how they secure and use that data, a user can be reasonably confident that their audio isn't being used by third parties, whether via a business deal or via illicit capturing of the audio as it's en route. If Google has published a white paper over their technology, I haven't seen it yet, but I can at least be confident that they're taking steps to secure the data, given that data is their bread and butter, even if they might be looking for ways to monetize that data.

Samsung though? We can't safely make any assumptions regarding their efforts or success at protecting me from third parties of any sort.

I can't speak for Cortona, but I would assume it works the same way as Siri and Google, in that it doesn't start sending data until the local device first either hears a specific key phrase (e.g. "Ok Google" or "Hey Siri") or is purposefully activated by the user by the press of a button.

There's a big difference between speech that I want to have parsed getting sent off to be parsed, and speech that I never knew was being captured at all being sent off to be parsed. Apple, Google, and I would presume Microsoft are all doing the former. Based on the summary, it sounds like Samsung is doing the latter.

You're conflating issues. Apple TV has dozens (hundreds?) of channels at this point, with the only notable absence being Amazon Instant Video (no one seems to know if it's Apple or Amazon keeping it off of the Apple TV). Roku may have more/better channels. Or it may not. I don't know off the top of my head, and, frankly, it doesn't matter to most people since most of the important channels are on all of the devices anyway.

Where Apple does lock things down is with the content that you purchase from them, such as TV shows and films. THAT'S the black hole, since those remain locked to Apple devices unless you go through contortions of dubious legality. But there's no need to get your content from them, and just because you have an Apple TV doesn't mean that you're locked into Apple's ecosystem. I've ripped all of my media to HDDs at this point, and I stream it to my media center via my Apple TV. I could do the same on a Roku, an Xbox, or any number of other devices, and have in fact done so in the past, but I found the Apple TV to be the simplest, easiest, and most reliable to use of my available choices, so it continues to get used in that way. If Apple ever locks it down, I'll simply switch to something else. No big deal, since I'm not locked down.

TL;DR: Apple TVs don't lock you into anything. It's iTunes content that locks you in.

Quite a few ways, actually, all of which would have been apparent had you just clicked the link, but if you need it spelled out for you...
1) uBlock is available for multiple browsers and is available via official stores/sites for at least some of them (with plans to get into the others). Doesn't matter to you, perhaps, but it does matter to some of us, especially if we're looking for something to recommend to non-techie friends and family.

2) uBlock actually leads to a reduced memory footprint for your browser, whereas AdBlock Plus (on which Edge is based), increases the browser's memory footprint.

3) uBlock has SIGNIFICANTLY better CPU performance than ABP and its competitors. Nearly an order of magnitude.

4) uBlock is slightly better at blocking unnecessary server hits. About twice as good as ABP, and just a shade worse than Ghostery.

All of which is to say, by nearly every measurable metric, it's better than the thing that you think is the best.

On the contrary, that's exactly what they are. From Wikipedia's pacemaker page:

The earliest ones simply stimulated the heart at regular intervals, but this newer variety that monitors the heart for signs of trouble (e.g. irregular heartbeat) and fires when necessary has been around for decades.

I was speaking purely numerically. Assuming that a customer from AT&T is just as likely to jump ship for Google as a customer from Sprint is, AT&T would lose significantly more customers simply because they're significantly larger. For any losses it takes, Sprint would gain far more by providing Google's coverage for the customers AT&T loses.

It's Sprint and T-Mobile working with them: the distant third and fourth place competitors in a four-horse market. Any disruption in the market will hit the bigger two competitors—AT&T and Verizon—significantly harder, and with this deal, the bottom two have positioned themselves to gain from AT&T and Verizon's loss, even if that gain isn't as significant as it would be if they outright won those customers directly. Even the simple act of getting those customers away from AT&T and Verizon is a big win, since it means AT&T and Verizon would have lost the incumbent's advantage when those customers' contracts are up and they're looking around at their options.

Quite right. Though "tenet", not "tenant".

Here's where you and I disagree. I assume you're basing that logic off of the Pope's comment about punching someone else, and if so, it's clear that you've missed some important context...such as the beginning of the sentence, which started with "One cannot react violently". If you follow the links and read the sentence in context, you'll see that he was providing a contrast between morality—"one cannot react violently"—and reality—"he can expect a punch".

Rather than being a justification for violent responses, he was merely making a statement of fact: provoke someone else and you can expect a violent response. That's something most of us would agree with, since morality plays no part in that statement.

I'm not a fan of the papacy, and I'm certainly not a fan of the current pope, but it seems to me that a lot of people are reading things into what he said here that simply weren't there. Even so, his suggestion that there should be limits on free speech, presumably so as to avoid that sort of provocation, is a rather chilling notion and one with which I vehemently disagree.

You wouldn't.

But for folks who no longer have a landline and no longer have cable, it's a wash for them in terms of cost since they wouldn't be getting the bundle discount that you're getting. Plus, this streaming service is available for pretty much every common type of device out there (e.g. mobile, desktop, laptop, set-top, etc.), whereas cable TV is largely still relegated to the direct connection between your cable box and TV. Were I someone who had cut the cable but was missing my ability to watch sports, this seems like an ideal package, since I wouldn't care about the fact that it had fewer channels, and I'd absolutely love the added convenience of being able to watch it in more places.

As for me, I won't be subscribing, since I'm not a sports lover, and it really doesn't matter which other channels it does or doesn't have, since I don't miss any of them either.

Most or all of the decent AMC shows are already on Netflix. I don't know IFC or BBCA, but I believe much of TNT's content is available online too.

Which is to say, at this point, pretty much everything currently on cable TV, save sports, is already available a la carte from one place or another. Sports has always been the biggest holdout, so ESPN being available via Dish is a big deal for the people who care about that stuff. That's not me, certainly, since I was happy to ditch cable years ago (technically, I was forced to ditch it by a cheap landlord, but after a month I loved not having it).

For me, the biggest mental hurdle was crossing from "I want to watch X" to "is something I'm interested in watching available?". Once you do that, Netflix and the other streaming services suddenly get much more compelling, since you've essentially commoditized entertainment, meaning that you're under no compulsion to pay for expensive packages to get X. And I do still occasionally care about a particular show or movie, but it's getting rarer and rarer these days. Even with the licensing ups and downs, Netflix still has plenty for me, and most of the stuff they lose they get back later anyway, so it never really impacts me anyway.

The newspaper in question beat you to the punch. They published an editorial over the whole ordeal, appropriately titled, "Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter". The first letter of each paragraph in the editorial can even be put together to spell out his name.

Dish just introduced a $20/mo. streaming service that includes ESPN. Seems like the cord cutters have the final piece of the puzzle now.

Honestly curious: would you point me towards some of these examples? I've seen a few folks say that it's still going on, and where there's smoke there's typically fire, but I have yet to be shown any concrete examples.