This is absolutely only partially correct. It is both Carrier, and Manufacturer that hold that responsibility, jointly. Carriers have no desire to update older phones, they want you to buy a new one, ON CONTRACT! The manufacturers are too willing to bend over for the Carriers.

Phones like Nexus and OnePlus are starting to break that mold though, and I suspect that if enough people stop buying HTC/Samsung/LG ... phones they (both) will start to take notice. The best thing consumers can do, is be fully aware how awful the carriers actually are, and how complicit the manufacturers are.

It would be hard to do it with just one, but scissor blades almost always come in pairs, hence "pair of scissors".

CM was fine when it was a bunch of geeks playing with Android. The moment it went Public, pressure to turn a profit increased. The problem is, the that they have made enemies already, and many of them were their own champions. These actions have caused their support in the community to diminish. Can they recover? Perhaps. But I don't see them actually doing the things to keep their supporters happy.

As opposed to the Star Trek 2009 which had Nimoy alone, and in a bit part.

Oh, you're one of those guys. OK. Thanks for clarifying; that explains a lot. I'm not a feminist (except in the "women are equal, we should treat them like people" sense), but you'd have to be a major MRA to have any problems with Fury Road. Oh, there was a strong woman character and Max had a peer and an equal. Shock! Horror! [insert eye roll here] If you can't enjoy Furiosa being as fierce of a survivor as Max, then there's something broken in you.

Similarly, open and close a pair of scissors. Notice that the point where the blades meet moves a lot faster than the blades themselves.

"News for nerds." It's right up there in the tagline. Mad Max is near the top of the geek movie franchise pantheon, probably just below Star Wars and Indiana Jones. This isn't a new Fast & Furious, it's a new freaking Mad Max. You know, that thing that got a lot of us into postapocalyptic / dystopian sci-fi flicks. If this doesn't count as cultural news for nerds, I can't imagine a lot else that would.

Cyanogen is wanting to actually get more or less a complete breakup with Google. You need to read their public statements regarding how they want to wrest Android from Google. They have the following to perhaps pull it off. Either that or they will implode making boneheaded mistakes by alienating their fan base (as they did with OnePlus users).

No it isn't. My current phone,($350 new) runs circles around any iDevice in that price range. Hell, it competes with the $899 version, with more ram, and storage. You can pay more for the same thing (or not as good), but that is a choice. Calling it "High end" is a marketing ploy itself.

Battery life test is a game called Ingress. Available on both iPhone and Android, from Google company Niantic. When actually playing the game, most iPhones can only play a couple hours without an external battery. My Android can go almost 5 hours without that need. Battery life is fine on Android.

My take on it is, that iPhone users only THINK they use their phone a lot, while Android users use their phones more than they think they do.

I have no doubt that resting (not in use) iPhones may have better battery life, due to the very specific optimizations possible. However I don't count that as real life experience.

None of this is empirical, just from my observation.

Project Much?

FTFY

The fact is, every single iPhone looks exactly like every other iPhone. The Monoculture of "we know what's best for you" from Apple is one reason I'll never go to iPhone.

To be fair, if it was (R) it would have happened too. And when people say that the (D) and (R) are really different, you can point them to this case to show that ... no not really.

writers need to be paid and publishers need

... do not make right.

Works for me.

It goes a lot deeper than that. I am running software on a device I own. That software requests a resource from a remote service. After receiving it, the same software manipulates that resource in ways I have specifically asked it to in order to meet my needs.

The plaintiff's case is that they have a legal right to tell me how to view a resource once it's on a machine I own. Copyright etc. isn't involved; I'm consuming a properly licensed copy of the resource that they sent to me. I'm not distributing it, either in original or modified form.

There are already a million other ways I might modify that content today. I can apply my own CSS so that font sizes and contrast are to my liking. My web browser may actually be a speech synthesizer or braille reader. I may be viewing it on a mobile device that simply can't render it in its original form. But according to the plaintiffs, none of that matters: either I view it as originally intended or not at all.

If they're going to assert insane things like that, I suggest they form a W3C working group to publicize a standard way of describing what uses are acceptable for that content. Then my web browser could parse it, see "ADS_MAY_BE_REMOVED: FALSE", and give me a popup saying "This page is published by sociopaths. Continue?".