Sorry you don't like that particular article I picked. Here's another:

http://hothardware.com/News/Microsoft-Continues-To-Bleed-Mobile-Market-Share-Despite-WP7/

I've owned Nokia phones in the past, and have always considered them when it came time to buy a new one. But they just ensured that will never happen again. I can see maybe dabbling with Windows Phone and offering a few sets for variety... but when the news keeps showing that Windows Phone is DoA, I don't get why Nokia would bet everything on a sinking ship. Are they truly that suicidal?

Am I the last person on earth not streaming movies?

Seriously, I don't get the appeal. Ok, you get a big library... that looks like crap. Or maybe everyone is watching all their movies and shows on tiny laptop screens now with headphones?

Even on my "small" 40", streaming Netflix looks horrible. The insane compression, 2-channel audio... ugh. I have 7.1 surround sound... which isn't uncommon these days with all the HTIB kits (mine was not). Let alone my 92" projector setup. The home theater technology improves, while the content technology migrates towards streaming and lower quality.

What the hell?

It's like video is going the way of music. People are accepting a huge paradigm shift into lower-quality for the sake of convenience. And if you're not streaming, people look at you like you have 2 heads. "What's wrong with you?" It's like trying to stay off Facebook.

Not sure what brand you're buying. Maybe you need to buy a better car brand. When I bought my used car (private sale, not a dealer), it still had almost 2 years left on the warranty. And I know it transferred because I made use of it.

It was a SAAB, and I live in the USA.

Yeah, I'm sure the reason is to keep it out of nature.

Gnome works wonderfully on my (and others', including other posters in these comments) FreeBSD desktops. I can't stand KDE.

I have a Captivate too and share your frustration about GPS and updates, and your feelings about Samsung. However, to be fair: Samsung never promised 2.2 in September. That was a distorted internet rumor that stemmed from reports in the UK/Eurpean markets about 2.2 coming for the international Galaxy S/I9000. People incorrectly extrapolated from that that it also meant the Captivate. Once it got twisted and some people started misstating it, it spread around like wildfire and was taken to be "fact".

Neither Samsung nor AT&T ever promised September. In fact, the closest they ever got to a promise was saying for a while that their goal/target was by the end of 2010. Obviously they didn't meet that, and the word is now that it's Feb. However, you only get that date via pressing individuals. The formal/public statement is now a substanceless canned statement that I can quote verbatim:

"We are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners as soon as possible. Due to the complexity and unique functionality of each Galaxy S device, we are performing additional testing. Samsung feels it is important to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available only after we feel that we can give the millions of U.S. Galaxy S owners a simple and reliable upgrade experience. We sincerely appreciate your patience."

Well, I suppose if your hearing has deteriorated to the point where 96Kbit/s is the maximum you can discern, and the only place you're listening is in a low-fidelity mobile environment, then sure I suppose.

However, personally I can hear the difference even between 128Kbit/s and 160Kbit/s (and prefer higher), and I listen to my stuff in varied environments... from high-quality earbuds, to a car stereo, to a high-end home audio system.

No one is arguing that any digital or analog copy of a recoding is in-essence "lossy" compared to the original. However, the fact remains that CDs are the most-common high-quality method for getting digital versions of material, and are relatively inexpensive. The only advantage digital music downloads have is in the ability to purchase single tracks, and instant-gratification. Price-wise, the cost-difference between getting a whole album via MP3 downloads versus the whole-album in CD form is negligible considering the boost in audio quality. You're then free to make your 96Kbit/s Ogg Vorbis files... or later, 256Kbit/s files for your home audio system without having to re-purchase the music.

Non-DRMed, but still lossy. CDs give you an immediate physical backup and a high-quality original source for making your own lossy-compressed media files.

What I want to know is: when are cell phone data plans going to be priced based on speed, and not byte quotas per month? Since that's the only real metric that matters.

Our home internet connections are priced by bandwidth. And bandwidth (not quota totals) are what really matter on the back-end, within the cell carrier's own infrastructure. So that's how it should be priced to the consumer.

Gone would be the days of worrying about going over some stupid "quota". You have your speed, and the data will indefinitely roll in at that speed.

Not sure about coverage, but considering they won't even sell you a phone if you live in my state (Vermont), it kind of makes it a moot point.

If you want to try and sell up T-Mobile, they need to actually offer service first.

Not true. I stumble across films listed that are still in-production all the time. Some have been "in production" for years and still aren't out yet. But they're in IMDB.

Considering how much low-budget porn is in IMDB, it's quite obvious that Amazon's issue here is anti-torrent and has absolutely nothing to do with the production status of the film, the content of the film, or the credentials of those making the film.

I love how when suddenly a company starts offering a product for less than what people were contently paying for it before, all of a sudden all the places offering it at the old price were "gouging consumers".

Is it so hard to fathom that to produce certain things properly actually has a cost? And if someone else comes around selling for less than that, that maybe they're the "bad guys"? Either by virtue of selling below cost, or doing unethical/immoral things to get the price lower.

Like a previous poster said: consumers prioritize price above all else. Apparently so... including common sense.

When local milk farmers, who I assure you are honest hard-working people who are not price-gouging, can't even break-even, something's horribly wrong.

Well, the entire state of Vermont, for one.

If you don't have a FB account, then the sudden viral spreading of a photo is not possible. The whole original complaint was due to a scenario that requires having a FB account. Without an account, sure... someone can tag individual photos of you. But they aren't unified and tracked under a specific account for that name, so it's not possible without the user having a FB account for another user to instantly see all photos that all other FB users have tagged of him via immediate notification in their news feeds.

If you don't have a FB account, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.

If one is going to criticize FB (and certainly, they deserve plenty), it'd be worth actually understanding how FB works in the first place and gaining some perspective, so that one doesn't sound like an idiot. Your complaint is entirely different than the original issue, and yours is akin to some random person posting some single picture up on a telephone pole somewhere. That problem isn't caused by FB and existed before FB, so your issues aren't with FB if that scenario bothers you so much.