Actually the water is collected and recycled. But yes until they actually build it some of your questions will remain unanswered.

Perhaps you weren't aware of how to set them up but the ability was there. I had my Yahoo account set up via POP3 on my 7230 with BB OS 4.x in 2004.

iOS & Android still can't match the BB for email support so I can't fathom what you are talking about here. I have at least six email accounts on my BB and can open them in a consolidated folder or individually. iOS 7 has dramatically improved over previous versions but it's still not on par with BB. I remember my first iOS device and discovering that you couldn't delete a calendar once it had been added to the device even if you deleted the existing email account without wiping the device! I think they fixed that in iOS 4.

And it is funny that everyone compares BES to Exchange ActiveSync because the latter only handles 1/4 of the things a BES does. To your point most likely the percentage is closer to 75% of people don't need the capabilities of the BES but if you EVER use VPN on an iOS device to connect to your company network you would have been better off with a BES. I have been able to connect to my network shares and manipulate files on my company network since 2003 with a BlackBerry WITHOUT connecting to a separate VPN because the BES creates an encrypted always on VPN connection to the corporate network. I could use remote desktop on my BB in 2004. It wasn't pretty or fast but it worked. Doing that on an iOS device works well but if the screen turns off while I am connected I get bumped off of VPN and have to start all over. Point and laugh all you want about how BB underestimated the allure of full color touch but they nailed communication and security and still haven't been matched on that front.

Not exactly. The way I understood how the SC ruled was the device would need to get the signal directly from the broadcaster and be located in the consumer's residence. So a consumer would need to have the DVR located on the premises and receive the signal directly from broadcasters via a local antenna. The Tablo is basically the same as the Aero service except you own the device and set it up at home. The Tablo doesn't even have a video out port. It's tuners are only accessible through streaming clients. It doesn't solve the concrete/metal interference problem that Aero did and perhaps they should pursue that argument on their appeal. I disagree with the SC finding as Aero was not altering in any way the content being delivered whereas the cable/satellite companies actually inject extra content/advertising into their rebroadcasts. Ultimately the networks want Aero to have to pay for retransmission and are lobbying even the courts to make that a reality.

Actually Wind PRODUCED BY Hydro can. Imagine if these guys added a solar concentrator to super heat the air at the top of the tower.

The difference is the DVR in question. Aero's DVR is in the cloud and Dish's is in the home of the subscriber. It seems the Supreme Court saw a big enough difference in Aero's distribution as to be infringing while Dish's distribution has been covered for decades by fair use rules. Dish's DVR is no different than a VHS or VCR system from a legal standpoint. In fact I can get a modern DVR for Over The Air (ATSC) recording from several different companies. In fact I just found this article discussing Aero alternatives and it mentions all three of the devices I just linked to. The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.

You should have called their mommies and told them they were seen out partying on a school night.

While he doesn't come right out and say the name of any specific ISP Mark Taylor VP of Content and Media at Level 3 points his finger at 5 major US ISP's that have been saturated for over a year and refuse to upgrade their connection. Take that revelation and combine it with this graph which shows 8 Major ISPs and the relative speed with which Netflix traverses them and the 5 companies he references become pretty clear. Granted the graph does originate from Netflix so grain of salt and all that but I'm inclined to believe the data.

You seem unfamiliar with the legal system in general as this type of conduct is practiced the world over since the dawn of lawyers. The very intent of the legalese these contracts espouse is deception. I in no way approve of this practice but to deny its efficacy is simply denial.

To expound on my previous post. Last mile ISP's like Comcast use a business model to oversell a finite resource much like a time share condo in a resort town except the ISP customers don't have to book their internet access in advance. They protect themselves legally by placing conditional statements in their contracts with their customers absolving them of any LEGAL expectations the customer has. This has been very lucrative as 90% of their customers have consistently used less than 10% of their allotted bandwidth at any given time. This has been gradually changing as content streaming has become more mainstream and accessible to the less technically inclined. Up to this point NN isn't even part of the equation. Where it becomes paramount is when Comcast is knowingly causing the degradation of its customers internet experience by refusing to address issues on its own network caused by the increase in traffic through its peer partners AND instead extorting the companies that provide the content Comcast's customers are requesting.

This is where the fine print comes in to play. You are paying for a connection to the internet and promised up to X amount of service. There may or may not be a guaranteed minimum speed spelled out but no ISP promises peak speeds without paying extra for the promise (Business class).

It is entirely asymmetrical but that is of Comcast's own doing. They sell more bandwidth than they can provide to their ISP customers. Of course in the contract agreement the term they use is "up to xMbps" so they can simply say "sorry we only guarantee xMbps to business class customers". This is by design. Comcast (or just about any US ISP today) depend on the consumer overpaying for what they use. The trouble only comes when they start actually using the bandwidth they thought they were paying for. Which isn't a problem if it is to Comcast's in network properties. But Comcast's peering connection to Level 3 has been saturated (over 90% capacity) 24/7 for over a year now and yet Comcast refuses to add more capacity. That's not just Netflix traffic. That is all traffic coming from Level 3.

FTFY

The only reason you heard about BlackBerry caving was because they fought it for 3 years. All the other carriers and OEM's had already capitulated or were so insecure India didn't even have to ask. So yea...they care about the security of their customers. And FYI that was only for BIS traffic. They designed BES specifically to prevent anyone, even BlackBerry, from compromising their security.

Freecode was Alpha...and you guys thought Beta was bad!

Well Apple's CarPlay is run on top of BlackBerry's QNX Car OS as are the majority of current in dash systems so for now BlackBerry is still #1.

I am confused. Does Google/YouTube already ad share with these Indie labels or are the labels just posting up their artists content on YouTube on a channel they created? If it's the latter how is the video any different than a cat video sissy456 posted with a background of Journey's Don't Stop Believing? If it's the former then I support Google's right to set the terms of how they pay content providers on their web property. I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.