you think they put in the caps because they dont have enough bandwidth coming from their towers? you, sir, are sadly mistaken. they do it for one reason. PROFIT. if they cap your data at 5gb and you need to use 5.1 gb, you will totally spend double the amount to get up to 10gb.

no, because they arent a big enough step up from the previous generation. it is essentially like having HD. anything between 480p and 4k resolution are technically HD. but only 4k resolution gets the 'ultra hd' tag.

yea, you can totally download a single hd movie in that second before they cap your speed at 3g.

this is absolutely ridiculous. there are so many things out there being sold with the name 'gnome'. there is no possible way that this new point of sale system will hurt the trademark of gnome, and therefore it is impossible for them to win this case. if they were making a desktop operating system, sure i would agree... but this is just dumb.

P.S. fix the bugs in your operating system before going after people for stupid-ass reasons.

i think you are off by a factor of 10. i have LTE as well and my max speed is maybe 35mbit

the issue here is that they took the api and changed the code in the background. the api itself is nothing but a bunch of method names. the code in the back is obviously patentable. the question is whether a bunch of method names are, and i would say no... but the supreme court is made of a bunch of old people who dont even know how to use phones.

in case you didnt know this... most of the super high-tech companies were either founded by or run by someone who did not have acollege degree.

if you have an incredibly creative C student who will "go on to dream up blockbuster films like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg" who cares if they go to college? it isnt like you need a degree to be creative.

i like this idea, but your signature bothered me. the phrase is 'for all intents and purposes', not 'for all intensive purposes'

I graduated with a CS degree (undergrad) and got so many job offers that i had to keep turning them down (even after i chose a job). i think it really comes down to what kind of projects you've done and how good you are at interviews. The issue i see is that for CS, a phd really doesnt do you any good at all. people without a phd can do just as much in this field as those who do, so know that when you go into interviews so you dont come off like a prick.

The EU is much less lenient on monopolies.

the building of infrastructure isnt the problem. with the exception of rural areas, everywhere in the US already has fiber optic cable capable of getting gigabit speeds. the issue we have is that each ISP has its own little area with no competition.. why would they charge 70$ per month for gigabit(like google) when they can charge 50$ a month for 20Mbit

this is because over half of ATT's internet service plans are below 10Mbps and they charge like 30$ for them per month

because we dont care about them. also... because we are essentially just giving internet companies subsidies. this doesnt actually mean that the end user is recieving ANY of this discount.

studies have shown time and time again that just the act of being distracted from the road is bad. if you are talking to someone on the phone, or even in the car with you... or if you are even listening to the radio, these are all equally distracting. it is entirely possible to text while driving safely so long as you are not moving while you are texting or if you are using a hands free device.

the real issue at hand is that dumbasses have decided that they can take their eyes off the road while they are moving to type a text. people also take their eyes off the road to talk with people next to them... or behind them. is it really a good idea to ban everyone from texting while in the car because a few people are dumbasses? i text only when i'm stopped at a light, technically that is illegal, despite the fact that there is absolutely no way it can affect my driving..