you are talking about the government here... all they would have to do is strong-arm the carrier to add their towers to the list.

it isnt a mistake... it is called investing. they can afford to throw tons of ideas out and hope one sticks. this is how the world works when you have billions of dollars of cash lying around.

if they fail to do real net neutrality, then we can point at them and say 'do you really want to be like india?' and hope that the fcc actually realizes how much we need net neutrality

if there were worried about bandwidth constraints, then they would simply decrease the speed of everyone's data (except emergency) whenever they run into their bandwidth cap. (oh wait... THEY ALREADY DO THAT. ) it is clearly just about the money because stopping people from using more than 5gb of data is totally irrelevant to their one limiting factor. it isnt like they have a cap with their internet provider.

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.