No. It's always stood for "closed circuit".

Care to guess how much of N3200 as it is today was actually dug out of that beach?

It's practically a new aeroplane.

You must have lost your mind. I used Windows Mobile for years. I had to install task managers to kill apps before they killed my battery. I had to install a registry editor and fiddle with settings to get even basic functionality working. IE on WM was a sick joke. I rebooted the phones every other day just to keep working.

  iOS was better in every way. It had a real grown up browser. Shit just worked. The fluid animations were just icing on the cake.

Powerful but flaky is useless.

The Internet, by design, is very different from the "natural monopolies" of water, sewer, etc. Because of the Internet's settlement-free peering regime (which the FCC also threatens to upend by starting to regulate peering), and because one can connect at any point and reach the others, there is no need for Internet infrastructure to be a monopoly. Our wireless ISP competes handily with cable, DSL, and all other forms of Internet service. Do you want to have a choice of providers, and be able to switch if you are not satisfied? Or do you want to be stuck with a monopoly -- one that (even worse) is run by unelected government bureaucrats and is therefore completely unaccountable to you?

There is no "muni network contract." The municipalities that petitioned the FCC want to get into the ISP business -- even outside their borders! They simply want to take over the business of broadband in and around their cities, without "bidding" on anything.

Actually, the FCC's action will have exactly the opposite effect. I own and operate a small, competitive ISP, and am quite willing to (and capable of) going up against any competitor on a level playing field. But I simply wouldn't enter any market where the city was providing service. Why? Because the city would engage in all of the following anticompetitive and predatory practices:

* The city would completely control my access to rights of way and pole attachments, and would be motivated to keep me from getting that access or make it expensive;

* I would be taxed and the taxes would be used to subsidize my competitor;

* The city would engage in horizontal monopoly leverage from its other monopoly businesses (trash, water, sewer, and in many places energy) and would enjoy cross-subsidies from them; for example, it wouldn't have to build a new billing system but could use its existing one;

* The city could also use its ability to tax, and bonding authority, to obtain capital for the buildout at bargain rates;

* The city, with its deep pockets and by expending some of that capital, could engage in predatory pricing, offering its service below cost due to taxpayer subsidies. It could do this at the outset, to take customers away, or possibly permanently;

* The city, because it provided those other services, would GET PAID more easily than I would because users wouldn't want their water, etc. cut off if they didn't pay the bill;

* The city would know when both owner-occupied and rental real estate was turning over (because of changes in the party being billed) and so could always sell to people as they moved into a new home before they would have a chance to consider my service;

* The city ISP would get the lucrative business of the city itself (eliminating one of the largest potential customers), as well as that of other government entities such as the county government and state government offices; and

* The city, under the FCC's new Title II regime, could demand franchise fees from me that it would not have to pay itself.

So, if you put yourself in the shoes of a hard working local ISP (which I am), or of a customer who wants choice, this no longer seems like such a good idea. Any ISP entering the market would have to fight an uphill battle against City Hall. So, new ISPs will not enter the market and existing broadband providers will have a strong incentive to pull out, leaving a monopoly. What is needed is FAIR, PRIVATE competition, not the unfair competition that turning unaccountable city bureaucrats loose would bring.

That's bullshit. The British knew exactly how to crack the four rotor problem: they needed bigger and faster bombes, but they didn't have the resources with which to build them. In fact, by using some tricks, they were able to have some success with the existing equipment, but a permanent solution was only arrived at when the USA joined the war. An agreement was reached to share cryptanalysis efforts and the Americans with their enormous resources and significant design input from the British were able to build the required bombes.

I am unable to explain how dis-appetizing this ending choice of phrasing was.

This may be the first textual diet suppressor.

The whole "HTTP/2 stink" thing seems to be a bit of a meme, but it's remarkable how the people who state it vaguely wave their hands around and make unsupported claims.

1. HTTP/2 is *fantastic* for higher latency connections. If you're a small site and you can't afford to have geolocated servers around the globe, HTTP/2 offers a much better experience for those high latency connections. I've been using SPDY for a couple of years to service clients in Singapore from a server in the US (which for a variety of legislative and technical reasons I can't replicate there). It is absolutely better.

2. HTTP Pipelining is when you know that someone is just doing the "I oppose" thing and searching around for objections. HTTP pipelining is not supported by default in a *single* major browser because it has critical, deadly faults that render it useless. When people bring it up to oppose HTTP/2, their position is rendered irrelevant.

3. HTTP/2 removes the need to do script and resource coalescing. It removes the need to deal with difficult to manage image sprites. All of those are bullshit that are particularly onerous and expensive to little sites.

4. HTTP/2 makes SSL much cheaper to the experience. This is very good.

HTTP/2 is a *huge* benefit especially to the little guy. Google can do every manner of optimization, they can deploy across legions and armies of servers around the globe. This can be expensive and logistically difficult for little sites, especially if you want SSL. HTTP/2 levels the playing field to some degree.

It isn't about "a chip". It's about a system that is designed for a specific thermal and electrical load. nvidia probably got flak from notebook makers who were facing dissatisfied customers.

You only have to look at a lot of the nonsense comments throughout, such as yours -- people just contriving how "easy" everything is, and how simple it is. Yeah, and I'll bet all of you design notebooks. No? Then shut up.

To be fair, the example gives the same output as would be seen in the example from TFA.

Actually, in your scenario, the source code does not lose its "freedom", but the derivative work never gets it. This means that the changes never get back to the community, but the original code is there as fee as ever.

It's important to note that I can take a piece of GPL software and modify it and still not give the changes back to the community. In fact, even if I distribute my modified software, I only have to give the changes to whomever I distribute it to. Of course, I can't then stop them from giving it away to anybody who asks.

Why did Apple ever bother with Unix certification then?

I lost my five star while Uber's rider ratings were still leaking, because a driver went to the wrong location, and felt that I should walk seven blocks to meet them, and when I said no, they felt that that was worth a one-star.

According to Uber's customer service staff, they even confirmed that as the reason, but Uber still feels that the rating should stand, because as a rider, I should not have the expectation of being picked up within a mile of my location.

My impression of Uber's customer service is rather poor, as a result.

The 747 won't be far behind. Nobody wants to buy four engined aircraft anymore.