It's based on the carrier + model not just the model. So a HTC Sensation on T-Mobile might have it but a HTC Sensation on Bell doesn't.
I don't know why it is the case, but all the big carriers in Canada do not have Carrier IQ installed. I cannot imagine that it's out of concern for the privacy of their clients. There must be some law hiding somewhere preventing it. Something like PIPA or other provincial equivalents?
Rogers (Also Fido, owned by Rogers along with Chatr), Telus (Koodo, Clearnet), Bell (Virgin, Solo), and Videotron do not have CIQ installed on any phones. This covers about 95% of Canadians.
Trust this man, he speaks from experience.
Great, something that I have to unmount before I can ask it to eject. It'll then mysteriously want it back, despite it being blank, every time I open another program.
I hear the claim, "Well you can run it on trusted sites". What has the site done to earn my trust? Why couldn't a malicious site appear interesting enough to prompt you to turn JS on and thus be attacked. Only a little social engineering can defeat NoScript. Whitelisted sites can become compromised as well.
Like you, after watching the last season of BSG there is no way I could ever tolerate watching another series written by the same people. In fact, if I ever see "from the writers of Battlestar Galactica" in an advertisement I would see it as a good indication that I probably don't want to watch the show.
I was very let down by the series. It started out great, season 2 was even better, season 3 started the downhill trend but I held hope because the first two seasons were so good but I was sadly mistaken.
It handles multiple tabs about as poorly as you can expect it to. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/09/inside-internet-explorer-9-redmond-gets-back-in-the-game.ars/2 (scroll about 1/2 way down)
Basically it just crowds out until the tabs are rendered useless then if helpfully puts scroll arrows after you can't read what's inside the tab anymore.
I see posts here about people saying that if a snack product was sold as "up to X amount" that wouldn't fly for consumers.
Of course it wouldn't. If I buy a bag of M&Ms (they happen to be sitting in front of me) it's very easy for Mars Inc. to work out that the bag has 200g in side of it (give or take a gram). If it is 194g, well throw another candy coated nut in it. Ah, 200.5g. Close enough.
Selling access to something that is mostly beyond your control is foolish to try and actually guarantee a speed.. It's like building a wind turbine and being annoyed that it isn't producing the advertised 6.5MW of power on a calm day.
Now what I would like to see would be a standardized speed test that they would be forced to post as an average and make that the big wording. "7.5Mbps AVERAGE* *Average speed may vary, maximum speed of 15Mbps."
Our domain was up for renewal in September. In July we get a letter from Domain Registry of Canada (Domain Registry of America is their US version). Looking like a normal and official bill, the boss paid it by VISA despite it being nearly 10x what a domain registrar should be charging. The next day I'm going through the paperwork and find the DROC invoice. I'm baffled because they are not our domain registrar. First thing I do is call our real company and confirm that the domain is still locked. I also renewed at the time just to make sure. I then called DROC and after a few minutes on hold I was assured that the charge was cancelled. I contacted VISA the next day and was informed that the charge had been cancelled. They seemed to be pretty routine and mechanical about cancelling people though I imagine a few people never realized they had been suckered.
Was this your fifth cat, or was it Cat 6?
Did you properly terminate Cat 6 at the end?
I tried using NoScript for about a month but stopped using it. Often times I would run into a website that was just broken for some reason. Couldn't click on the links, missing elements, no navigation menus, etc. Yes I could just back out of these sites and go elsewhere but a few of them I simply don't have a choice. I have to use the site.
A result of this, I permit the site to run JS. I thought, gee why couldn't a malicious site just look innocent and make it appear that you NEED JS to do anything on the page causing NoScript users to give them permission.