Canada did it first, And it's country-wide. It can also do speeds as high as 100 Gbit/s but generally operated at 10 Gbit/s.
Yet still New Hampshire has one of the lowest rates of uninsured drivers at 11%. Mind you, if you opt to not get insurance, you are still on the hook for costs of bodily injury or property damage resulting from a car accident you caused.
Personally, I think that car insurance, like house insurance is one of those things you are stupid not to get, even if it isn't required. You stand to lose a whole lot of money if something goes wrong. In the case of a car, that could be accidentally running over a person or crashing into expensive property. In the case of a house, if your house catches on fire, or somebody steals all your stuff. There cost of liability and theft insurance is usually very low for houses and cars, and it's pretty stupid to not get it, even if it isn't mandatory by law.
This is especially true for these "flagship" phones. Give me something really impressive rather than some gimmick. I think that Nokia was the only one who got anything close to this wit their 42 megapixel camera on a phone. Everybody else is just making it thinner or adding gimmicks like the edge screen that are fun for the first 10 minutes and then eventually don't actually provide any useful features.
How about sticking an actually actual SSD into a phone. Those things are getting pretty small. It would be great if my phone had a real, upgradeable SSD in it. Add a real camera lens with an actual flash (non of this LED nonsense). Really somebody should be making a phone that can substitute for an actual computer when you're in a pinch, it should be able to connect to all the peripherals (keyboard, mouse, monitor). Maybe it only works in this mode when it's plugged in. But it should be possible. As it stands right now, you don't get anything extra real features out of buying a $700 phone then you do when you buy the $200 phone. And in some cases like removable storage and battery, you actually get less for your money.
I actually really like the way they implemented it in Window 10. As far as I can tell, It's no longer possible for the browser to change the default browser for you. They can bring up the screen to change the option, but the user has to change the option themselves. This is much better than the old functionality where applications would constantly be setting themselves as the default application either with no warning or with a simple yes/no dialog. Making it take more clicks is a good thing.
It's a stupid argument. Same people who complain that their 4G cell connection which gets them 14 mbit/s speeds but only 5 GB of download per month. Sure you could blow through your transfer limits in a few minutes, but isn't it nice that you can also download a webpage in under a second. Would you rather they capped you at some low speed so that you could only use 5 GB if you used the full connection speed 24/7 for the entire month?
Did they really check to make sure that the movies didn't exist? Once you start looking at independently produced movies, there's a lot of movies that exist that you would just swear are fake. Such As:
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter
3 Headed Shark Attack
I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle
Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus
Slaughtered Vomit Dolls
Just look it up. Think of a plausible movie title, and it probably already exists in some form or another.
I don't have a direct reference point, as I installed Windows 10 on a new machine, but personally my boot time is spectacular with Windows 10. From the time the BIOS beeps, to the time I see the login screen it's 10 seconds. It's also completely responsive from the time I hit the login screen. No lag at all upon log in.
I'm not saying that the hardware doesn't work at all, but rather that it doesn't work as expected. This article is the perfect example. Sure the $550 Radeon card will work, but it won't work as one expects it to work. This has been the same in most of my experiences. There will be video drivers that work fine for the desktop, but as soon as you try to do something like a game, they either won't work or will run much slower than they would on Windows. I've also had problems getting certain wireless chipsets working in Linux.
It doesn't matter which is cheaper if Linux can only play a very small subset of the games. I certainly wouldn't spend $200+ on a video card and then limit myself in my game selection by refusing to spend an extra $100 on the OS.
Personally, I've never actually been able to get Linux to run properly on arbitrary hardware that I happened to own. I'm sure you could put together a machine with specific hardware that is known to work well with Linux, but if you just pick random parts off the shelf based on performance needs, odds are you'll run into some difficulties trying to get everything working under Linux. That time spent researching whether or not the parts will actually work with Linux is easily worth the cost of buying a Windows license and just knowing that everything will work as expected.
I think that software patents could be a bit more palatable if they also had to provide source code that was proven to compile and work as describe in the patent. As it stands right now, source code is not necessary, and only a vague description of what the functionality is necessary for software patents. That means, even if somebody else finds a better algorithm for doing what is covered in the patent, then the patent might still apply.
This very much stifles innovation. Let's say somebody invents a wood chopping machine and patents it. Now I discover something that is slowing their machine down, or making it unreliable. If I find out a solution to that, I can patent my fix and start selling a better wood chopping machine. With software, if somebody patents the idea of compressing a video, and I come up with an algorithm that compresses it at 10 times the speed while achieving the same end result, then my algorithm would probably already be covered by the existing patent.
My only problem with slide out keyboards is that it's just something extra to break. I've had 5 or 6 phones in my lifetime, and all the ones with moving mechanisms like flip phones or slide out keypads have died a premature death in the connection in the moving part. The first phone that I had that lasted until I actually wanted to upgrade (not counting my first analog cell phone), was a device which only had a touch screen, power and volume inputs. Every other phone suffered from keys that stopped working. I'm sure it's possible to build a phone physical buttons that doesn't break down after a year or two, but from my point of view they are inherently prone to failure.
But the problem I see is that you'll never get more than your initial investment back. With the Ouya kickstarter the buy in was $100 if you wanted them to send you a console if they ever eventually released one. The problem was that when they eventually did end up releasing the console, it was $100 even for those who didn't invest initially. So there is nothing to gain by being an investor. You'd be much better off just putting your money in a bank and then buying the product when it ultimately comes out. Unless the product was something that didn't exist anywhere and provided some new functionality, then it might be worth it just in case your investment is the one that makes it a reality. But with products like Ouya, there's already plenty of other video game systems out there, and had the Ouya never been made you could have just spent your $100 on some other video game system.
I don't actually think I've ever seen a kickstarter that I would qualify as an investment. For me, an investment is something where I give somebody $x and at a future point in time there's a reasonable chance that I could end up with cash or negotiables worth $x+y. Of course, there's always some risk that the investment doesn't work out and I end up with $x-y or even when x=y and you get $0. But there should be a chance of actually increasing your money.
For every kickstarter project I've seen, the buy in amount is very close, if not exactly equal to the retail price of the product. Because of this, you're almost always better off waiting until they actually have the product completed, and then just buying it when you know that it's actually worth the money. I don't think I've ever seen a kickstarter where they give you a significant discount on the retail value of the item. If there was a reasonable chance that you could get the product for half price, for investing in the product in the early stages, then I could see a lot of incentive to pitch in. But there's no way I'm paying full price for an item that doesn't exist yet and that I may never actually get.
I think this is exactly where most people go wrong. It's very hard to not overeat, especially after working out. I'm into cycling, and after a big ride, I feel absolutely famished. I could very easily eat way more calories than I burned in a ride. And people also overestimate their intensity and how many calories they've burned. 20 minutes on a treadmill really doesn't burn that many calories. It would probably be completely offset by a single sports drink. Personally I really like cycling because it's really good at keeping the intensity up for a prolonged period of time. Went for a 2 hour ride tonight, and apparently burned over 1100 Calories (yes, I'm aware the numbers are probably not completely accurate). I don't think I could maintain that level of intensity for that period of time with any other sport.
Yeah, let's impose the same restriction on Linux or Apache A fine on each bug would probably hurt guys like Apache much more than it would hurt Microsoft. Not that it would be good for either, but I think we know who would fold first in that game.