It extends the battery life of your phone because you are not powering it on as often.
So constantly communicating wirelessly with a device on my wrist is more battery efficient than turning the screen on once in a while?
It's like a fitness band you wear all the time but without the single minded pointlessness.
Except that you can't wear it all the time because it's not waterproof. You even have to take it off in the shower. Also, it only gets around 18 hours of use on the battery, which means you have to plug it in every night, which means it can't track your sleep like a lot of other fitness devices.
The Start/Select-Start isn't part of the actual code, but rather just get's you into the game. You need to use Select if you want to play 2 player.
- Dial-Up limited by hours connected
- Dial-Up unlimited
- Cable/DSL unlimited time, unlimited throughput
- Cable/DSL with limited throughput
- Currently: Cable/DSL are slowly ramping up, offering more speed and throughput as time goes on.
Really, there was a period when everybody was just switching over to broadband where they could essentially give everybody unlimited because there just wasn't that much content out there to saturate the network with. Now, with the amount of stuff delivered online, it's quite easy to go through quite a lot of bandwidth. My kids were eating up a ton of bandwidth watching YouTube videos on their iPods. I set a speed limit on those devices in my router, to about 1 mbit/s and was able to cut their usage to 1/3 of what it was. If there was no limits, people would end up using a lot more bandwidth than they currently do. I have my Netflix set to low quality most of the time because if I don't, it eats bandwidth, and I don't really care most of the time when I'm watching on my tablet. If I had unlimited internet I would probably just leave it on HD all the time, and not set any limits on my kids YouTube, and we could probably easily get to 500 GB per month of usage. Having a limit forces people to think about how they utiilize the resources they are paying for.
224 units is not enough to build even an elementary school around
Why not? If the housing is meant for families, let's assume a modest 60 percent of the houses have families, and that they each have 2.3 children. That's a total of 309 children. My kids go to a school of about 350 kids. I understand that in some places they have huge schools with thousands of kids, but I really don't see the advantage of that. Smaller schools where everybody knows everybody have a lot of appeal.