The AG office suspects that customers who are paying a premium fee for higher internet speeds could be experiencing a disruption to their service due to technical issues brought about by business disputes in these interconnection deals.
It doesn't sound like he's talking about his average speeds. It sounds like he's talking about the targeted throttling of services. For example, I am a Comcast subscriber with an HBO subscription that I pay for through Comcast. As a part of my HBO subscription, I gain access to HBO Go. I have a PS4 HBO Go application. Every time I have tried it, it has failed to work, at all. This is a known issue, and in response to customer complaints Comcast has openly stated that it is a business decision, not a technical one. So, I pay Comcast for something, and they don't allow me to use it.
Sadly, I don't live in New York and Comcast doesn't appear to be a target of these letters. I can't actually speak to the practices of other ISPs as I'm not their customer, but both the article and summary make it pretty clear this isn't a matter of "guaranteed bandwidth." I haven't seen the words written in the article, but this is a net neutrality issue.
For someone who knows that -- without a doubt -- they will upgrade to whatever new iPhone comes out in a year's time, and they're confident that they'd definitely take out Apple Care, it amounts to a saving of a few dollars over two years.
This is just another pointless article by a hater, he doesn't even agree with himself. It's bait, and not even good bait, he throws a few numbers out there but doesn't show us any actual cost comparison between using the upgrade program Apple offers and, say, paying full retail or taking advantage of other upgrade programs offered by the service providers. Indeed, he even states that you can save money using the program while complaining that you're just sending more to Apple. There's no substance to the article, no facts to back up all of his complaining about the bad upgrade deal. He's probably just sour he's already in a contract and can't dump his outdated phone to take advantage of the new program. This article is just one of the many new additions to the pointless Apple hate on the internet we'll be seeing now that they've announced another upgrade to their mobile product line.
Just a quick disclaimer, since a bunch of you will no doubt label me a fanboy, I use Apple AND Android products, they both have different advantages and disadvantages. I find myself defending Apple products most often though because for some reason there's this strange hate towards them from people who don't use them, as if we should all be that worried about what phone other people are using...
This is especially interesting given the way the consortium addresses the issue of different symbols representing the same character in different parts of East Asia. From http://unicode.org/faq/han_cjk...:
Q: If the character shapes are different in different parts of East Asia, why were the characters unified?
A: The Unicode Standard is designed to encode characters, not glyphs. Even where there are substantial variations in the standard way of writing a character from locale to locale, if the fundamental identity of the character is not in question, then a single character is encoded in Unicode.
Characters, not glyphs. So emoji are characters, while various Asian writing styles are glyphs, I guess. And a couple lines further down in the same answer...
There are occasional instances of unified characters whose typical Chinese glyph and typical Japanese glyph are distinct enough that the Chinese glyph will be unfamiliar to the typical Japanese reader, e.g., U+76F4. To prevent legibility problems for Japanese readers, it is advisable to use a Japanese-style font when presenting Unihan text to Japanese readers.
So if you're Japanese and want to see Japanese characters, you're told to use a Japanese font. But, you'll never be forced to choose between a male and female dancing emoji, you deserve to have BOTH in your character set. Why are emoji more important to Unicode than the Japanese language?
AR > VR for LARPing. I've been raving about everything AR, specifically the Hololens, could mean for LARPing to my friends since I saw that promo video a year or two ago back, even more now with the recent E3 presentation. VR would be crap for actual LARPing, I wouldn't want to rely on my VR display while running through the woods, there's no way every obstacle would be represented in the simulation. However, an augmented reality lens that could make the NPCs look like monsters while we fight, add spell effects to packets, make foam swords look like metal...
I like the idea of AR better than VR because VR's purpose is to separate you entirely from the reality around you. While VR could make for some really cool video games, they'll still just be video games. The setup in the video appears to be an attempt to combine the two, and it does look like a bunch of fun, but what they're doing is only possible after designing a 3D environment that accurately represents the physical room their players will walk around in, and then it's filled only with virtual enemies. Don't get me wrong, The Void just made it onto my to-do list, it might even be one of my vacation stops next year if they open when they plan to and Utah doesn't turn me off too much. But I'll be much more excited when the games have you working with/against other players, and even more when I can spend whole weekends defending Shadowfane from beasts.
"Some people out there like something I don't. The truth is, that thing they like sucks!"
You're an idiot. Just because you don't see the appeal to split-screen doesn't mean it "sucks." I know a lot of people on here are primarily PC gamers as opposed to console, I see the console hate in enough posts, but how dense do you need to be to not understand that playing in the same room with your friends is a different experience than talking to them on a headset? My friends and I for a long time got together atleast one night a week for a late night of gaming. We still get together frequently, but now gaming isn't always appealing because we don't want to all lug our televisions and consoles to eachothers' houses (picture wife/gf reactions to living rooms with four TVs set up) nor do we want to just take turns all night. Sure, we play together online still, but it's not even a remotely similar experience.
I'm not going to say there aren't drawbacks, none of us could understand why by the time Halo 4 came out they still had kill and death messages taking up such a huge portion of the split-screen, even blocking the crosshairs at times, but it was still a hell of a lot more fun playing together than sitting in rooms in different towns and talking on a headset. As for performance hits, Halo 4 was the first time in a long time I'd seen a noticeable performance drop in split-screen, and while it was a huge disappointment, I still enjoyed the game most playing with my friends in split-screen.
The death of split-screen is just another symptom of our ever-decreasing interest in human interaction. I mean, not only do you not see the appeal of actually being around other people you're doing things with, you don't even understand why anyone else would want to be around people they're doing things with. How does that not seem screwed up to you? I'm not saying everyone should enjoy split-screen, but you're basing an argument against a preferred method of social interaction on the affect it has on graphics and performance, that's just silly to me. Also, your suggestion that for social gatherings we should just play games where all players are on the same screen, are you even listening to yourself? "You should be forced to play a type of game you have no interest in instead of the type of game you've been enjoying for decades." How can you even take yourself seriously suggesting that?
Sorry if I missed the study, but what makes this all because of preorders? I've been playing buggy games for decades, plenty of which I didn't preorder, many of which weren't even expected to be huge hits, why is everyone so sure that preorders are why developers aren't fixing games? I'm not saying they definitely have nothing to do with it, but as someone who preorders a game about once every year or two, I'm genuinely curious what evidence there is that my actions are damaging the games. And for anyone thinking I'm a dumbass for preordering games, I like to get collectors editions of sequels to games I already enjoy because I like having cool things to put on display to represent those games. I genuinely like that extra stuff, lots of people do, I'm not saying you should but don't give people shit because they like different things.
To be honest, I think it has more to do with priorities changing at major game companies. It seems to me like the industry started off as gamers making games they enjoyed for other gamers, and making a bit of money off it. As the industry has grown and become more profitable, many of the people making the games aren't as passionate about the games themselves and are more concerned with making money. This is fairly obvious with larger companies such as Activision, franchises like CoD have a new release every year instead of even attempting to make a game one would enjoy for longer. And we've all seen the Destiny fiasco, a game I enjoy but am getting fed up with at the same time. It seems to me they're just choosing quantity over quality. That's really just me guessing, but without any evidence one way or another, I think anyone's guess is just as good.
as a result of NSA spying and Snowden's whistleblowing
The actual losses "will likely far exceed $35 billion," according to the ITIF report, because the entire American tech industry has performed worse than expected as a result of the Snowden leaks.
Serious question. Does the leak actually count as part of the cause? I know if everything were still under wraps the spying might not have cost tech companies anything in lost sales, but it seems unfair to suggest that Snowden is partly responsible for the consequences of what he revealed simply because the consequences MIGHT have been avoided or at least delayed if he hadn't revealed it. I might just be making something out of nothing, it just seems like a dick move to act like it's his fault the way some people make it out to be. Not that it's anything new, but it was almost excusable when this was fresh and people still didn't fully understand the situation, now we've all had enough time to take it in and figure out who the real bad guys are.
the government argued that she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
They're not doing anything to hide the fact that she assisted them, they're actually arguing that she gave them permission to create the account when she gave them permission to access her phone. Even if their argument doesn't hold up in court, they're still acknowledging she gave them some assistance by allowing them to access her phone. You could maybe claim they're downplaying how much she assisted them, but it seems more likely this is exactly what it looks like and they created the account without her knowledge.
Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce