Like this comment?
Kansas Citian here. Where I live, I can select from AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, and Google. And of course there's a bunch of smaller ISPs that resell bandwidth from the big four.
We're talking about Firefox and not Chrome.
I know you're joking, but in all seriousness its cultural. She shows me great respect and I'm loving towards her. As such, I admittedly don't experience the same levels of drama that my peers do. So my wife not going crazy was probably a bad example since that's not the norm everywhere.
While I see many challenges to geoengineering, talks breaking down into nuclear war is not one of them. I mean, I have challenging talks with my wife all the time about the budget, but I never think going into it that she's going to burn down the house in response to a dispute.
You are going to pay less for less. If one really needed all of those channels, they should subscribe to a traditional package. To put it in perspective, let's say you use a small jar's worth of mayo each month and mayo expires in 30 days. Should you really buy a 5 gallon container of mayo just because the cost per ounce of mayo is less? Obviously not since most of it would go to waste. Likewise, a guy like me wouldn't want to pay for a bunch of extra channels just to bring the cost per channel down. Instead I'll buy what I want and pay a higher cost per channel, but ultimately pay less.
To drive this home, I actually purchase every season of every current series I watch from Amazon rather than buy cable. It is cheaper for me to buy a season of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D", "Once Upon a Time", and "Doctor Who" every year rather than pay the cost of a season every month just to watch three shows. Is cable's cost per show cheaper? Yes. But I care more about my total cost.
Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service.
Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.
This site says there are 25 providers
So? Your point is?
I'm guessing that the fact that Google Fiber exists may strengthen their case to go through with the merger. They may argue that Google demonstrates that it is possible for competitors to pop up.
Hopefully if they try such an argument, the Justice Department would be wise enough to realize that the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service. Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.
I interpreted him to mean that California should not be making beer. Not that there shouldn't be beer made in the United States.
I don't believe you're European. Many people here in the States tell us how good it is in Europe. How everyone in Europe are handed huge paychecks, perfect healthcare, a wide selection of Amiibo, and months off for maternity/paternity leave.
I would guess that it would be for bigger monitors. I would love to have a bigger monitor with a higher resolution.
Outside of macs, 8k would look amazing in my theater room. 1080p looks pretty good, but I'm sure 8k at 100" would look stunning.
And 20 years from now when we are using 8M monitors, someone will dig up this post and giggle. "Remember in 2015 when gweihir said that 8k was overkill! ROTFlyingCar!!!"
Or else Nintendo really would have been doomed. Just look at Rare. RIP
I've always disliked this non-answer. Imagine you were in the "Hunger Games" and you won. Someone then asks you, "How did you survive?" You then answer, "If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to answer you." Everyone would agree that this does not answer the question.
PS4. I honestly don't think these fantastic looking games would look even more fantastic on a PS4.