and George Carlin said it.

Your family's video usage is distinctly below average even if it's just two of you.

Just ordinary usage, even today, for one person, with quality good enough to keep up with this $120 display I just bought, will put you right up against their cap. That's for what's coming available right now, what someone on a budget could easily afford.

What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

Because replying with brainless objections and going off on polysyllabic tangents and minutely critiquing tiny details and making idiot demands for evidence one google would supply (and the google to satisfy GGP's demand was already supplied for him) are among the tactics used to derail a point.

The link includes Nielsen's figures, the search returns lots of 5's and 4's and 3's. Nielsen's figure is 4.

You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

Even preferring your source's figures to what Netflix tells you when you select your streaming quality, you couldn't be bothered to get it right. The scumball site you're seo'ing for says 5Mbps, which would mean 2.25GB/hr and average video consumption time at that rate would blow Comcast's cap.

You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

It's linked in the two-line post you're replying to, So not only is the simplest possible google less attractive than braying demands, clicking a link is a bridge too far?

You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day, already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?

What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

lol /.ers doing a lot of whiffing on this one. It's sad.

Only every experiment that gets readings from instruments with known biases? What the fuck do you think scientific instruments are, oracles? You think they're made of unobtainium and starshine, wishes and wands? Lab instruments can be expensive and delicate and uniform.

Weather stations can't. Lab instruments can be operated in temperature- and humidity- and everyotherfuckingthingelse-controlled environments. Weather stations can't. They degrade, making the instruments behave differently. Conditions change, making the instruments behave differently.

But then, people do tend to judge others' characters by their own.

Just for kicks, look at this set of organizations that disagree with you.

For what you're saying to be true, not only every one of those organizations would have to be concealing data or faking models, every single organization on the planet would have to be in on it - - because science is science.

So the claim is that the entire global scientific community is suddenly full of shit, but only on this one subject (although of course the implication is that nothing affiliated with any university or mainstream research institute can be trusted, because scientist == liar in that world).

Will someone please show me Thing One and Thing Two?

. . .

Except for the ones whose computers don't work properly because of a bad update . . .

If you have a non-Pro 7/8 install, your free upgrade is (quite reasonably) to the non-pro 10 install. Microsoft wants $99 to upgrade that to Pro 10.

If the Win10 upgrade notifier is the only thing the stories are about then that's my fault for not digging deeper. Yeah. The upgrade offer is good-guy stuff, I was glad to have it too.

Win10 Home: $119. Win10 Pro: $199. On Pro you get the delay/select. capability.

It's their declared intent to force that choice. Grandma ponies up or some morning she'll be cut off and understand only that it's apparently okay for corporations to lock people out of their computers and demand $80 (or she could wait whatever number of days MS think they can get away with) to unlock them again.. That's literally, as in in concrete and exact detail, the situation Microsoft have openly declared their intent to force on their customers.