Comment Re:AMOLED = low durability (Score 1) 36
Comment Re: wireless charging? (Score 1) 111
Comment Re:Tech reviewer verdict: (Score 1) 75
Comment Re: Soda Cans (Score 1) 62
Comment Re:Elerium-115 (Score 1) 191
Comment Two obvious reasons I can see (Score 1) 105
Comment Re:Another patch worth avoiding (Score 1) 490
Comment I miss Bill Gates (Score 2) 57
Comment Re:This site is so biased now! (Score 1) 210
That link is of a conversation where she tells an aide to remove the classified material and headers.
She said nothing about removing any classified material, just the headers. Do you like making things up?
Comment Re:Samsung vs Nexus (Score 1) 142
-Longevity is severely reduced by the non-removable battery. (in my personal experience, I still use a Note 2. I just replaced the battery on it and am back to a whole day of usage from the 45 minutes I was getting on the original battery.)
-All Samsung devices use their AMOLED technology. While these screens look amazing, they have a very short life. My Note 2 has severe burn-in that you can easily see on any screen (except black). I will never buy an AMOLED device again. The high prices they are charging for their OLED TVs are laughable. Why pay more for something you will need to replace shortly down the line?
Samsung designs their phones to only last 1-2 years at best. They plan for them to need replacing. They expect you to buy a new one every year along with all the custom accessories that only work with that phone - Gear 360 for example.
In short, if you buy a new phone every year or less, then get a Samsung.
If you like to actually own your device and have the freedom to root and replace short-life parts, get a phone such as the LG G5.
Comment Re:Is this potentially a "real" legal definition? (Score -1) 57
Yeah yeah - Not like an actual zombie apocalypse is actually going to happen, but...
But it is happening.....Zika....in a slightly different way, but it is happening.
Comment Re:Save on supervisory staff (Score 1) 348
Comment Out of focus kills 3D (Score 1) 535
Games on the other hand should work well because they can be rendered in 3D with no out of focus issues. I look forward to the day I can play my games in true 3D. But I am not spending this amount of money on just a gaming TV.
Comment Re:Did I notice a severe slowdown? (Score 1) 234
Well your lucky then. I upgraded to thunderbird 3 half a year ago and had to downgrade back to thunderbird 2. The reasons were exactly the same as the article, all around poor performance, many crashes and problems. I tried some fixes such as disabling indexing, but they only made it bearable. Thunderbird 2 however is rock solid on my quad core machine.
Do you use both imap and pop? Are you on linux instead of windows? There is probably some way you are using the program that does not reflect the majority. I have heard many reports of people with problems with thunderbird 3 performance. Simply take a look at their forums to get a good sampling.
I have three gmail accounts (imap) and one pop in Thunderbird. I had this issue that the article talks about when Thunderbird 2 was upgraded to 3. It would get to the point that closing Thunderbird would not work. I would have to kill -9 the process to get rid of it and the total use of one of my processors. The sollution in my case was to delete all my account folders and settings and recreate them from scratch. Since they are imap it was no big deal.
Is it possible something from version 2 to 3 is the cause? Does a fresh setup of 3 with email accounts produce the same problem?