TalonFlyer
Dec 2, 04:39 PM
TalonFlyer..
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
*************************************************************
Nice review, and thanks. It sounds like you might have gotten a unit that is sub par. The rotation and articulation of the car kit in many of the Youtube videos seems very tight, very solid with strong mounting. Did it just loosen up over that short time or did it start out not so great? Maybe send it back?
I thought I remember reading that the Handsfree Bluetooth is duplex so I'm also not sure where your issue comes from. That said, I may get that as a separate item on the visor of my car if its below quality. I have another car with a BluAnt unit in it and its terrific.
Also, there are now several places where you can order the car kit for much less money. I have an order into BTL for $87 which sounds like a more reasonable price for the unit. I'm sure it will continue to drop.
Thanks again!
I updated my post and yesterday I returned the Car Kit.
This is a slick looking mount with to many functional limitations.
I exchanged the car kit and had the same hands-free issues.
What I noticed after many calls is that there is a GATE circuit (similar to an AGC (Automatic Gain Control) circuit) that is turning off the speaker most likely to reduce background noise. The problem is that this GATING is causing the audio to be choppy making it very difficult to hear your call.
The useless hands-free along with other limitations make it far to expensive to just sit around and charge the phone.
You cannot mount it on you dash due to the off-center swivel making it impossible to rotate it vertical (unless the mount is hanging over the edge a little).
Why the bluetooth does not connect until docked does not make any sense and makes it even less valuable.
Having to remove the case every time is a real pain as well.
Why do you need a different unit for the iPod touch? The connection is the same and if the little pins retracted it would work.
They did a great job getting everyone excited, but then Bernie Madoff did also.
The bottom line, it's not worth it, get something else.
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
*************************************************************
Nice review, and thanks. It sounds like you might have gotten a unit that is sub par. The rotation and articulation of the car kit in many of the Youtube videos seems very tight, very solid with strong mounting. Did it just loosen up over that short time or did it start out not so great? Maybe send it back?
I thought I remember reading that the Handsfree Bluetooth is duplex so I'm also not sure where your issue comes from. That said, I may get that as a separate item on the visor of my car if its below quality. I have another car with a BluAnt unit in it and its terrific.
Also, there are now several places where you can order the car kit for much less money. I have an order into BTL for $87 which sounds like a more reasonable price for the unit. I'm sure it will continue to drop.
Thanks again!
I updated my post and yesterday I returned the Car Kit.
This is a slick looking mount with to many functional limitations.
I exchanged the car kit and had the same hands-free issues.
What I noticed after many calls is that there is a GATE circuit (similar to an AGC (Automatic Gain Control) circuit) that is turning off the speaker most likely to reduce background noise. The problem is that this GATING is causing the audio to be choppy making it very difficult to hear your call.
The useless hands-free along with other limitations make it far to expensive to just sit around and charge the phone.
You cannot mount it on you dash due to the off-center swivel making it impossible to rotate it vertical (unless the mount is hanging over the edge a little).
Why the bluetooth does not connect until docked does not make any sense and makes it even less valuable.
Having to remove the case every time is a real pain as well.
Why do you need a different unit for the iPod touch? The connection is the same and if the little pins retracted it would work.
They did a great job getting everyone excited, but then Bernie Madoff did also.
The bottom line, it's not worth it, get something else.
tblrsa
Apr 20, 03:13 AM
Looks like a specs upgrade to me. I�ll most likely skip this and buy the next revision. :)
ChickenSwartz
Aug 3, 07:09 AM
Yeah, what would be the best thing Steve could do Monday is to announce an across the board shift to Core 2 immediately. I don't have the courage to predict this will happen. But it would be the coolest thing in a long time if it does. :cool:
I agree with you it would make the most sense to just do it all at once instead of incrementally - esp since it's only FIVE MONTHS 'til the January 9 SF MacWorld SteveNote where the OctoCore Mac Pro will likely be added above the Quad - maybe even the Leopard release.
I think that would make for an impressive presentation. Steve could say the entire line is now intel and by [whenever] the entire line will be 64-bit. Preview Leopard--Apple's first 64-bit optimized OS.
I think he will want Core 2 in stus ASAP, to stay ahead of the curve. Plus, performance/watt is better <--importatnt to Mr. Jobs.
I agree with you it would make the most sense to just do it all at once instead of incrementally - esp since it's only FIVE MONTHS 'til the January 9 SF MacWorld SteveNote where the OctoCore Mac Pro will likely be added above the Quad - maybe even the Leopard release.
I think that would make for an impressive presentation. Steve could say the entire line is now intel and by [whenever] the entire line will be 64-bit. Preview Leopard--Apple's first 64-bit optimized OS.
I think he will want Core 2 in stus ASAP, to stay ahead of the curve. Plus, performance/watt is better <--importatnt to Mr. Jobs.
Clive At Five
Nov 22, 12:42 PM
There's no reason why they will choose to exclude syncing with mac applications.
I never said they would.
-Clive
I never said they would.
-Clive
*LTD*
Apr 18, 03:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
It's very likely that Apple's been ripped off left right. I wouldn't be surprised. These also-rans can barely manage to copy, let alone innovate anything worth using.
It's very likely that Apple's been ripped off left right. I wouldn't be surprised. These also-rans can barely manage to copy, let alone innovate anything worth using.
SirHaakon
Mar 29, 05:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Holy wow. iTunes is officially dead to me.
Holy wow. iTunes is officially dead to me.
MacRumors
Jul 21, 01:50 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Intel is shipping Core 2 Duo Mobile chips (Merom) to manufacturers, according to recent Intel financial report (http://download.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ22006earningsfoils.pdf). A recent AppleInsider story (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1890) had indicated that Intel may have plans to move up Merom's formal launch to next Monday, July 23rd, to coincide with the Core 2 Duo Desktop variant ("Conroe") launch. Despite the move, availablility at the time was still not expected until August.
Merom is expected to replace Core Duo "Yonah" CPUs found in the MacBook Pro. Apple could use the 2.0, 2.16, or 2.33 GHz variants of Merom in its MacBook Pro line, each of which sport 4 MB of L2 Cache (up from 2 MB in current MacBook Pros) and have a 667 MHz frontside bus.
Intel is shipping Core 2 Duo Mobile chips (Merom) to manufacturers, according to recent Intel financial report (http://download.intel.com/intel/finance/earnings/IntelQ22006earningsfoils.pdf). A recent AppleInsider story (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1890) had indicated that Intel may have plans to move up Merom's formal launch to next Monday, July 23rd, to coincide with the Core 2 Duo Desktop variant ("Conroe") launch. Despite the move, availablility at the time was still not expected until August.
Merom is expected to replace Core Duo "Yonah" CPUs found in the MacBook Pro. Apple could use the 2.0, 2.16, or 2.33 GHz variants of Merom in its MacBook Pro line, each of which sport 4 MB of L2 Cache (up from 2 MB in current MacBook Pros) and have a 667 MHz frontside bus.
Glideslope
Mar 29, 08:53 PM
seismologist?
At a boy!!! :apple:
At a boy!!! :apple:
res1233
May 6, 05:37 AM
WOW.
First step to a totally closed system. Pretty soon all our applications we want will have to come through the App store for our Macs. The day I see that is the day I turn my Mac OFF.
I will go back to Windows in a heart beat if I am forced to buy my applications and such through Apple.
First off, why do you care where you get your apps from? Second, I highly doubt Apple is going to make Mac OS as closed as iOS. It just makes no sense. They would have to redesign too much of the OS to make it that closed, and they'd have to take away so many features that it wouldn't be the same OS anymore. I doubt Apple is stupid enough to do that. It's true that Apple wants to have as much control over the entire process as they can get, but I firmly believe that there are limits to it. They wont sabotage their own OS because I don't think i've ever met anyone clueless enough to think that that would be a good idea.
First step to a totally closed system. Pretty soon all our applications we want will have to come through the App store for our Macs. The day I see that is the day I turn my Mac OFF.
I will go back to Windows in a heart beat if I am forced to buy my applications and such through Apple.
First off, why do you care where you get your apps from? Second, I highly doubt Apple is going to make Mac OS as closed as iOS. It just makes no sense. They would have to redesign too much of the OS to make it that closed, and they'd have to take away so many features that it wouldn't be the same OS anymore. I doubt Apple is stupid enough to do that. It's true that Apple wants to have as much control over the entire process as they can get, but I firmly believe that there are limits to it. They wont sabotage their own OS because I don't think i've ever met anyone clueless enough to think that that would be a good idea.
SandynJosh
Apr 7, 06:50 PM
I don't know if I buy this whole shortage thing.
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
You don't build these components in a garage and hire your workforce off the docks. The equipment that it takes to build touch screens are not ordered out of catalogs and shipped overnight.
The companies that make the touch screens are also acutely aware of the problem of overproduction capability such as what occurred not long ago with memory chips.
Money is made when you have properly anticipated, years ahead, what the future capacity of various components might be, and steered your production in that direction.
Apple projected their needs in critical components, such as the touch screen, and spent billions of dollars to partner with manufacturers to guarantee that "when you build it, we will come."
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
You don't build these components in a garage and hire your workforce off the docks. The equipment that it takes to build touch screens are not ordered out of catalogs and shipped overnight.
The companies that make the touch screens are also acutely aware of the problem of overproduction capability such as what occurred not long ago with memory chips.
Money is made when you have properly anticipated, years ahead, what the future capacity of various components might be, and steered your production in that direction.
Apple projected their needs in critical components, such as the touch screen, and spent billions of dollars to partner with manufacturers to guarantee that "when you build it, we will come."
hawken1
Jul 29, 09:54 PM
http://www.devilducky.com/media/46492/
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
balamw
Apr 10, 09:54 AM
Dammit, I fell at the last hurdle. I get 288 but then clicked 2 by mistake!
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
Multimedia
Aug 12, 02:32 AM
Sounds like you'll be getting a nice Penryn MBP then! ;) :D :cool:From the Intel Core Microarchitecture Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture):
Penryn, dual-core, 45 nm shrink of Merom, 3�6 MiB L2
So you think Penryn pairs may be the 4 core mobile solution in 2008?
Penryn, dual-core, 45 nm shrink of Merom, 3�6 MiB L2
So you think Penryn pairs may be the 4 core mobile solution in 2008?
Nostromo
May 6, 02:20 AM
If ARM is indeed able to make high-performance CPUs, then a move like this would be one of the most significant ones in the computing history. Let's face it: the x86 architecture is a dead end. Its needlessly complicated and builds on obsolete tech. Internally, the modern x86 CPUs aren't even x86 anymore - they decompose, recompile and reorder the machine code as they execute it. The ARM assembly is more suited for modern computing as it is more efficient as the x86 code and allows better CPU pipeline utilization.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
I'm sure there will be another big change in processors and software.
ARM sounds a bit like cloud computing: many smaller processors.
It probably depends on the development of the ARM. Who knows what potential is in them.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
I'm sure there will be another big change in processors and software.
ARM sounds a bit like cloud computing: many smaller processors.
It probably depends on the development of the ARM. Who knows what potential is in them.
Don't panic
May 6, 08:37 PM
it's quicker because we can explore two room each round instead of one, so we gain one turn.
the draw back from the strategy is mainly that one of the groups might loose out on a treasure, but since we already explored this rooms, and we have to re-search them only for traps, that part is moot.
this will apply only fron the next round, but by the rules we have to be two groups by then.
we will still be 'together, and we can merge back in a group any time.
anyways. without further ado,
We split
ucfgrad is now his own (single) group
Loras group moves to the next (previous room).
ufcgrad, now you should move to the room with us, and as soon it's our round again, you should explore the room. after that, I will move our group to the next room, then in your second tunr you move and in our second turn we explore that room.
the draw back from the strategy is mainly that one of the groups might loose out on a treasure, but since we already explored this rooms, and we have to re-search them only for traps, that part is moot.
this will apply only fron the next round, but by the rules we have to be two groups by then.
we will still be 'together, and we can merge back in a group any time.
anyways. without further ado,
We split
ucfgrad is now his own (single) group
Loras group moves to the next (previous room).
ufcgrad, now you should move to the room with us, and as soon it's our round again, you should explore the room. after that, I will move our group to the next room, then in your second tunr you move and in our second turn we explore that room.
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:54 PM
this may be a dumb ? but . . .
as far as the empty drive bay, i already have a pionner 109 superdrive i bought for my old powermac g4. would that be compatible?Latest Pioneer DVR-111 is only $35.
as far as the empty drive bay, i already have a pionner 109 superdrive i bought for my old powermac g4. would that be compatible?Latest Pioneer DVR-111 is only $35.
JaimeChinook
Dec 9, 11:55 PM
Actually, all I had to do was reboot (suggested by AppDelete). Thanks
socamx
Aug 11, 09:01 AM
Why would they give the Macbook that but leave the iMac with the original Core Duo? Doesn't make sense. I would think all three would get it or just the Macbook Pro.
aqwhiteh
Nov 26, 09:45 AM
It is inevitable that Mac OS will eventually be more frequently targetted, however I have 'faith' the it is more secure than windows. And if and when the great Mac Virus Outbreak occurs, I'll install AV software, until then. NO.
Security is vaguely to mildly inconvenient, and worth it in my opinion. The only thing I have faith in is that no OS is truly secure if it has a network connection... that, and the willingness and ability of smart people around the world to steal in new and creative ways.
I run Norton 11.1.1 on my mac pro, I barely notice the performance hit with this version, unlike previous ones. Only catch is they don't have full 64-bit support (symantec connect site states it is 'coming soon'). But it does protect against phishing sites (not that I need that necessarily).
One of the most common ways to get malware installed these days is by Rogue AV (popups claim you are 'infected' and tell you to download a free AV app you never heard of to remove it... and bingo you've installed malware). Sophos is not one of these. Point is OS X won't protect users from themselves.
Security is vaguely to mildly inconvenient, and worth it in my opinion. The only thing I have faith in is that no OS is truly secure if it has a network connection... that, and the willingness and ability of smart people around the world to steal in new and creative ways.
I run Norton 11.1.1 on my mac pro, I barely notice the performance hit with this version, unlike previous ones. Only catch is they don't have full 64-bit support (symantec connect site states it is 'coming soon'). But it does protect against phishing sites (not that I need that necessarily).
One of the most common ways to get malware installed these days is by Rogue AV (popups claim you are 'infected' and tell you to download a free AV app you never heard of to remove it... and bingo you've installed malware). Sophos is not one of these. Point is OS X won't protect users from themselves.
Moyank24
May 4, 01:51 PM
I'd think we'd want to explore this room.
Gotcha. just wanted exploring the hallway was one of the choices. I'm all for exploring the hallway.
Gotcha. just wanted exploring the hallway was one of the choices. I'm all for exploring the hallway.
finkmacunix
Apr 23, 05:23 PM
Am I the only one who loves looking at high res high quality icons? I feel a bit sad over here. :p
So do I� *Hypnotized By giant App Store icon*
So do I� *Hypnotized By giant App Store icon*
Riemann Zeta
Mar 27, 11:40 AM
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
ghostlyorb
Apr 5, 07:36 PM
Looks like a cool theme. I'm sure it's on a repo somewhere!
