boogerman2000
About
- Username
- boogerman2000
- Joined
- Visits
- 104
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 216
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 417
Reactions
-
Get these essential apps for your new iPhone or iPad
-
Apple hit with lawsuit after admitting to slowing down iPhones with depleted batteries
Recently brought MacBook pro 2015 in faulty tracked cursor erratic, not responding. Apple genius said had to send in for repairs $500. Not that old, babied, never dropped.
Unacceptable.
iPhone 6 running iOS 11 lags worse than Android since update.
Unacceptable.
Cant plug Apple lightening headphones into mackbook w/o adapter.
Moronic and unacceptable.
This is all very ugly. -
Apple's 'iPhone SE 2' rumored to ship in first half of 2018, made in India
Keep the same form factor, size and weight.
A11
Add force touch w/ mechanical home button and Taptic engine.
Keep 3.5 headphone jack ( Apple dongle situation (donglegate) totally unreasonable - I can't plug Apple earbuds into laptop without adapter no lightening port on mac??!! say what? what a stupid decision )
Keep price low
I'll buy 20 units
Happy Thanksgiving everybody - we can still say that I hope.
-
Text of FCC 'Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom' released, eradicates net neutrality rul...
SpamSandwich said:boogerman2000 said:SpamSandwich said:gatorguy said:SpamSandwich said:radarthekat said:SpamSandwich said:melgross said:Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.My concern is with the particular regulations that the FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.
And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up disincentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example.
And that, I think, is something that nobody would benefit from."
You see? What we have here is a hot, steaming load of bullshit.
-
Text of FCC 'Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom' released, eradicates net neutrality rul...
SpamSandwich said:gatorguy said:SpamSandwich said:radarthekat said:SpamSandwich said:melgross said:Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.