boogerman2000

About

Username
boogerman2000
Joined
Visits
95
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
215
Badges
1
Posts
414
  • 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. 
    ZooMigo[Deleted User]
  • 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.


    baconstangcgWerksonix
  • Text of FCC 'Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom' released, eradicates net neutrality rul...

    gatorguy 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?
    How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
    I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water.  Yes?  Or the law against murder.  I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry.  Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to  basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
    There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.

    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.
    That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight. 
    Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.
    Are you still trying to convince everyone that you're right?    lol.   SPAMsandwich indeed.
    How about providing a counter-argument instead of a personal attack?
    Pai says: "Well, I favor a free and open Internet, as I think most consumers do.

    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.

    radarthekat
  • Text of FCC 'Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom' released, eradicates net neutrality rul...

    gatorguy 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?
    How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
    I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water.  Yes?  Or the law against murder.  I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry.  Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to  basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
    There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.

    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.
    That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight. 
    Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.
    Are you still trying to convince everyone that you're right?    lol.   SPAMsandwich indeed.
    radarthekat
  • Mockups envision 'iPhone X Plus' and 'iPhone SE 2' with edge to edge displays, Face ID

    Hands on? The iPhone X looks feminine, yet less svelte than the 8 / 8+.  A bit like a $1000+ device for the rich. All 3 devices scream Dolce & Gabbana bling.. yuk. 

    The notch? Ugly mistake imo. 

    The SE remains great. Leave the headphone jack. Add force touch / Taptic engine. Sold.


    baconstang