Unfortunately most of the general public are not techy enough - which was the OP's point. It'd be great if they were though, we wouldn't need to compare AVs as often. :)

This is what I've been doing on my OS X machine. My norton subscription expired and I decided to uninstall it instead. Been this way for a few months and expectedly, battery life improved too!

In what respect? The reason I used it before was because I had trouble upgrading from 2011 to 2012 on a Windows 7 machine. On OS X I've only ever used the bundled uninstaller. And FWIW, most reputable AV providers have them - especially if they have hooks into the OS.

I'm assuming you can't use the official one for whatever reason? Because that's the first link I see (and have used before) when I search for Norton Uninstaller.

I'm inclined to agree, but not the 360 version. Do users really benefit from all of the added services (cloud backup and "tuners") in this version? If not, the Internet Security suite would be the upper limit of what I would recommend for users. My opinion is split between Norton and BitDefender; the former for…

Barring a boot with multiple tabs present (less than 10), browser slow down has never been an issue of mine, luckily. I'm not heavy on add-on usage either (around 5 on Chrome, one or none on others) due to me trying to preserve clean states for development, so that might help, haha.

Anecdotal evidence, but on OSX 10.9.3, I lose about half an hour of battery life using Chrome compared to Safari. This is on the late 2013 MacBook Pro retina. No extensive testing done, mind you.

If you have the option of using IE11, then I'd recommend that over FF, assuming you have no browser specific requirements. My reasons: battery life and speed. Unless I have development work, upon which I'll have to use pretty much all three, I generally stick to native browsers.

(Note: this is conjecture based on my understanding of how networks work) Since T-Mobile routes your traffic, I presume that they "whitelist" the data based on destination. Carriers have been known to do this with speed-test apps already: http://support.t-mobile.com/thread/40039?t…

Because T-Mobile is making a point to allow all music streaming services the opportunity to get in on this. But because it's probably not a trivial task for them, they've elected to allow consumers to vote on what they want for the time being.

Incidentally, it's also a slippery slope back towards unlimited data for all services, no? Slippery slope arguments really cannot be used this way to assert predictions, because one can then proceed to come up with endless possibilities.

It actually _is_ any music streaming service. They can't flip a switch and have all the different streaming services be free instantly. Read through cnet's liveblog for more clarity: http://live.cnet.com/Event/T-Mobile…

From what I've read, it all depends on what the type of viewer is (subscriber or not). See point #2 in my first post.

Yes. See: 1) existing streaming services with paid options, 2) recent (to about a year) articles on Youtube's subscription services, and 3) the fact that this is happening. Or not, if your mind is already set and/or you're trolling for shits and giggles.

I won't reiterate the entirety of what's been said. The gist is: 1) there is enormous demand for paid subscription plans on Youtube, 2) the traditional free service isn't going away, and 3) labels that make up 90% of the music industry have already agreed to the terms.

Funnily enough, I was on Jawbone's forums yesterday commenting about a similar issue - some users wanted a heartrate monitor in the Up bands. As a current user of one, I'd rather they not take the Samsung route.

Right, that's what I understood about the subscription model; and why I am very curious about what the terms are regarding the service, and what Google is planning on doing with the service.

I'm unsure about how their subscription model's royalties will work. Subscriptions can too scale up with viewers, similar to how cable content providers work with network providers - the difference is that the terms are not necessarily the same.

You're actually describing how it would work. The main issue (I believe) is that the ads revenue will decline because of the divided population, which is why certain indie labels are reluctant to agree to Google's new terms. I wouldn't say that they're being greedy - we've yet to see 1) the terms of the agreement and…

I think you need to re-read (or read) the entire post rather than the last sentence. The issue at hand is that in order to provide the subscription service for users without ads, labels cannot inject their own ads into their videos (and therefore bypassing the purpose of the subscription), and so Google decides to…