Are we supposed to believe that Trump being concerned about "fake news" means that:
A) Fake news really means fake news or just news that isn't flattering to him, and,
B) That the actions he will take will undermine real journalism and cause 1984-esque disinformation campaigns?

How is this considered "Interesting"? It's nothing but partisan drivel.

I went looking for replacements for Evernote today after receiving their "heads up" email about the 2-device limit. I had old Android phones and my Windows PC as devices, which were unnecessary. I pared down my device list to just the Android phone and iPad, and am going to use the web service for Evernote instead of the Chrome app. All in all, I don't think it's a big deal. Evernote needs to make money to survive, and they're still providing a free service in a reasonable way.

Just another free service building a user base to cash in on later.

Having been in telecom for over a decade, I can attest to the fact that network reliability is closely related to the amount of change activity taking place in the network.

Thanks for all your hard work! Enjoy your freedom, while it lasts!

Aren't the products and services they took over for naught without the patents behind them? I don't quite understand how this works.

Precisely, this. If we really dig into the cause of this, I think it would take us back to the premise behind a comic I saw recently. Can't find it now, but basically there were 2 panes: one from the past with the mother asking the child if she was nice to her teacher today, and the second with the mother of today asking her child if the teacher was nice to her today. All that can be expected from a parent/teacher conference about how bad your child is doing or behaving is confrontation.

These test results are quite surprising to me, as the packages I receive from UPS are typically battered and have damaged corners, whereas those from FedEx are typically well-treated. I even had UPS call me once to tell me that a package, which I had taken care to tape really well, had come open during shipment, and was apparently in such a state of acceleration that the contents were strewn about, so they wanted to ask me what was in the box.

Well the artist thing is really just a concession; I don't believe you have to have a Mac to do anything artful (as implied in my original reply by the quoting of the word "necessary"). Art is but an excuse to buy into Apple's marketing.

I love Apple's mobile products, I just don't see the point in buying their laptop/desktop machines unless you are an artist. Even then, it's becoming a bit of a stretch of the word "necessary" to have an OS X machine. Their Windows counterparts are just incredibly cheaper and more compatible with devices and other computers around them, usually. 7 is a very good OS, IMO.

Quite honestly, I'm beginning to believe the longer before any sort of legislation on Net Neutrality is passed, the better. It's going to be a real mess once the ignorant Congress and the predatory corporations involved are done with it all.

I don't see this as being as much of a direct problem for residential users. What I find disturbing are the comments being made by telco CEOs in an obvious attempt to lay a framework for legislation. Gems like:

"We have to make sure that they [application providers] don't sit on our network and chew up bandwidth," Seidenberg (Verizon CEO) said. "We need to pay for the pipe."

"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it," says Whitacre. (AT&T CEO) "So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"

So, if you have any knowledge of the complexity of the Internet, you already know that Google and other hosts out there are already paying for service. You and I, on the other end of a TCP/IP connection, are already paying for our service. Who, exactly, is "sitting on the network, chewing up bandwidth" or "using the pipes for free?" Currently, it's the same for any other protocol being used on the Internet. Both parties are paying for service, on whatever scale they use it. Peering arrangements are made between ISPs to ensure they can mutually provide for their users.

The real issue here is that these companies have seen just how much money they can milk out of a 3G-capable cell phone, and they want to extend that plunder to what they know is going to be the ultimate service of the next 100 years as people drop cable and home phone service for Hulu and VoIP.

Stockholm Syndrome?