I pay $3 a month to increase that limit to 200 GB, which I find to be plenty for my needs. It would be nice if that much space were free, but $36 a year is an acceptable tradeoff for me.

I use Apple's iCloud email and I'm happy with the way it handles attachments. When I send a large attachment, the attachment is simply uploaded to an Apple server. When the recipient gets the email, there's a link (where the file icon would be) to download the attachment, which also tells the size of the file. For me, this makes it pretty transparent for the user, regardless of the file size limitations placed on the recipient's end.

I've been a professional writer and editor in the past, so communicating clearly is important to me. My experience is that this woman's thesis is pure nonsense. I have no interest in trying to speak to the research she claims backs her up. I just know that I see people misunderstanding each other more and more frequently — and much of that tendency toward misunderstanding comes from the growing inability to write clearly. It's actually worse than that, because most people on social media communicate simplistic and shallow ideas with the equivalent of digital grunts —and then they have no idea why people misunderstand them. People who find their poorly written thoughts misunderstood prefer to blame those who can't read their minds and figure out what they were actually thinking. Online discourse is getting worse and worse, not better.

I don't install developer betas even when I have access to them, but Apple's public betas (for both iOS and Mac) have been stable enough that I've used them for my iPhone and MacBook with absolutely no issues.

This is pure stupidity. If you want to use an iPhone, use an iPhone. If you want to use an Android device, use that. But this makes as much sense as welding a Chevy to the back of a Honda and pretending you've achieved something worthwhile. A lot of people in tech have entirely too much time on their hands.

Why can some people not accept that other people make choices that they don't necessarily approve of? Why do we have to assume that half the software developers SHOULD be women? Why can't we simply let people make the choices that make the most sense to them and their own interests? It's insane to pretend that it's a problem when an industry has a gender disparity. As long as everyone has the ability to choose a field if he wants it, that's all that matters. After that point, you're trying to force people into making decisions that you think they ought to make. It's just another form of idiotic social engineering. Just let individuals decide what's best for themselves.

You truly ARE a moron. This conversation has NOTHING to do with any of his views on anything else. Are you too stupid to understand that? I'm objecting to this site posting a political attack and trying to somehow, someway make it appear what he did wasn't a filibuster. I don't care how stupid you are. I don't care how much you hate Paul. I commented on one narrow issue, but you're too filled with hatred to care about accuracy or fairness on the one issue on the table. You're disgusting.

Look, moron. I'm an anarchist. I don't support any candidate. But I have this odd belief in accuracy and fairness, which people like you clearly don't care about.

Whether you like Rand Paul or not, it was a filibuster. Putting quotes around it like that is a cheap shot designed to attack someone you don't like. It's factually inaccurate and it makes the item nothing but a hit piece on Paul.

It's nice to hear that Win10 runs well on a MacBook, but it's pure clickbait to claim that it "runs better" than does OS X. The measure being used is completely subjective. Microsoft and Apple might be optimizing for entirely different things. Without far more objective tests, we simply have no idea. It's silly to claim to have an objective answer based on this observation. Even the writer's claim that Win 10 runs at 60 fps turns out to be made up, because he admits that it simply looks that way and he hasn't found a way to test it. In other words, this is purely subjective AND this subjective observation about one thing says nothing about how either operating system performs overall. He can reasonably say that he installed Win 10 on the MacBook and he liked the way it performed. He can't reasonably compare the performance of the two operating systems, at least not based on anything he said here. Windows may be better by some objective measures. We just can't tell that from anything here.

It's hilarious to GPL advocates pretend their license is about freedom, because it's not. The GPL is about forcing other people to do things with code that the writers of the license want. If you simply want people to have the freedom to do whatever they want to do with code, you'll support something less restrictive (BSD license, for instance) or just support code being released into the public domain. That would allow people to do whatever they wanted with the code. The GPL exists to control what people can do with code. If you're into control — for financial reasons or ideological reasons —you're free to use a license that supports your agenda. But it's dishonest to pretend the GPL is about freedom. It's about controlling what people can do with software. The irony and hypocrisy are easy to see.

You act as though being fair and reasonable quit mattering if previous stories have been unfair and unreasonable, but that's not true. To pretend this is an Apple story is ultimately dishonest because of its implication. That's worth continuing to point out until people quit being dishonest.

Foxconn's major customers in the recent past have been Acer, Amazon, Apple, BlackBerry, Cisco, Dell, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, Nintendo, Nokia, Sony, Toshiba, Vizio. So why do people make Foxconn stories about Apple? It's pure ignorance and seems to come from a desire to attack the company which is recently most successful. It's really stupid.

I don't have any opinion about this phone — although I've long wondered why they were bothering — but I have to question the technical savvy of a reviewer who refers to a "5-megapixel lens." A sensor is rated in megapixels, but a lens is not.

It's hilarious that the summary of this story uncritically accepts that the origin of taxi medallions was about "public safety." This is a lie and it's always been a lie. The system was about limiting competition. Pure and simple. The people in the industry want fewer people competing, because there's more profit for them. They made friends with the right politicians, who then introduced the system and controlled how the industry was "regulated." I put that word in quotes because it wasn't regulated in the sense that people believe. It was regulated to avoid competitors hurting incumbents operators. This is the way pretty much all regulation really works. (Look up "regulatory capture" if you're interested in how it works.) There is no legitimate reason to control the number of taxis. Period. I don't even see a valid reason to license them, but if it were about safety, licenses would be available to anyone who could meet certain safety and insurance requirements. I don't have much sympathy for the owners of the current medallions. They've had a government-granted license to print money, which is why these medallions have had value. It's time to let the market take over. The medallion system needs to die.