arkitect
Feb 18, 10:52 AM
Notice Steve is the only guy without wine?
He is undergoing treatment for cancer.
What is so strange about him not drinking alcohol?
:confused:
He is undergoing treatment for cancer.
What is so strange about him not drinking alcohol?
:confused:
Nermal
Jun 11, 01:17 PM
My guess is that T-Mobile wasn't able to acquire enough 2100 spectrum to go both ways. That's just a guess though, and I don't know why it's not using 1700 in both directions.
cshen
Apr 29, 12:26 PM
Are your APN entries correct, or your carrier file installed?
Settings > General > About - what is the value for "Carrier"?
Might be worth a reset of your network settings.
Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings
This will also wipe all stored WiFi entries and their passwords and reboot the phone.
Carrier is Starhub 10.0. The phone was perfectly working before. I've never jailbroke this phone before. I'm still under contract with Starhub.
I've tried to reset the network setting already. Also reset the phone as well. Nothing is working. :(
Settings > General > About - what is the value for "Carrier"?
Might be worth a reset of your network settings.
Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings
This will also wipe all stored WiFi entries and their passwords and reboot the phone.
Carrier is Starhub 10.0. The phone was perfectly working before. I've never jailbroke this phone before. I'm still under contract with Starhub.
I've tried to reset the network setting already. Also reset the phone as well. Nothing is working. :(
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 01:14 PM
You bet! Lets put back what greed and globalist conspiracies have recked. Here is a nice article. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/in-early-2010-somewhere-high.ars We as americans need to replace co like Apple,dell and boeing that sell their souls to the devil for subsidised money. The money needed to run the country isn't abundant and china IS the real enemy that we are foolishly helping. We don't need china, they need us and if I start a co soon, china isn't even on my profit radar, just my military one.
That article contains some errors. Shipping rates, for instance, are about the same as they were in 2008 and similar to 2002 so that is a red herring.
I would also question you as to why you think that China is an enemy? They appear to be more like a partner in a symbiotic relationship. You need each other.
That article contains some errors. Shipping rates, for instance, are about the same as they were in 2008 and similar to 2002 so that is a red herring.
I would also question you as to why you think that China is an enemy? They appear to be more like a partner in a symbiotic relationship. You need each other.
more...
Mac_Max
Apr 16, 02:48 PM
The way I taught myself SQL was by creating simple C++ apps that manipulated data and using this site (http://www.1keydata.com/sql/sql-commands.html) as a reference.
WildCowboy
Sep 25, 10:38 PM
According to US law, a trademark holder MUST defend their trademarks, or they risk losing them. Google is struggling with this, as they're trying to encourage people not to use it as a generic verb.
Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)
Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)
more...
iAppTime
Nov 27, 06:22 PM
Why ?
If it were genuine White iPhone 4 parts, Apple most likely wants to investigate where they got leaked.
If it were genuine White iPhone 4 parts, Apple most likely wants to investigate where they got leaked.
henrikrox
May 3, 03:52 PM
gah, seriously apple needs to talk to geforce/ati and get some decent drivers, cause the beta is so much smoother in bootcamp.
shame, with steam incoming soon.
i will never play sc2 on mac as it is now
shame, with steam incoming soon.
i will never play sc2 on mac as it is now
more...
erockerboy
Nov 11, 02:48 PM
That was awesome :D:D:D:D
floatingspirit
May 1, 07:37 PM
I ordered mines online at around 12 am. I wonder if there's any chance the beta key is going to come this weekend...
Ditto. I havent' gotten a key yet... bummer.
Ditto. I havent' gotten a key yet... bummer.
more...
PatrickKB
Mar 11, 09:11 AM
I am planning on heading down not sure on the time though, I am trying to call the store to get an idea but the line is busy.
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
more...
s.hasan546
Apr 9, 03:51 PM
Unfortunately, you're wrong on most if not all counts.
First, it would be patented material, not copyrighted material. And patent infringement, especially design patents, is really quite easy to pursue.
Second, the Chinese supplier is "Foxconn", not "Foxcomm".
Third, and finally, in cases like these, as a general rule, even though Foxconn is the supplier, Apple is the owner of the parts. If Apple ordered that the parts in question be destroyed, putting them in a box and taking them home doesn't count, and certainly neither does selling them to a friend in the US. If they are the actual parts produced for Apple, then it is quite likely that they are, indeed stolen goods, and both this boy and the employee who got the parts for him are in trouble.
However, if the people involved were a bit smarter, then these parts would be from a production run not ordered by Apple. Under those circumstances, depending on how the contract is worded, there may have been enough wiggle room for them to sell these parts, especially given the fact that the actual Apple parts never went into formal production.
Finally, while it's arguably quite impressive that this kid was able to sell about 450 kits, to the tune of $130K, it's important to remember that this doesn't mean that he's made $130K. I would think it much more likely that he's getting maybe 10%-20% of that. Still, $13,000-$26,000 is not a bad haul for a couple months work...
I own an import company. Mainly importing from china. I gaurantee his profit margins are higher than 10-20%. His profit margin is minimum 50-70%.
Also if the kid was smart he should have incorporated or created an LLC and than imported and sold all the merchandise under that company. If he did that than his legal liability is pretty limited. They could sue his company for what it was worth. Probably not much. The could fine his company, which he could just shut down and pay none of the fines. He could get away with it with barely paying anything. How do you think all these companies that import Kirf products work?
First, it would be patented material, not copyrighted material. And patent infringement, especially design patents, is really quite easy to pursue.
Second, the Chinese supplier is "Foxconn", not "Foxcomm".
Third, and finally, in cases like these, as a general rule, even though Foxconn is the supplier, Apple is the owner of the parts. If Apple ordered that the parts in question be destroyed, putting them in a box and taking them home doesn't count, and certainly neither does selling them to a friend in the US. If they are the actual parts produced for Apple, then it is quite likely that they are, indeed stolen goods, and both this boy and the employee who got the parts for him are in trouble.
However, if the people involved were a bit smarter, then these parts would be from a production run not ordered by Apple. Under those circumstances, depending on how the contract is worded, there may have been enough wiggle room for them to sell these parts, especially given the fact that the actual Apple parts never went into formal production.
Finally, while it's arguably quite impressive that this kid was able to sell about 450 kits, to the tune of $130K, it's important to remember that this doesn't mean that he's made $130K. I would think it much more likely that he's getting maybe 10%-20% of that. Still, $13,000-$26,000 is not a bad haul for a couple months work...
I own an import company. Mainly importing from china. I gaurantee his profit margins are higher than 10-20%. His profit margin is minimum 50-70%.
Also if the kid was smart he should have incorporated or created an LLC and than imported and sold all the merchandise under that company. If he did that than his legal liability is pretty limited. They could sue his company for what it was worth. Probably not much. The could fine his company, which he could just shut down and pay none of the fines. He could get away with it with barely paying anything. How do you think all these companies that import Kirf products work?
wacky4alanis
Jan 7, 03:19 PM
What are people mainly using the Push for? I certainly wouldn't want to be updated every time one of my friends posts on Facebook... I know there are different settings - just wondering what kind of updates people use this for.
more...
SpaceMagic
Apr 3, 06:45 AM
I don't actually know why Apple are bothering. MS Office is the best program on my Mac. It does everything I could possibly want.. and more.
aristotle
Jun 13, 12:50 AM
because the 700 spectrum has theoretical data speeds much higher then the "standard" spectrum.
my family has been happy with t-mobiles service where we live for over 6 years and there rates are very affordable.
The only reason i went to ATT is because of the iPhone and if the iphones does come to t-mobile i will be switching back.
The speed has nothing to do with the frequency used. Those Canadian carriers I mentioned have a theoretical speed of 21Mbps (HSPA+) and they use the same frequencies as AT&T.
my family has been happy with t-mobiles service where we live for over 6 years and there rates are very affordable.
The only reason i went to ATT is because of the iPhone and if the iphones does come to t-mobile i will be switching back.
The speed has nothing to do with the frequency used. Those Canadian carriers I mentioned have a theoretical speed of 21Mbps (HSPA+) and they use the same frequencies as AT&T.
more...
leekohler
May 3, 08:50 PM
Their performance on the economy has been pretty good so far (even though prior to the recession they opposed the very banking regulations that kept Canada in decent shape coming out of the crisis). At the moment the economy seems to be the #1 priority for most people, and I guess a change in government in the middle of a recovery was not what people wanted.
The conservatives campaigned on "we didn't want an election, we were in the middle of fixing the economy when the other parties decided to call an election, all we ask is for a majority government so that we can go back to work and fix the economy without these distractions". I think that resonated with a lot of people.
Like I said- get ready for some very unwanted by-products. They will do everything they can to pit you against each other and divide your country on social issues- that's how they work. That's what they've done to us. Don't let them do it to you.
The conservatives campaigned on "we didn't want an election, we were in the middle of fixing the economy when the other parties decided to call an election, all we ask is for a majority government so that we can go back to work and fix the economy without these distractions". I think that resonated with a lot of people.
Like I said- get ready for some very unwanted by-products. They will do everything they can to pit you against each other and divide your country on social issues- that's how they work. That's what they've done to us. Don't let them do it to you.
justflie
Mar 23, 07:58 PM
They're going to realize that the existing machines they have- or Windows machines that can be had for much cheaper- are quite capable of handling any non-classified activity without switching to new hardware.
Absolutely correct. Unless you have a specialized workflow (ie in certain S&T positions), the vast majority of work is done within MS Office. Doesn't exactly require a workstation.
That being said, our biggest problem is the hardware differentiation. As a result, the software is a horrid mess because the "security" crap that's on all of our machines interacts with the configurations differently. People are used to blue screens popping up every now and then. Everything gets so bogged down. It's horrid. Would I recommend that everyone switch to a Mac? No. It would take far too long to teach all of the tech illiterate what to do. It would be nice to have as an option for "the rest of us." :cool: The relatively small amount of hardware customization possible would help IT a bit too.
Absolutely correct. Unless you have a specialized workflow (ie in certain S&T positions), the vast majority of work is done within MS Office. Doesn't exactly require a workstation.
That being said, our biggest problem is the hardware differentiation. As a result, the software is a horrid mess because the "security" crap that's on all of our machines interacts with the configurations differently. People are used to blue screens popping up every now and then. Everything gets so bogged down. It's horrid. Would I recommend that everyone switch to a Mac? No. It would take far too long to teach all of the tech illiterate what to do. It would be nice to have as an option for "the rest of us." :cool: The relatively small amount of hardware customization possible would help IT a bit too.
ejfontenot
Mar 11, 01:41 PM
Which entrance to the mall is gonna get me closest to the end of the line?
rdlink
Apr 15, 04:27 AM
How much does a job like this pay? Looks like Microsoft has a Data Center Manager position open. Maybe I'll apply. How hard can it be?
Just the fact that you asked the question means you're not qualified. Does that clear it up for you?
Just the fact that you asked the question means you're not qualified. Does that clear it up for you?
Howardchief
Apr 5, 05:12 PM
Headset jack was removed, so had to buy a USB headset for example.
this is on the new macbook? Weird.
this is on the new macbook? Weird.
Doylem
Mar 18, 05:25 AM
Get lost in the world of gear. Spend your time reading about the specs of forthcoming cameras and lenses, instead of actually taking pics. Denigrate the gear you have; fantasise about a fancier camera. That would make you a better photographer, surely? ;)
fireman32
Mar 17, 06:38 AM
$3.55 is the average for here in Raleigh NC
Komiksulo
Jun 10, 08:07 PM
I was really hoping to see the 1700-MHz band on the iPhone 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment