CTRL + click usually gives you a context menu like you'd expect wtih a right-click in Windows.
All shortcuts use the Apple key, not the CTRL key.
Closing a window does not quit the application. To quit ethe application, you have to, well, quit the application (almost always File/Quit or Apple+Q).
Menu bars are almost always attached to the top system menu bar, not to the window.
To find a file like you would with Start>Search (or Find depending on OS version), you click on Finder in the dock (bottom of the screen), and then type your search term in the field on the top right portion of any Finder window.
Terminal is the application that provides a command prompt like Start > Accessories > Command Prompt. However, this is a Unix prompt, not a DOS prompt!!!
System Settings is the application that is the equivalent to the Windows control panels. Get to System Settings from the Apple menu (top left of the screen - click on the apple icon).
Most folder have rough equivalents: Program Files = Applications My Documents = [username]/Documents c:\ = Macintosh HD (or / in terminal) c:\Windows = Library (that's a *real* rough equivalent)
If you have an app you use a lot and want on the doc, just drag its icon there. Don't want it on the dock any more? Just drag the icon off.
There is no good way to maximize a window in Mac world.
You probably want to "Hide" rather than minimize windows. Apple+H. That's just my preference.
Put the $2 million/year annual budget for FIRE towards ITER? And ITER wants to build a $5 billion plant? That'll work. We'll have that baby paid off in 2500 years flat!
If that $2 million figure really is the budget for FIRE, it probably costs that much just to send delegates across the pond to argue about where they're not going to build the reactor.
This to me is a good example of the difference between code monkeys and software engineers.
The best code I've ever seen did come from a team that got along and communicated very well. And yes, that excellence was a direct result of the developers' communciation skills much more than coding skills. However, an external factor that made a big difference was our methodology. We adhered pretty strictly to a very formal OO methodology. That methodology essentially forced us to communicate well. It forced things that previous posters mentioned, like coding standards. But, it definitely went beyond that.
One of the big lessons I walked away from that project with was the value of design reviews. We'd each design our assigned pieces, but then we'd come together as a development team to review the designs. We would go through everything starting with the interface and getting down to the design of individual classes. Developers were forced to hear others' ideas. A key to success was that the developers weren't so defensive as to ignore all feedback - a lot of feedback from those design reviews ended up in the design and consequently the code. That code turned out (IMO) great because everyone was able to understand it - it was well engineered, coded to standard, commented well. But these were properties we *expected* of our code.
To make a long story short, I think the ability to incorporate feedback into one's design and implementation is a critical skill for a software engineer. I think that adhering to a strong methodology establishes a framework to enable communication among developers. Being a "l33t" coder is further down on the list of required skills than the ability to solve problems, communicate solutions, and accept criticism.
These handheld devices are getting more powerful and more useful, but with the specs listed (1GHz, 256-512 RAM), you're not really talking desktop or even normal laptop computing power. That's especially true given that these devices aren't coming out until the Fall or early 2005 (yeah, I'll believe it when I see it).
Post a story when they pack computing power equivalent to a six-month old desktop into a handlheld form factor.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Of course, there's also Freiler's Maxim:
Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat.
Apparently the attorneys general have stumbled upon some secret magic P2P invasion technology. They must have leaked this from an NSA briefing or something:
"Furthermore, P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users, even when the computer is 'off' if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband."
Sooooo, apparently electricity need not be running through my computer in order for P2P to just snatch the files right out of my computer. Well, as long as the computer is connected to broadband. Hmmm...I wonder at what broadband speed these nefarious actions are possible? Does it start at 128kbps? Or am I safe up to say, a 1Mbps connection? Or is the speed of the connection going to determine how *many* files they can get out of my turned "off" computer?
I've got a friend who's an attorney, and he's not this stupid. I guess if you're an attorney *and* a politician that just sucks all the common sense right out of you.
The installation argument is very, very poorly made. To quote directly from the article:
[with Windows] "You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you."
OoooooK. To the end user, it doesn't matter if the OEM did all the hard work or if the OS programmers did all the hard work. All that matters is if the USER had to do all the hard work. And apparently in the linked Mandrake versus Windows installation challenge article, hard work included hardware replacement! A quote from that article:
"Actually, there were hardware problems early on in The Challenge. I wound up replacing the motherboard."
Honestly, how many users do you think are going to replace the damn motherboard to get Linux installed?
I'm not saying that most installations require you to replace a motherboard, nor am I saying that Windows is superior to Linux. What I am saying is that this is the least persuasive article I think I've ever seen on Linux-versus-Windows in the ease of installation category.
No that anyone RTFA, much less supplemental information, but for historical purposes here's a link to the specific document in the Google SEC filing that talks about the "recission offer":
If you're already solid in technical skills, you might want to looks at an MBA in general Management or some non-technical concentration. With concentrations like Technology Management, you'll have to take some dumbed-down technical survey courses that will offer absolutely nothing new to you. You're better off spending that time pursuing the business skills you're looking for, be that accounting, people management, project management, marketing, etc.
If you're not up for a full-blown MBA program, you might consider a graduate certificate. For example, Penn State offers non-credit certificate programs in very specific areas like HR Management, Project Management, Leadership Development, Supply Management, etc. Your local university might have something similar.
PeopleSoft's version 8 of PeopleTools discontinued support for GIF, and it's a web-based application! The funny thing was that you could create an Image object in PeopleSoft using a GIF file as the source, but the Application Designer tool obstinately refused to *display* the GIF. So basically you were designing your apps with no graphics until you previewed on a web browser. JPEG, PNG, BMP, and other formats displayed fine in the same Application Designer tool.
I put a call into their "Customer Care" center and never got a reasonable response. I'll be very interested to see if they add GIF support back in Application Designer with the next PeopleTools release.
Uh, that's the point. It already does. Developers have already "designed and coded" that stuff into the core API. Java's core framework is astutely network-aware.
No, that's not the point. To a consumer, it doesn't matter that the API is "astutely network-aware." To a consumer "making stuff work better on the Internet" means it connects faster or it downloads quicker or it doesn't require a password or they can use it with their AOL connection.
The key distinction here, and you've made it better than I could, is that Java *should* be marketed towards developers. To developers, Java really is a "better" internet development tool/language/platform. To a consumer, it currently means little to nothing. And from a consumer perspective, Java doesn't inherently have anything that works better on the Internet. Java applications may have features that were easier to implement because of the network-aware APIs, but Joe Consumer doesn't give one damn about that. The same functional features could be written in any one of a dozen other languages.
All this to return to my original point, Sun is grasping for something -- anything -- to market to consumers, even something that clearly should be targeted to developers.
"When consumers see the name 'Java,' they understand that has stuff that makes it work better on the Internet."
That's just stretching it a little far. Java is (so far) a programming language, this JDS nonsense not withstanding. It only has stuff that makes it work better on the Internet if the developers design and code that stuff (using Java or something else).
I wonder if Sun is going to dilute its brand among developers (where the Java brand really buys them something) by pushing the brand into a consumer light. I can understand Sun's desire to have a strong consumer brand, and maybe it's easier to start with an existing brand than to build one from scratch, but I just think they're going the wrong direction with this. If they want a consumer brand, why not try to revive "Star" or just build from the ground up. IF they have something serious to offer consumers, building the brand shouldn't be that hard.
Hmmm...as a moderator you've put me in quite a quandry here. I know I'm supposed to mark "grousing about rejected submissions" as Offtopic, but what the hell do I do when folks are "grousing about accepted submissions"?
I guess posting this conundrum is my way of abstaining...
Pretty bold statement. Fact is it depends on what type of programming you're talking about. OS's, some network programming, and old green-screen apps like I'm working on, sure...C is pretty entrenched. But applications programming seems to be much more invested in object-oriented languages like C++ and Java, or RAD tools like VB, PowerBuilder, Delphi, what have you.
That's what makes me question the use of C. We're talking about application-level programming here. No [obvious] need to directly manipulate memory or hardware, make system calls, etc.
If they chose an OO model, portability would be lost.
When you say portability, I think of the ability to compile the source on multiple target platforms. There's no reason that an API implemented in an OO language (like C++) can't be compiled on multiple platforms any more than a C implementation can. I find your argument regarding portability completly lacking.
What you may be able to argue is that it's more difficult to specify a class than it is to specify a function. This become more true as the class you're specifying is buried deeper in a class hierarchy...if the class descends from 'A', impelements a particular interface 'B', and has a method taking arguments of classes 'X', 'Y', and 'Z', then that entire set of classes has to be specified with sufficient generality to be implementable in multiple languages but with sufficient specificity to get the job done. Still, I don't see that being an impossible task if you use proper OO A/D methods, stick to the basics (encapsulation, inheritence, polymorphism), and document your design in something standard like UML.
I've kind of gotten off the topic at hand, but I think it's important that we don't mistake programming language interoperability for portability.
I guess the bottom line is that people see C as the "least common denominator". I just can't help but think we can make faster progress if we went with something a bit higher level.
One of the things that I wonder about is the choice of language for the API implementation. Looks like, according to the NPAPI docs, it's either C or the highway. What if I want to write my browser in Java yet allow plugins? I have to use JNI? Should we expect that every modern programming language has a bridge to C?
I also wonder how badly the plugin API is limited by going with a non-OO implementation language like C. Sure, you can create some complex data types in C, but you've got to kiss your own butt if you want to pass behaviors along with those data types.
A person's external skin temp is going to be a lot less than 98.6, and I think it's going to be a lot more variable than a person's internal temperature. Even if that wasn't true, your system would deny access to anyone with a cold and a 1.1 degree fever. Beyond all that, how much harder would it be to mold that fake fingerprint into, say, latex intead of gelatin, and then putting it on the end of an electric heater that pumps out your magic 98.6 degrees?
The actual source surely isnt actually *that* important.
I agree. What would be cool is if they released the design and some details around how and why the algorithms work. With that, you could implement in any language. Google releasing just the source means that someone (manyones actually) are going to have to spend a lot of time reverse engineering the code to come up with why the thing works.
It would take years before anyone actually making use of the code could build up the infrastructure and reputation that google has got
That's a good point, and is probably the best business-based insight: Google's competitive advantage has nothing to do with the code they are planning on releasing. If it was, they wouldn't release it. If it was and they did, that IPO isn't going to be worth too much. I think you're correct that infrastructure, integration, market share, etc. are items on the list that comprise Google's competitive advantage. Code isn't going to be (high) on the list.
Too bad I can't reply to a post and mod it up.
Another funny thought just came to mind: how well do you think Google developers comment their code?
Well, the NWA.com privacy policy itself certainly implies it's a contract:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN USER AND NORTHWEST AIRLINES
This Web site is offered to the user conditioned on acceptance by the user ("User") without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein. By accessing and using this Web site, the User is deemed to have agreed to all such terms, conditions, and notices (the "Agreement").
etc. etc.
What I wonder is whether this decision has any effect on the types of contracts that say something to the effect of, "By accessing this site, you agree to..."
Another interesting thing to consider: does this indirectly affect the GPL? It has language like:
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Is the GPL invalid if the user doesn't read it? Perhaps that's a good reason to put the entire license text in the comments of the source itself.
I don't think it's so much that Dell innovates on cost instead of performance...it's that Dell innovates on supply chain management rather than on product design and manufacturing. Keep in mind - Dell's supply chain innovations not only made custom-built hardware cheap, it made it realistic. What good is cheap custom-built hardware if it takes three months for the custom order to arrive at the consumer's door?
I think Dell is just as concerned about performance as cost, it's just that Dell is a management company and HP is (was?) an R&D/engineering company.
Most interesting thing of all to me is that the two compete in the same market while coming from such totally different business plans.
Looking through the product's web site, it looks like the software is pretty lacking compared to Excel in the data analysis arena. According to the site, the data analysis features include:
Analyze Data
Create database ranges inside your worksheets
Data grouping (outliner)
Sort, filter by condition, AutoFilter
Database functions for sum, average, variance, etc.
No ANOVA, regression analysis, t tests, correlation, etc.? No pivot tables? That's most of what I find Excel useful for!
Hopefully someone can tell me I'm wrong and that these features are included.
How does OpenOffice compare in terms of data analysis? (I've <gasp> never used it).
I use a Yahoo! account as my daily email account, and I haven't gotten a Yahoo! partner email is three years. Come to think of it, it's been maybe as long since I got an email from Yahoo! itself.
RTFM. Go into preferences and change your contact prefs. I want to say about a year ago Yahoo! went and reset everyone's marketing preferences, so you have to go in and manually set it back.
They also had a program at one time (don't know if they still do) where if you agreed to receive some of those emails, you got a bigger inbox and some extra features for free. Might want to check if you signed up for that.
Didn't I read somewhere that it's fair use to reverse engineer something to ensure compatibility? If that's true, then why would a device maker need to license FAT from Microsoft?
Yeah, I probably read that on/. in a comment that ended in "...but IANAL".
Holy crap! You were able to get a Sprint representative on the phone? When I moved from NC to PA while with Sprint, I couldn't get through to anyone to change my phone number - I had to go to the store and use their little red hotline customer service phone for four hours. When next months bill came...yeah, they charged me about $500 in bullshit fees! Again, couldn't get through to a human, had to go to a store again!!!
I wouldn't use Sprint PCS again if the service was free, the phone was gold-plated, AND I could port my number. Horrible service just isn't worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
CTRL + click usually gives you a context menu like you'd expect wtih a right-click in Windows.
All shortcuts use the Apple key, not the CTRL key.
Closing a window does not quit the application. To quit ethe application, you have to, well, quit the application (almost always File/Quit or Apple+Q).
Menu bars are almost always attached to the top system menu bar, not to the window.
To find a file like you would with Start>Search (or Find depending on OS version), you click on Finder in the dock (bottom of the screen), and then type your search term in the field on the top right portion of any Finder window.
Terminal is the application that provides a command prompt like Start > Accessories > Command Prompt. However, this is a Unix prompt, not a DOS prompt!!!
System Settings is the application that is the equivalent to the Windows control panels. Get to System Settings from the Apple menu (top left of the screen - click on the apple icon).
Most folder have rough equivalents:
Program Files = Applications
My Documents = [username]/Documents
c:\ = Macintosh HD (or / in terminal)
c:\Windows = Library (that's a *real* rough equivalent)
If you have an app you use a lot and want on the doc, just drag its icon there. Don't want it on the dock any more? Just drag the icon off.
There is no good way to maximize a window in Mac world.
You probably want to "Hide" rather than minimize windows. Apple+H. That's just my preference.
Apple+Tab = CTRL+Tab
Somethings never change. F1 = Help.
Good luck!
Put the $2 million/year annual budget for FIRE towards ITER? And ITER wants to build a $5 billion plant? That'll work. We'll have that baby paid off in 2500 years flat!
If that $2 million figure really is the budget for FIRE, it probably costs that much just to send delegates across the pond to argue about where they're not going to build the reactor.
Jay
This to me is a good example of the difference between code monkeys and software engineers.
The best code I've ever seen did come from a team that got along and communicated very well. And yes, that excellence was a direct result of the developers' communciation skills much more than coding skills. However, an external factor that made a big difference was our methodology. We adhered pretty strictly to a very formal OO methodology. That methodology essentially forced us to communicate well. It forced things that previous posters mentioned, like coding standards. But, it definitely went beyond that.
One of the big lessons I walked away from that project with was the value of design reviews. We'd each design our assigned pieces, but then we'd come together as a development team to review the designs. We would go through everything starting with the interface and getting down to the design of individual classes. Developers were forced to hear others' ideas. A key to success was that the developers weren't so defensive as to ignore all feedback - a lot of feedback from those design reviews ended up in the design and consequently the code. That code turned out (IMO) great because everyone was able to understand it - it was well engineered, coded to standard, commented well. But these were properties we *expected* of our code.
To make a long story short, I think the ability to incorporate feedback into one's design and implementation is a critical skill for a software engineer. I think that adhering to a strong methodology establishes a framework to enable communication among developers. Being a "l33t" coder is further down on the list of required skills than the ability to solve problems, communicate solutions, and accept criticism.
These handheld devices are getting more powerful and more useful, but with the specs listed (1GHz, 256-512 RAM), you're not really talking desktop or even normal laptop computing power. That's especially true given that these devices aren't coming out until the Fall or early 2005 (yeah, I'll believe it when I see it).
Post a story when they pack computing power equivalent to a six-month old desktop into a handlheld form factor.
Of course, there's also Freiler's Maxim:
Sooooo, apparently electricity need not be running through my computer in order for P2P to just snatch the files right out of my computer. Well, as long as the computer is connected to broadband. Hmmm...I wonder at what broadband speed these nefarious actions are possible? Does it start at 128kbps? Or am I safe up to say, a 1Mbps connection? Or is the speed of the connection going to determine how *many* files they can get out of my turned "off" computer?
I've got a friend who's an attorney, and he's not this stupid. I guess if you're an attorney *and* a politician that just sucks all the common sense right out of you.
rant over.
OoooooK. To the end user, it doesn't matter if the OEM did all the hard work or if the OS programmers did all the hard work. All that matters is if the USER had to do all the hard work. And apparently in the linked Mandrake versus Windows installation challenge article, hard work included hardware replacement! A quote from that article:
Honestly, how many users do you think are going to replace the damn motherboard to get Linux installed?
I'm not saying that most installations require you to replace a motherboard, nor am I saying that Windows is superior to Linux. What I am saying is that this is the least persuasive article I think I've ever seen on Linux-versus-Windows in the ease of installation category.
No that anyone RTFA, much less supplemental information, but for historical purposes here's a link to the specific document in the Google SEC filing that talks about the "recission offer":
Form S-1 Registration Statement
This section in particular is a good summary of what they did.
If you're already solid in technical skills, you might want to looks at an MBA in general Management or some non-technical concentration. With concentrations like Technology Management, you'll have to take some dumbed-down technical survey courses that will offer absolutely nothing new to you. You're better off spending that time pursuing the business skills you're looking for, be that accounting, people management, project management, marketing, etc.
If you're not up for a full-blown MBA program, you might consider a graduate certificate. For example, Penn State offers non-credit certificate programs in very specific areas like HR Management, Project Management, Leadership Development, Supply Management, etc. Your local university might have something similar.
PeopleSoft's version 8 of PeopleTools discontinued support for GIF, and it's a web-based application! The funny thing was that you could create an Image object in PeopleSoft using a GIF file as the source, but the Application Designer tool obstinately refused to *display* the GIF. So basically you were designing your apps with no graphics until you previewed on a web browser. JPEG, PNG, BMP, and other formats displayed fine in the same Application Designer tool.
I put a call into their "Customer Care" center and never got a reasonable response. I'll be very interested to see if they add GIF support back in Application Designer with the next PeopleTools release.
No, that's not the point. To a consumer, it doesn't matter that the API is "astutely network-aware." To a consumer "making stuff work better on the Internet" means it connects faster or it downloads quicker or it doesn't require a password or they can use it with their AOL connection.
The key distinction here, and you've made it better than I could, is that Java *should* be marketed towards developers. To developers, Java really is a "better" internet development tool/language/platform. To a consumer, it currently means little to nothing. And from a consumer perspective, Java doesn't inherently have anything that works better on the Internet. Java applications may have features that were easier to implement because of the network-aware APIs, but Joe Consumer doesn't give one damn about that. The same functional features could be written in any one of a dozen other languages.
All this to return to my original point, Sun is grasping for something -- anything -- to market to consumers, even something that clearly should be targeted to developers.
From the article (a quote by Sun):
"When consumers see the name 'Java,' they understand that has stuff that makes it work better on the Internet."
That's just stretching it a little far. Java is (so far) a programming language, this JDS nonsense not withstanding. It only has stuff that makes it work better on the Internet if the developers design and code that stuff (using Java or something else).
I wonder if Sun is going to dilute its brand among developers (where the Java brand really buys them something) by pushing the brand into a consumer light. I can understand Sun's desire to have a strong consumer brand, and maybe it's easier to start with an existing brand than to build one from scratch, but I just think they're going the wrong direction with this. If they want a consumer brand, why not try to revive "Star" or just build from the ground up. IF they have something serious to offer consumers, building the brand shouldn't be that hard.
I guess posting this conundrum is my way of abstaining...
Pretty bold statement. Fact is it depends on what type of programming you're talking about. OS's, some network programming, and old green-screen apps like I'm working on, sure...C is pretty entrenched. But applications programming seems to be much more invested in object-oriented languages like C++ and Java, or RAD tools like VB, PowerBuilder, Delphi, what have you.
That's what makes me question the use of C. We're talking about application-level programming here. No [obvious] need to directly manipulate memory or hardware, make system calls, etc.
If they chose an OO model, portability would be lost.
When you say portability, I think of the ability to compile the source on multiple target platforms. There's no reason that an API implemented in an OO language (like C++) can't be compiled on multiple platforms any more than a C implementation can. I find your argument regarding portability completly lacking.
What you may be able to argue is that it's more difficult to specify a class than it is to specify a function. This become more true as the class you're specifying is buried deeper in a class hierarchy...if the class descends from 'A', impelements a particular interface 'B', and has a method taking arguments of classes 'X', 'Y', and 'Z', then that entire set of classes has to be specified with sufficient generality to be implementable in multiple languages but with sufficient specificity to get the job done. Still, I don't see that being an impossible task if you use proper OO A/D methods, stick to the basics (encapsulation, inheritence, polymorphism), and document your design in something standard like UML.
I've kind of gotten off the topic at hand, but I think it's important that we don't mistake programming language interoperability for portability.
I guess the bottom line is that people see C as the "least common denominator". I just can't help but think we can make faster progress if we went with something a bit higher level.
I also wonder how badly the plugin API is limited by going with a non-OO implementation language like C. Sure, you can create some complex data types in C, but you've got to kiss your own butt if you want to pass behaviors along with those data types.
Is this is the state of our security today?
I agree. What would be cool is if they released the design and some details around how and why the algorithms work. With that, you could implement in any language. Google releasing just the source means that someone (manyones actually) are going to have to spend a lot of time reverse engineering the code to come up with why the thing works.
That's a good point, and is probably the best business-based insight: Google's competitive advantage has nothing to do with the code they are planning on releasing. If it was, they wouldn't release it. If it was and they did, that IPO isn't going to be worth too much. I think you're correct that infrastructure, integration, market share, etc. are items on the list that comprise Google's competitive advantage. Code isn't going to be (high) on the list.
Too bad I can't reply to a post and mod it up.
Another funny thought just came to mind: how well do you think Google developers comment their code?
What I wonder is whether this decision has any effect on the types of contracts that say something to the effect of, "By accessing this site, you agree to..."
Another interesting thing to consider: does this indirectly affect the GPL? It has language like:
Is the GPL invalid if the user doesn't read it? Perhaps that's a good reason to put the entire license text in the comments of the source itself.
In the end ? I like to think there's no time like the present.
I don't think it's so much that Dell innovates on cost instead of performance...it's that Dell innovates on supply chain management rather than on product design and manufacturing. Keep in mind - Dell's supply chain innovations not only made custom-built hardware cheap, it made it realistic. What good is cheap custom-built hardware if it takes three months for the custom order to arrive at the consumer's door?
I think Dell is just as concerned about performance as cost, it's just that Dell is a management company and HP is (was?) an R&D/engineering company.
Most interesting thing of all to me is that the two compete in the same market while coming from such totally different business plans.
No ANOVA, regression analysis, t tests, correlation, etc.? No pivot tables? That's most of what I find Excel useful for!
Hopefully someone can tell me I'm wrong and that these features are included.
How does OpenOffice compare in terms of data analysis? (I've <gasp> never used it).
RTFM. Go into preferences and change your contact prefs. I want to say about a year ago Yahoo! went and reset everyone's marketing preferences, so you have to go in and manually set it back.
They also had a program at one time (don't know if they still do) where if you agreed to receive some of those emails, you got a bigger inbox and some extra features for free. Might want to check if you signed up for that.
Didn't I read somewhere that it's fair use to reverse engineer something to ensure compatibility? If that's true, then why would a device maker need to license FAT from Microsoft? Yeah, I probably read that on /. in a comment that ended in "...but IANAL".
Holy crap! You were able to get a Sprint representative on the phone? When I moved from NC to PA while with Sprint, I couldn't get through to anyone to change my phone number - I had to go to the store and use their little red hotline customer service phone for four hours. When next months bill came...yeah, they charged me about $500 in bullshit fees! Again, couldn't get through to a human, had to go to a store again!!! I wouldn't use Sprint PCS again if the service was free, the phone was gold-plated, AND I could port my number. Horrible service just isn't worth it.