Well, many years in, and it still works for the iPhone.
Your comment really only boils down to:
Those who don't like Apple products will not buy Apple products, and will be satisfied with their smug opposition to Apple products by purchasing a copy of an apple product from another manufacture.
While I'm sure you intended to be funny, you obviously don't understand the english language enough to understand what the subject of the sentence was. Comas have a purpose.
Your wrong.
With CDMA rev A you cannot host a hotspot using your cell network data connection and make a telephone call. The call will put a hold on the data.
unfortunately this is not real competition. It's copycat-itis. When all the competition is doing is trying to copy another products as close as possible, it's not real competition.
Trust me after having to have 2-XT2's need motherboard replacements in the last year (One of which took Dell 6 months and 4 trips to the depot before they got it right. . . and I told them what needed replaced from day one) and an XT one needing some other hardware replacements, and working with Dell's steller Repair Depot. . . .
I'm so not getting a Dell.
To be fair, it still doesn't do what the iPhone 4 does, exactly. And the GGPs post is acting like developers won't develop apps with the new hardware enhancments in mind because it might alienate the ipad 1 owners. This happened with the phones, it will happen with the iPad. Heck it happens with computers when the OS or hardware changes.
The GGP post is stupid.
OK, I'm tired of people acting like Android isn't locked down to the end user as much as the iPhone is.
The only real difference is The phone/OS manufacturer locks down the phone, and requires a jailbreak to get it out of this state, for iOS devices, and Android based devices are locked down by each and every one of the service providers instead, and still require a jailbreak to get it out of this state.
Oh, and. . . .
Since when is it a news story when an OS, that is on many many difference models of phones, each with different features, and appeal to difference people shouldn't have higher market share than an OS that is on one phone. One phone.
Make a big deal about it if any other single phone sells more than the iPhone, and it might mean something.
namecheap doesn't offer all of those nice services. They are a reseller, and enom actually provides that service to all of their resellers. A very handy ability to resell.
Your on the right track. The best solution for maintaining those applications that are dependent on IE6 (which is stupid from a developers perspective), would be to utilize Citrix XenApp.
Notice: I work for a major IT implementation and support company in the Omaha, NE area with a national customer base.
Many companies are migrating to virtual servers, virtual application publishing, and virtual desktops. Multiple reasons for this. servers is an easy one by now, so no need to discuss that reasoning. Applications and desktops, is where virtualization really gets moving right now. Give the end user a thin client (desktop or laptop models), or allow the end user to provide their own device, laptop, desktop, iPhone, iPad, agnostic of what OS is installed.
Then use Citrix XenDesktop, or Citrix XenApp and publish or push the work silo desktop, or applications only to the end user's device. Do, or don't support the user's end point devices, but focus support on the applications and servers only.
We are implementing this in a large number of corporations, and we use it internally as well. It is the way to go, hands down.
And no I'm not going to look on Bing as well for you.
Just because you can use wikipedia to find out that one fact about something, that is not all wikipedia is designed for, so if that is all you want to know, and you don't want to accidently find out more, and get a spoiler from a site that will tell you "everything about anything" then don't look there.
It's not wikipedia or anyone else's job, to make the end user have common sense.
I don't get it. If your going to wikipedia to read about the play, then you already should be aware of the fact that it is going to tell you about the play. If you think that knowledge will spoil your viewing of the play, then you should be smart enough to not read about the play until after you go see it.
I agree with the fact that Paid Prioritization is the opposite of net neutrality, however I don't think your argument is helpful.
The internet is more like a highway that connects you to destinations (Websites).
The internet is not the websites themselves, and no information is stored on the internet, information is stored at destinations (servers) and the internet is the avenue that you can use to access that destination.
AT&T is saying that they want to maintain the right to put up a toll, and charge the traffic on that toll, and provide different speeds for different types of traffic on that toll road.
The problem is that AT&T wants to charge the destinations the toll, to allow the traffic to reach their destinations faster. This is very different then what they already are doing which is charging the traffic (the end users) that use their ISP a rate for a specified speed of access.
The argument is really a double dip. Charge the driver, and charge the destination they are wanting to get to, in order for that driver to get to that destination faster.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-dvi-cables/index.htm Are these then also illegal because they fall outside of the narrow definitions of HDMI connectors on both ends.
and that is why I have an iPhone (ok not really the reason why I have an iPhone, but hey simple and live broadcasting) http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ustream-live-broadcaster/id319362690?mt=8
Maybe he/she only meant that had it been an iPhone it would have easily already been online broadcast live. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ustream-live-broadcaster/id319362690?mt=8
Well, many years in, and it still works for the iPhone. Your comment really only boils down to: Those who don't like Apple products will not buy Apple products, and will be satisfied with their smug opposition to Apple products by purchasing a copy of an apple product from another manufacture.
Thus my point was made. ;)
While I'm sure you intended to be funny, you obviously don't understand the english language enough to understand what the subject of the sentence was. Comas have a purpose.
Yeah, no chance in switching. Phone and data at the same time, is indispensable in what I do.
Your wrong. With CDMA rev A you cannot host a hotspot using your cell network data connection and make a telephone call. The call will put a hold on the data.
unfortunately this is not real competition. It's copycat-itis. When all the competition is doing is trying to copy another products as close as possible, it's not real competition.
Some people have a hard time understanding Sarcasm. . . or they just like to add to it with their own. :)
Trust me after having to have 2-XT2's need motherboard replacements in the last year (One of which took Dell 6 months and 4 trips to the depot before they got it right. . . and I told them what needed replaced from day one) and an XT one needing some other hardware replacements, and working with Dell's steller Repair Depot. . . . I'm so not getting a Dell.
Dude. . . Web OS sucks.
To be fair, it still doesn't do what the iPhone 4 does, exactly. And the GGPs post is acting like developers won't develop apps with the new hardware enhancments in mind because it might alienate the ipad 1 owners. This happened with the phones, it will happen with the iPad. Heck it happens with computers when the OS or hardware changes. The GGP post is stupid.
Yes, but so is the honesty.
OK, I'm tired of people acting like Android isn't locked down to the end user as much as the iPhone is. The only real difference is The phone/OS manufacturer locks down the phone, and requires a jailbreak to get it out of this state, for iOS devices, and Android based devices are locked down by each and every one of the service providers instead, and still require a jailbreak to get it out of this state. Oh, and. . . . Since when is it a news story when an OS, that is on many many difference models of phones, each with different features, and appeal to difference people shouldn't have higher market share than an OS that is on one phone. One phone. Make a big deal about it if any other single phone sells more than the iPhone, and it might mean something.
You would make more money, if you just went to enom and got your own reseller account to manage all of your domains.
That's what I did, and now my company provides and sells domains to all of our website design customers as a part of our packages.
Why go to a secondary reseller, when you can become one yourself and take out a middle man.
namecheap doesn't offer all of those nice services. They are a reseller, and enom actually provides that service to all of their resellers. A very handy ability to resell.
I'd use me. funkedoodles.combr>
Just saying. My company is a resller from enom.
So basically I'm saying enom is the way to go, but if you want to buy it through a reseller, I'm there for you.
That doesn't mean it's locked. That means it's not compatible with sprint's network technology.
Your on the right track. The best solution for maintaining those applications that are dependent on IE6 (which is stupid from a developers perspective), would be to utilize Citrix XenApp.
Notice: I work for a major IT implementation and support company in the Omaha, NE area with a national customer base.
Many companies are migrating to virtual servers, virtual application publishing, and virtual desktops. Multiple reasons for this. servers is an easy one by now, so no need to discuss that reasoning. Applications and desktops, is where virtualization really gets moving right now. Give the end user a thin client (desktop or laptop models), or allow the end user to provide their own device, laptop, desktop, iPhone, iPad, agnostic of what OS is installed.
Then use Citrix XenDesktop, or Citrix XenApp and publish or push the work silo desktop, or applications only to the end user's device. Do, or don't support the user's end point devices, but focus support on the applications and servers only.
We are implementing this in a large number of corporations, and we use it internally as well. It is the way to go, hands down.
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=longest+running+play+of+all+time
That's how. Google, or Yahoo if you prefer. . . http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aku9Hp_M6GXpSATA.tR9246bvZx4?p=longest+running+play+of+all+time
And no I'm not going to look on Bing as well for you.
Just because you can use wikipedia to find out that one fact about something, that is not all wikipedia is designed for, so if that is all you want to know, and you don't want to accidently find out more, and get a spoiler from a site that will tell you "everything about anything" then don't look there.
It's not wikipedia or anyone else's job, to make the end user have common sense.
I don't get it. If your going to wikipedia to read about the play, then you already should be aware of the fact that it is going to tell you about the play. If you think that knowledge will spoil your viewing of the play, then you should be smart enough to not read about the play until after you go see it.
I don't agree with your analogy.
I agree with the fact that Paid Prioritization is the opposite of net neutrality, however I don't think your argument is helpful.
The internet is more like a highway that connects you to destinations (Websites).
The internet is not the websites themselves, and no information is stored on the internet, information is stored at destinations (servers) and the internet is the avenue that you can use to access that destination.
AT&T is saying that they want to maintain the right to put up a toll, and charge the traffic on that toll, and provide different speeds for different types of traffic on that toll road.
The problem is that AT&T wants to charge the destinations the toll, to allow the traffic to reach their destinations faster. This is very different then what they already are doing which is charging the traffic (the end users) that use their ISP a rate for a specified speed of access.
The argument is really a double dip. Charge the driver, and charge the destination they are wanting to get to, in order for that driver to get to that destination faster.
and that is because as soon as Apple does something different the competitors tend to copycat.
More so because if it is still listed at Beta, there is an assumption that you can't get support. Saves Google a ton of money in the Support Center.