balamw
Apr 26, 08:53 PM
is that last code enough info balamw?
Still too much left out. "After that I implement a Cancel method pointing to sender (button)" should tell you you are leaving potentially important stuff out.
You can point out an error and give solution or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one is telling you to quit. They're telling you to go back and make sure you understand objects. (Clearly you don't). This is something you will have to understand for yourself.
As it stands you are confusing yourself.
I don't think I've been involved in any of your threads. What resources are you using to learn Objective-C?
B
Still too much left out. "After that I implement a Cancel method pointing to sender (button)" should tell you you are leaving potentially important stuff out.
You can point out an error and give solution or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one is telling you to quit. They're telling you to go back and make sure you understand objects. (Clearly you don't). This is something you will have to understand for yourself.
As it stands you are confusing yourself.
I don't think I've been involved in any of your threads. What resources are you using to learn Objective-C?
B
kernkraft
Jul 30, 11:22 AM
I think the Volt is a success in terms of meeting its intended design parameters. However, I think the whole notion of the all-electric car and plug-in hybrids are flawed due to our current infrastructure.
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
BurtonCCC
Mar 24, 09:29 PM
http://www.kropserkel.com/Images/horsehead%20(6).jpg (http://www.kropserkel.com/Images/horsehead%20(6).jpg)
Do it. Except for real. :D
Good luck! I think you have all of MacRumors behind you now! For a little clarification, you do see your console's serial number is on your wireless network?
Daniel.
Do it. Except for real. :D
Good luck! I think you have all of MacRumors behind you now! For a little clarification, you do see your console's serial number is on your wireless network?
Daniel.
Homy
Jan 12, 07:27 PM
he did say that Mac hardware and software will be announced in a couple of weeks time.No, not in a couple of weeks. He actually said "Over the course of the next several months we're gonna roll out some awesome stuff for the Mac".
dunk321
Mar 17, 01:17 AM
He probably did pocket the cash, since he asked if everything was cool when he handed me the bag, that def ran through my mind a few times.
MusicallySilent
Jan 13, 12:22 AM
Mid range Mac
I would hope for a mid range "Cube like" computer only because I'm looking to upgrade soon.
That would be almost nice to have a cube, sort of what I was thinking of except have desktop or xeons instead it could be a desktop xeon (lga775) for all I care just give us the option for a desktop/server power dual and quad core, along with 2-4 (pref 4) ram slots, pci E graphics and a few hdd bays and get it out the door for 999 or less
I would hope for a mid range "Cube like" computer only because I'm looking to upgrade soon.
That would be almost nice to have a cube, sort of what I was thinking of except have desktop or xeons instead it could be a desktop xeon (lga775) for all I care just give us the option for a desktop/server power dual and quad core, along with 2-4 (pref 4) ram slots, pci E graphics and a few hdd bays and get it out the door for 999 or less
princealfie
Mar 19, 05:32 AM
Even though I own two iPhone 4's, I still think that it is definitely the most overrated phone ever.
Honestly if it weren't for those art and photography apps, I would have more Android/webOS phones. I really like the iPhone 4 but it isn't the end all and be all.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
Even though I own two iPhone 4's I never experienced being a meat sandwich so that survey is mostly bullshiznit.
Honestly, I don't buy the iPhone to show off but because it is a photography tool for my art studio.
Whenever an Adroid user gives me any crap, I just say one thing to them and it always shuts them up.
"battery life"
Works all the time. :D
Wrong my Motorola Defy gets just as good battery life as my iPhone 4. (I own one too) and plus I can do swimming with it.
Something that the iPhone 4 I own can't do!!!!!! :p
Peoplle hated Paris Hilton too and look how hot she was...
Paris Hilton is overrated and she isn't hot either. So there.
Honestly if it weren't for those art and photography apps, I would have more Android/webOS phones. I really like the iPhone 4 but it isn't the end all and be all.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
Even though I own two iPhone 4's I never experienced being a meat sandwich so that survey is mostly bullshiznit.
Honestly, I don't buy the iPhone to show off but because it is a photography tool for my art studio.
Whenever an Adroid user gives me any crap, I just say one thing to them and it always shuts them up.
"battery life"
Works all the time. :D
Wrong my Motorola Defy gets just as good battery life as my iPhone 4. (I own one too) and plus I can do swimming with it.
Something that the iPhone 4 I own can't do!!!!!! :p
Peoplle hated Paris Hilton too and look how hot she was...
Paris Hilton is overrated and she isn't hot either. So there.
solvs
Jan 12, 11:34 PM
Bloggers are not professionals anyways.
Some of them are trying to be, but as most of the rest of the posters here are trying to say, things like this just make it harder for them to be taken as such.
Some of them are trying to be, but as most of the rest of the posters here are trying to say, things like this just make it harder for them to be taken as such.
tveric
Oct 5, 01:28 AM
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
vincenz
Mar 17, 09:00 AM
Did you check back to see if the kid is still working there?
dyler
Oct 8, 12:50 PM
This is false advertising, Verizon does not have that 3G coverage and ATT has more than that. Verizon is the worst service I have ever used with the worst Phones I have ever used, MY iPhone works in more places than my Verizon phone ever did, this is all lies and Congress should talk about that not exclusive carrier models!!
SkyStudios
May 2, 12:41 PM
My only question is:
If there was a study that was conducted some time back [more than 2 months back] and got Apple to investigate the issue seriously, why did Apple wait for another study OR another media non-sense to acknowledge the bugs and report to the consumers?
Why did Apple not rectify the problem before? Did Apple already knew about these features or are they simply getting with this crap by calling them "bugs"?
To be honest, this is probably the first time I'm feeling that Apple was trying to play with the consumers privacy and trust. I think Apple just fooled us.
-deth a lawsuite was filed a year ago, apple refused to address the problem becuase it was not out in the public as it is now with Congress connecting trails to wall street and who knows why apple collected political views.
According to authorities, Apple uses trolls, some techs even to bury issues posted on forums so they can buy time if many people either give up or simply seem less in number, so if the ratio of complaints are kept low no one notices bugs,
Im not surprised that the FEDS are upset about this, if they had iphones people can track them and all sorts of info is out public or in the wrong hands, makes the wikileeks kids look like angels
If there was a study that was conducted some time back [more than 2 months back] and got Apple to investigate the issue seriously, why did Apple wait for another study OR another media non-sense to acknowledge the bugs and report to the consumers?
Why did Apple not rectify the problem before? Did Apple already knew about these features or are they simply getting with this crap by calling them "bugs"?
To be honest, this is probably the first time I'm feeling that Apple was trying to play with the consumers privacy and trust. I think Apple just fooled us.
-deth a lawsuite was filed a year ago, apple refused to address the problem becuase it was not out in the public as it is now with Congress connecting trails to wall street and who knows why apple collected political views.
According to authorities, Apple uses trolls, some techs even to bury issues posted on forums so they can buy time if many people either give up or simply seem less in number, so if the ratio of complaints are kept low no one notices bugs,
Im not surprised that the FEDS are upset about this, if they had iphones people can track them and all sorts of info is out public or in the wrong hands, makes the wikileeks kids look like angels
fyrefly
Apr 29, 02:19 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Yep, you are 100% right. Apple will turn us all into 1984 mindless drones and force us to suckle at their App Store teet.
http://urbanflyventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Its-A-Conspiracy.jpg
Yep, you are 100% right. Apple will turn us all into 1984 mindless drones and force us to suckle at their App Store teet.
http://urbanflyventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Its-A-Conspiracy.jpg
MacNut
Apr 27, 09:50 PM
But couldn't sexual harassment issues also potentially happen with lesbians in the women's bathroom or gay men in the men's bathroom? How come that is not issue?Unless somebody announces that they are gay or lesbian in the bathroom I doubt anyone would notice. If a woman walks into the mens room or vise versa people would notice.
langis.elbasunu
Mar 17, 11:00 AM
Of course, but dishonesty is immoral. Dishonesty coupled with theft and injury is illegal.
dishonesty in the abstract sense is the main tenet of your profession counsel.
dishonesty in the abstract sense is the main tenet of your profession counsel.
Cooknn
Sep 12, 08:27 AM
If they can't be burnt to DVD they're gonna have to be mad cheap.How you gonna burn it to DVD if it's Hi-Def?
true777
Oct 4, 04:22 AM
This is the Mac mini of houses at best.
wildmac
Oct 2, 03:46 PM
You'd expect Jobs would have some sympathy for the guy, what with his phreaking days before Apple.
No honor among theives... :cool:
No honor among theives... :cool:
JForestZ34
Mar 17, 04:20 PM
The poor kid simply hit the "cash" button before typing in the total. I used to work at BB (now an attorney), so I feel sorry for the kid. The OP committed retail theft by knowingly leaving the store with a product he didn't pay full value for (differentiated from receiving a computer by mistake because of the intent requirement). If the kid is not fired he will surely be written up and never able to move upward in the company to get things like health insurance and other benefits. What's worse is that this is the time of the year when BB takes on a lot of new hires.
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
Good luck.. But it won't do any good... Nice try though....
James
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
Good luck.. But it won't do any good... Nice try though....
James
Full of Fail
May 3, 03:57 PM
Considering communism is dependent on control of the resources so they can be equally doled out, it's not free and open. You're thinking of anarchy.
Your username is appropriate. :rolleyes:
I was referring to things that work in theory and not in practice. Now that you have me going about it though, communism is, in theory, open and in practice, not open. You are describing the practice of it, not the theory. Thanks for proving my point.
Your username is appropriate. :rolleyes:
I was referring to things that work in theory and not in practice. Now that you have me going about it though, communism is, in theory, open and in practice, not open. You are describing the practice of it, not the theory. Thanks for proving my point.
turbobass
Apr 5, 03:31 PM
"doesn't apply to me so it's useless" mentality. guess the world revolves around them :rolleyes:
Thanks for the passing insult however I think I was pretty clear that your use for it was one I hadn't considered and also a rare case that made this app actually useful. I apologize for recognizing your rare and interesting situation.
Thanks for the passing insult however I think I was pretty clear that your use for it was one I hadn't considered and also a rare case that made this app actually useful. I apologize for recognizing your rare and interesting situation.
wenger2k
Oct 20, 12:09 PM
I believe Apple always in reality wanted to go with AT&T - I think they talked to both companies so they could create a form of competition to get what they wanted out of the deal. So why did they want AT&T - it was really simple it was that AT&T used GSM and UMTS that allowed them to make a single device that they could then roll out to a large part of the rest of the world with out a lot of reengineering. This has turned out to be a good decision for them.
If you're so sure this has been such a great thing for AT&T look at their stock price vs apple's and verizon for that matter during this time. While it has represented a huge amount of revenue for AT&T it has also increased their cost by orders of magnitude. Its also forced them to upgrade substantial parts of their network far ahead of plan which has also come at significant unplanned expense. They're currently rolling out the 850mhz and the 7.2gb HSPA overlay framework at least a year ahead of their original plans - all of this is reportedly because essentially Apple made them.
The majority of AT&T's network issues are likely caused by the massive increase in bandwidth consumption which can almost all be attributed to the iPhone. Had Verizon gotten the iphone they'd be in a similar situation.
As for CDMA iPhones, Apple has already announced that they'll be offering the iphone with Bell Canada and its been widely reported that they will offer iPhones with both China Unicom and China Mobile which will force the creation of a CDMA/EVDO iPhone so the technical barrier to entry for Verizon no longer exists. Reality of course is that Verizon represents a big enough customer that creation of a CDMA hardware version would be a minimal barrier if Apple didn't continue to see more benefit from the prime vendor relationship that they have with AT&T than they would get by breaking out and offering the product with Verizon. My guess is that if the volume of complaints about AT&T's network don't start going down soon Apple will be forced to expand to other carriers.
If you're so sure this has been such a great thing for AT&T look at their stock price vs apple's and verizon for that matter during this time. While it has represented a huge amount of revenue for AT&T it has also increased their cost by orders of magnitude. Its also forced them to upgrade substantial parts of their network far ahead of plan which has also come at significant unplanned expense. They're currently rolling out the 850mhz and the 7.2gb HSPA overlay framework at least a year ahead of their original plans - all of this is reportedly because essentially Apple made them.
The majority of AT&T's network issues are likely caused by the massive increase in bandwidth consumption which can almost all be attributed to the iPhone. Had Verizon gotten the iphone they'd be in a similar situation.
As for CDMA iPhones, Apple has already announced that they'll be offering the iphone with Bell Canada and its been widely reported that they will offer iPhones with both China Unicom and China Mobile which will force the creation of a CDMA/EVDO iPhone so the technical barrier to entry for Verizon no longer exists. Reality of course is that Verizon represents a big enough customer that creation of a CDMA hardware version would be a minimal barrier if Apple didn't continue to see more benefit from the prime vendor relationship that they have with AT&T than they would get by breaking out and offering the product with Verizon. My guess is that if the volume of complaints about AT&T's network don't start going down soon Apple will be forced to expand to other carriers.
motherduce
Jan 9, 01:49 PM
I promise promise promise its not a spoiler.
Ahh, almost worse with the Gates keynote...ha.
Ahh, almost worse with the Gates keynote...ha.