Multimedia
Jul 26, 11:18 PM
Maybe where you live. I tried it in La Jolla, CA with Terk TV5 and I just was able to get couple channels and very choppy.Yeah I have to move my Terk TV5 antenna every time I change the channel. It's not easy. Very sensitive to antenna position A LOT.Sorry Multimedia. I even joined your yahoo group and I was very excite about the possibilities of the EyeTV500. I just turned out to be not the way you said.
It works maybe for you, but in some cases like mine require way more than what your are just saying.
I am just trying to make sure people are not going through the same hassle and disappointment I had.
so be aware!Sorry. Off air recording is obviously a crap shoot. I do have to tweak the antenna every time I change channels. So there is a lot of baby sitting the antenna I have to do all the time. Digital Broadcast TV is both a blessing and a curse. I wonder if it's a conspiracy by the cable operators to force subscriptions.
It works maybe for you, but in some cases like mine require way more than what your are just saying.
I am just trying to make sure people are not going through the same hassle and disappointment I had.
so be aware!Sorry. Off air recording is obviously a crap shoot. I do have to tweak the antenna every time I change channels. So there is a lot of baby sitting the antenna I have to do all the time. Digital Broadcast TV is both a blessing and a curse. I wonder if it's a conspiracy by the cable operators to force subscriptions.
Flying Llama
Aug 21, 05:14 PM
Similar to #12, but with a sky background. I know, it's choppy and bad quality but if it weren't it would be 170k :eek:
dscuber9000
Apr 13, 10:36 AM
My dad wants me to switch to Verizon this summer, so I'm really hoping the iPhone 5 will come out by then so I can upgrade to that instead of a Verizon iPhone 4. :D
zimv20
Mar 24, 11:23 PM
heh, i was just coming on here to post the same. here's another d/load link:
https://www.soundtoys.com/sxswpromo/&rc=336-2627-317
https://www.soundtoys.com/sxswpromo/&rc=336-2627-317
more...
oratowsky
Jun 3, 10:34 PM
Easiest way would probably be to change your WEP password in the first place.
Other than that you'd have to use your router software to ban a particular IP address -- look in your router's instructions for how to do this.
Other than that you'd have to use your router software to ban a particular IP address -- look in your router's instructions for how to do this.
Reefbone
Feb 10, 12:50 PM
I have the 450 minute plan for $29.99. Kinda worried I won't be able to do this. I see mention of people on the same plan for $39.99 and that price point being one of the qualifiers.
UPDATE: Spoke to ATT: If I add the unlimited M2M then I lose my Corporate discount... I'm kinda torn as I have been steadily blowing through my rollovers minute this past year. I started with close to 2000 minutes of rollover and am down to only 50mins left. I would have to spend $15 more per month to the the feature but @.45/min over 450 it could get ugly quick. Torn...
UPDATE: Spoke to ATT: If I add the unlimited M2M then I lose my Corporate discount... I'm kinda torn as I have been steadily blowing through my rollovers minute this past year. I started with close to 2000 minutes of rollover and am down to only 50mins left. I would have to spend $15 more per month to the the feature but @.45/min over 450 it could get ugly quick. Torn...
more...
Deepdale
Sep 24, 03:55 PM
Permission is academic at this point ... the answer is yes. If he's not intruding into your sex life, I see no compelling reason for you to do so in his. As an adult, one will presume he is aware of all the necessary precautions that people should take.
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 05:02 PM
Don't the movie studios operate as commercial businesses? Don't they make a profit (overall - some movies flop I know)?
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
Except that iPod/iTMS sales would represent, generally speaking, the loss of a DVD sale. They would love, I am sure, to ONLY sell through iTMS and similar services, assuming:
1) They sold the same number of copies,
2) They had the same or great profit margin, and
3) They had better/stricter copy protection.
On that note, I'm still amazed no one has reverse engineered the iTMS video copy protection scheme. I hear DVDJohn has done it, but is using his powers for "good" (well, his good) and selling it to companies who want to offer DRM'd video for playback on iPods without going through Apple.
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
Except that iPod/iTMS sales would represent, generally speaking, the loss of a DVD sale. They would love, I am sure, to ONLY sell through iTMS and similar services, assuming:
1) They sold the same number of copies,
2) They had the same or great profit margin, and
3) They had better/stricter copy protection.
On that note, I'm still amazed no one has reverse engineered the iTMS video copy protection scheme. I hear DVDJohn has done it, but is using his powers for "good" (well, his good) and selling it to companies who want to offer DRM'd video for playback on iPods without going through Apple.
more...
macbookpro45
Jun 20, 12:36 PM
Yeah...looking to see what time you're getting there / if you want to meet up and coordinate broom breaks or whatever. pm me or post here.
SwiftLives
May 4, 02:21 PM
But what if torturing a person who is involved in the plans of a terrorist attack could prevent thousands of deaths?
Torturing would never be a good action, but it is like killing someone to defend yourself, killing is bad, but the result of killing saved your life.
In the case of torture, it is the government defending its people (country). If it can be avoided better, but I would rather authorize torture instead of letting attacks happen.
EDIT: As with everything, every single case needs to be analyzed separately.
But there is absolutely no guarantee or, to my knowledge, no proof that torture results in any useful intelligence whatsoever. And killing someone to save your own life is defending yourself. Not sure how torture could ever be considered an act of self-defense.
Torturing would never be a good action, but it is like killing someone to defend yourself, killing is bad, but the result of killing saved your life.
In the case of torture, it is the government defending its people (country). If it can be avoided better, but I would rather authorize torture instead of letting attacks happen.
EDIT: As with everything, every single case needs to be analyzed separately.
But there is absolutely no guarantee or, to my knowledge, no proof that torture results in any useful intelligence whatsoever. And killing someone to save your own life is defending yourself. Not sure how torture could ever be considered an act of self-defense.
more...
iBug2
Nov 12, 08:55 PM
Jobs (and most of us here) are missing the point. It's not about getting a release window for the next iteration of FCP, it's about running a business and the need to plan according to a supplier's roadmap. This is one area where Apple totally blows: without awareness of basic features, likely timelines, and a clear product commitment, it's nerve wracking and borderline irresponsible to use Apple products in the backbone of any business.
Cue the apologists, but I've been in the driver's seat on this and for serious professionals it is an abuse that Apple should stop. If a product is claimed to be for professional use, then give the professionals the information they need to plan and run their business. If you don't get why this matters, I'm going to guess you've never run a business where you had the responsibility for people's livelihood on your shoulders.
You don't need to know a year ahead of Apple's product launch dates to run your business. There are lots of professionals using 5 year old software to get their millions of dollars of worth work done. I like software upgrades as much as the next guy, but just because it's cool to install new stuff, not that I'll be able to do much more than I can do right now with the new software.
Cue the apologists, but I've been in the driver's seat on this and for serious professionals it is an abuse that Apple should stop. If a product is claimed to be for professional use, then give the professionals the information they need to plan and run their business. If you don't get why this matters, I'm going to guess you've never run a business where you had the responsibility for people's livelihood on your shoulders.
You don't need to know a year ahead of Apple's product launch dates to run your business. There are lots of professionals using 5 year old software to get their millions of dollars of worth work done. I like software upgrades as much as the next guy, but just because it's cool to install new stuff, not that I'll be able to do much more than I can do right now with the new software.
Porchland
Sep 27, 08:44 AM
Its going to take alot more than a Mail update to satisfy me... but its a start.
Yeah, with this previewing four months ahead of Macworld, I'd say we're headed for a major upgrade of .Mac with even tighter integration to Mail, iCal and iLife.
I still hope Mail and iCal will be collapsed into one app in Leopard.
Yeah, with this previewing four months ahead of Macworld, I'd say we're headed for a major upgrade of .Mac with even tighter integration to Mail, iCal and iLife.
I still hope Mail and iCal will be collapsed into one app in Leopard.
more...
ac921ol
Feb 10, 11:47 AM
hmm, whats ATT doing then. About to walk to the store with my bill and see what magic they can do for me.
samcraig
Apr 27, 01:06 PM
I am not defending Full of Win. I sincerely am not.
But some people should keep in mind that it's entirely possible to love a company's products while not liking part or all of the actual company or how they operate on given occasions.
It's very easy for some here to just throw out the term troll and hater just because someone isn't accepting of Apple's PR, etc.
Now go ahead an tag this with your "-1" too :)
But some people should keep in mind that it's entirely possible to love a company's products while not liking part or all of the actual company or how they operate on given occasions.
It's very easy for some here to just throw out the term troll and hater just because someone isn't accepting of Apple's PR, etc.
Now go ahead an tag this with your "-1" too :)
more...
I AM THE MAN
May 6, 05:33 PM
I have recently reinstalled Snow Leopard on my Macbook Pro. I am wondering, from the migrant Assistant, where it says to restore apps, can I just select the ones I want to reinstall rather than install ALL of them?
Thanks for the help in advance.
Thanks for the help in advance.
magid
Jun 25, 02:52 PM
Ive got a few I need to get rid of. I can ship it out tomrrow for you. Name your price.
more...
Dalton63841
Apr 16, 10:01 PM
Just got the update in iTunes today
Yea its been out going on 2 days now I think...already threads on it.
Yea its been out going on 2 days now I think...already threads on it.
BornToMac
Oct 13, 09:40 PM
switched it up a bit... my design.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/5072766956_49f2949d2c_z.jpg
I really like your style and the combination of textures in this. Do you mind sharing your design so I can use it as a desk top?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/5072766956_49f2949d2c_z.jpg
I really like your style and the combination of textures in this. Do you mind sharing your design so I can use it as a desk top?
mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
princealfie
Nov 29, 02:39 PM
Then you cannot display the "highest" resolution version of the media. Either none, or a resolution crippled version (ie 480p vs 1080i).
Rocketman
Hmm... I'm gonna avoid this like the plague now.
Rocketman
Hmm... I'm gonna avoid this like the plague now.
DewGuy1999
May 1, 09:48 PM
See if this is what you need:
Clean up the Clutter: Photoshop CS3 Window Tips (http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1174791)
Clean up the Clutter: Photoshop CS3 Window Tips (http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1174791)
el-John-o
Feb 9, 10:27 PM
But see you are not leaving AT&T now, you are leaving T-Mobile.
There are a number of att customers who find the service mediocre at best, but are willing to put up with it, verizon may be better. Still others didn't know att would be that bad but where stuck into contracts, and it worked well enough to justify waiting and not paying the termination fee. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who have no problems with att, but media hype and aggressive advertising has convinced them they do have a problem, so they will switch. I'm sticking with ATT, it has worked great for years and years for me.
There are a number of att customers who find the service mediocre at best, but are willing to put up with it, verizon may be better. Still others didn't know att would be that bad but where stuck into contracts, and it worked well enough to justify waiting and not paying the termination fee. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who have no problems with att, but media hype and aggressive advertising has convinced them they do have a problem, so they will switch. I'm sticking with ATT, it has worked great for years and years for me.
Alkalidodo
May 2, 03:07 PM
Honourable Mambers,
I have an application which i want to unzip and do not know how to go about it.Help.
I have an application which i want to unzip and do not know how to go about it.Help.
kannanganesh
Apr 21, 01:48 PM
Is it possible to inject a new or replace a existing resource file inside a signed package using packagemaker? if so could some one help me how that can be done?
No comments:
Post a Comment