Personally, I have an iPhone 5 and as it is now starting to suffer hardware problems (my model has both the "lock" button failure and the premature battery death problems) I had considered using the BB exclusively. On the plus side, the Z10 battery lasts all day -- ALL DAY -- the UI is very modern and usable, and the capability to use up to a 128 GB SD card is nice compared to my iPhone's locked in 16 GB which I constantly have full.
The downside which keeps me from going to BB is still apps. I don't have many iOS apps but what I realized I do have that I cannot replace on BB OS are: native Gmail client, Amtrak (I do a lot of train travel), online banking, Netflix, PBS Kids (for the little ones to use at restaurants and such), and iTunes (seamless sync of music collection). I know some of those apps have substitutes or workarounds, but I will be frank: I don't want to have to f*ck around for it to just work. That is why I left Android after having one from 2010 - 2012 for the iPhone, it was too much crapware and hassle with my music collection.
That's my story, so feel free to "Ask a BlackBerry User Anything" and I will give you my two cents.
...(by the way, the brick part is true, but it was my wife's car and she was lucky enough, and had the presence of mind, to get off the road safely).
Sounds like if you want her taken care of properly you'll need to aim more to the right side of the car next time.
When your market share in the consumer market is approximately 0% "saving" is not good, what you need to do is grow market share. So the question is whether an appstore which is as good as your competitors will grow market share for blackberry in the consumer market. And I think the answer it takes more than just being as good as your competitors in one area to gain market share. Perhaps if they just put out some decent android phones that had the old (patented) blackberry keyboard then they could regain some market share from the texters that hate on screen keyboards. That is the one feature they can offer consumers that will be better than the competition. "Saving" market share only applies to the corporate and government markets where they still have market share to lose.
I'm not sure how much an app store "saves" market share in government, but I do know cost is a factor. I am in government and just received a Z10 after having a 9900 for a few years. Our agency was looking to go iPhone, but AT&T literally gave us the devices FOR FREE and then a credit of about $32 per old device for recycling, so the net cost of going iPhone would have been $40,000 (400 devices at about $100 per) and the net cost of Blackberry was -$12,800 (technically -$52,800 if you count the "saved" $100 per device). IT described it to me as "status quo with better hardware, and we can kick the can of moving platforms down the line or until BB goes out of business."
The proposed AT&T+T-Mobile merger made sense, because they both use GSM over similar wavelengths. But how would Sprint and T-Mobile combine their network services? Their voice data at least is on completely different infrastructure.
Hopefully better than Nextel + Sprint did!! As I recall the iDEN to CDMA transition was a clusterf***.
Voyager 1 is 127 AU away, 500LY is about 31 Million AU.... so we only need to go 250,000 times further than we ever have! That seems doable.
Better get a move on then; I'll hold your beer until you get back.
In the press a lot has been made of the Romney's and Obama's "effective" tax rate: that is, "Adjusted Gross Income/Total Tax = Effective tax rate". Romney's was something like 14.1% and Obama's was 20.4%. Populist rage ensued over both "not paying their fair share." I felt that same rage but then looked: my effective rate was 9.53%!!!! That sure surprised me.
The names of everyone involved are going to come out anyways....I'm *guessing* GM's goal is to scapegoat a few responsible parties as early as possible, so that when the management failures are unmasked, there won't be as much heat and vitriol.
The sound the bus makes running over the engineers thrown under.
If Agency X purchases $50 worth of product from NTIS, $50 of taxpayer money is simply moved from Agency X's budget to the NTIS budget. No taxpayer money was "spent" it was just a Funny Money transaction. If Agency X spends $50 at Amazon.com then $50 was SPENT (i.e. left the Federal government for the private sector).
Now if Agency X somehow finds the needed document for free and gets it, avoiding "spending" $50, does the taxpayer save money? I say no. Agency X will "use it or lose it" when it comes to their budget and will simply spend that $50 somewhere else. So is there any real benefit to such a bill?
I use Twitter and it does have some uses, and I tell the family and friends that it's useful for...
* Breaking news (it's like a wire-service for the masses);
* Closely following a product/celebrity/athlete/event/sport;
* Posting a short question on a specific topic via #;
* Posting or finding witticisms and satire;
* Posting or finding a status report (not viable to foster a discussion by any means); and
* Finding spam, click-bait, impersonators of real people, bots, pr0n, and completely inaccurate information.
I mainly use Twitter myself to follow athletes in the NFL (primarily my team, Green Bay) and the three forms of motorsport I watch: NASCAR, Formula 1, and IndyCar. I really like Twitter during one of these sporting events because posters can give you more detail/insight into the event or people involved than just the TV or radio broadcasters (Example: sideline/pit reporters or members of a team participating in the event who can tweet during the event.)
IMHO though, the spam/bots/clickbait is out of control and detracts from the platform.
Oh, you mean they cannot just throw the highly poisonous nuclear waste into the sea anymore?
To be fair, it IS still legal to have a man in blue and red underwear gather nuclear waste into a gigantic net, fly it into space, and hurtle it into the Sun.
It's not a method that is popular with the public nor critically acclaimed, but it is still legal.
There is some thought that those people are so depressed that they aren't even capable of marshaling the energy to commit suicide. When you give them an antidepressant, they start to become less depressed and but are still depressed enough to be suicidal, only now they have the energy to kill themselves, and so do it.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.