Agree with the assessment of the iPhone. It's not needed. Android OTOH this is a godsend!!! I can't emphasize that enough. I've had to help many clients with all their various Android make/models; a few of them won't support Office365 without downloading a 3rd party mail client. iPhones? I never had problem unless public DNS records are missing or invalid (such as autodiscover SRV record for example).
It's bad enough when pirated phone and laptop batteries make its way through distribution on Amazon. The same seller will either knowingly or unknowingly sell pirated crap intermingled with legitimate inventory.
You can virtualize and abstract out to your heart's content. What TWX said was simple; at some point at the end of the day, all that data has to be stored on physical media. That takes physical rack space.
Not a bad idea actually. Using precision cutting, you could make numerous thin slits. Enough to vent the pressure while simultaneously keeping the box secure.
Another option maybe to create separate long ported vent chambers.
If it's not Exchange based (Outlook anywhere), it's fucking useless to me.
Microsoft owns corporate e-mail; and for a damn good reason. Well, only because Lotus Notes sucks balls.
Oh, and Zimbra can suck my balls too. It's a worthless pile of shit that either munges e-mail and contacts, or is dicey at best on iPhones and Droids via IMAP.
Office365 hosted e-mail dominates going forward!
No, not the Ilwrath you won't.
It's a filter. When a developer says they can make an iDevice app, Apple basically says "oh yeah, ok, pay up or shut up". Meaning, suffer the consequences for creating another me-too far app.
And yet, the entire GDP of Saudi Arabia is about 750 Billion. Or put it another way, if Saudi Aramco was its own nation, its GDP would sit between Ukraine and Kuwait; and that's just in the top 56 of 194 nations on the list.
Jobs had many products and ideas already in the pipeline prior to his death. To my knowledge, the only thing new is iPhone+. There's nothing magical about that decision. By the numbers, the market was clear in that people wanted a phablet. So they took an iPhone and increased the size; BFD.
I'm convinced the Apple Watch will be a flop. But then again, the R&D spent can be applicable in other future products. That's part of the cost of doing business; absorbing and learning from failures and moving on.
Nobody ever expects the extraterrestrial inquisition!
Interestingly, I oftened wondered if it was in the interests of intelligent life to focus their "expansion" inward to cyberspace vs. outerspace; transcending their evolution via forgoing the flesh bodies to machines of silicon based computers (or some such). Meaning, we're looking in the wrong places.
Why is this rated 5? Yes, paying drivers more *might* slightly increase supply but my guess is that the number of drivers is somewhat
You guess? Well lets just throw out the Iron Clad Law of Supply & Demand, on which almost all of the worlds productive economy is based, because you guess.
fixed so without also charging passengers more you do nothing on the demand side. The point of demand pricing is to reduce demand
so that you don't overwhelm the relatively fixed supply. If your goal is to always have cars available, then increasing the price while
paying the drivers the same would actually be a better solution than increasing the pay while charging the same but that would also be
You cannot look at one side of the equation.
When demand is up, there are only two options. Option number one is shortages (of supply). Option number two is that supply must increase.
When supply is down, there are only two options. Option number one is shortages (of demand). Option number two is that supply must decrease.
In either case, the solution is price elasticity. When the price drops, because supply is too high or demand is too low, drivers will drop out of the market. When the price raises, because supply is too low or demand is too high, drivers will enter the market.
Uber has a flexible work force, and it is no way fixed. They also posses 100% more information about the market and their drivers than you do, or the AG does.
This is the case of government using consumer protection laws in a way that will hurt consumers. Economics and the market are not friendly, but they do produce desirable outcomes. If the desirable outcome is fairness, than what the government and AG are doing will produce a fair outcome - everyone regardless of ability to pay will have an equal chance of getting or not getting a car, based on random luck, your skin color, or whatever else motivates you.
If the outcome is to provide as many rides possible, this requires a market with supply and demand efficiency. By curbing supply efficiency by limiting price elasticity, you provide fewer rides than the market will optimally support. If you are frequent driver, you know that by going to where the demand is, to when the demand is, will produce more and more profitable rides. If you are a rider, you know that by relying on Uber during exceptionally busy times, you will only be able to get a ride by paying far more than you would otherwise.
This is really a great case of the nanny government stepping into a situation which is drastically over it's head, in the name of "fairness". Fairness is not an economic goal, it's a social goal, and it's stupid to try to enforce a social goal like this on the very tail end of the policy stack.
Doesn't matter. Look at Mexico (and rest of South America). Noticed how the rich live in gated communities with 24h guards? Real power is in wealth disparity, and fuck the entire population and its future to get to the top. It's a parasitic mindset from, well, a parasite. Why have two maids when four can be had for the same price? As for that "price"?? Just a number, and numbers are meaning less if you can jet half-way around the world to purchase your luxuries when in necessary; perceived or otherwise.
Kaspersky is good, but I'm not sure that I would trust them to be state sponsored free these days; if you know what mean.
Vipre Antivirus has been real good these last few years (will be using for personal use once my Kaspersky subscription runs out). Norton has also improved vastly too (lighter engine). Can't go wrong with either.