However it depends on how recent it is and how complete a solution it provides. I've used it in the Enterprise IT arena in the past (I've been in enterprise IT for a couple of decades now) and it worked well, both on servers and desktops. Last year though when I purchased a new laptop (my first Windows laptop in years) I looked around for a while and settled on Norton 360. I thought it provided the most complete solution, had decent reviews and I got it at a steal of a price - something like $20 on Amazon as a "deal of the day". I had looked at McAfee (which I still do not care for), was close to purchasing Kaspersky before the sale on Norton 360, and I had dismissed the free tools as simply "better than northing". Now, probably six months later, I don't regret the purchase at all but I do hope I can find a deal on Norton 360 again come renewal time.
Well said sir.
I believe the term you are looking for is "limousine liberal". Yeah, we all hate them. But don't for a minute think DINO equates to conservative.
Quite possibly. I wasn't sure of the intent of the parent post.
Not sure about the Conservatives mention. It's always been the Libs that go around slapping labels on stuff as being bad for everyone, making broad generalizations based on nothing of substance, complaining to the likes of the FCC about anything they don't like and pretending they were "offended". First example I can think of is Tipper Gore and her war on music. Jello Biafra, hardly a Conservative, called her out on that 20 years ago on Oprah. History is full of examples of Liberals forcing their agenda on the American people.
Blocking travel from specific countries is useless unless all,countries agree to this or we choose to block travel from any country that does not participate in the ban. Nothing would prevent someone from first flying from an infected country to a third country before flying to the US. Really the flu killed more than 50000 times the number of people this year as Ebola has. Is it really that big of an issue here? This is simply people panicking needlessly.
I agree the difference in performance would be imperceptible to the average and many "above-average" users especially if they move from a 32bit OS to a 64bit OS at the same time they move from a processor that is a couple generations old to a newer - for example - i3 or i5 machine. I believe the same would be true in the mobile device world where there are still leaps in performance being made in each processor iteration. Factor in increased memory speed and the performance drop that does exist becomes more imperceptible.
Very nice sir.
-- de kc2kth
Well, I already stockpile two of the three. I just need more toilet paper and I am ready!
As an IT Professional since the mid-90s I have seen bandwidth increases driven by need in business. However in the home market the increases are simply driven by marketing messages that "more is better". We shouldn't lose sight of what we require broadband services to do. I regularly hear people brag about how many simultaneous stream of video or movie downloads they can run simultaneously. This really isn't a good argument for why we need more bandwidth. AT&T isn't trying to limit access to content, but trying to maintain some perspective.
That is apparantly because most people would simply call them "goats".
If you need proof that the current program is completely out of control and being abused resulting in a waste of American tax dollars, just take a look at this guy.
This is what we need to prevent. Yes, programs providing real support to those trying to better themselves should be supported to provide basic needs. However we could do far more of that if we kick the people off support who are basically stealing from each and every American in the way this guy is.
I'm not one to generally complain about cost of items, but this one gets me. Cell plans have always been expensive - more or less so depending on where you lived back in the day. For example the NY/NJ metro area was roughly 30% more expensive than NY capitol region (Albany, NY) back in the early to mid-90's. This is one area where I believe there is basically price gauging occuring - originally because of the lack of options and the targeted customer base (C-level executives, salesman on the road for extended periods) and more recently because it's virtually a "must have" technology. I believe that not only should prices lower - maybe not 50% - but that the providers would still be making plenty of profit to allow growth with a significant drop in price.
So sitting on one's couch Internet shopping is actually healthier than the alternative?
Back when it was still considered a modern game, Defender was my favorite in the arcade for a while. I was a fan of that old Star Wars game too, but for some reason I did better at Defender than others (maybe I'd only go through $1 in a 20 minute period - that's four games at 25 cents each - I wasn't very good) so it was my favorite for a while. Actually I was in high school around that time and had Defender and other Atari titles for the Apple II, so played them in the school computer lab too (unless I got caught - games were not allowed in the lab). Now though I find I would prefer to play pinball - something mechanical instead of something electronic - than any of the other options. I was pleasantly surprised to find so many others voted the same way!