You would make more money, if you just went to enom and got your own reseller account to manage all of your domains.

That's what I did, and now my company provides and sells domains to all of our website design customers as a part of our packages.

Why go to a secondary reseller, when you can become one yourself and take out a middle man.

namecheap doesn't offer all of those nice services. They are a reseller, and enom actually provides that service to all of their resellers. A very handy ability to resell.

I'd use me. funkedoodles.combr>

Just saying. My company is a resller from enom.


So basically I'm saying enom is the way to go, but if you want to buy it through a reseller, I'm there for you.

That doesn't mean it's locked. That means it's not compatible with sprint's network technology.

Your on the right track. The best solution for maintaining those applications that are dependent on IE6 (which is stupid from a developers perspective), would be to utilize Citrix XenApp.

Notice: I work for a major IT implementation and support company in the Omaha, NE area with a national customer base.

Many companies are migrating to virtual servers, virtual application publishing, and virtual desktops. Multiple reasons for this. servers is an easy one by now, so no need to discuss that reasoning. Applications and desktops, is where virtualization really gets moving right now. Give the end user a thin client (desktop or laptop models), or allow the end user to provide their own device, laptop, desktop, iPhone, iPad, agnostic of what OS is installed.

Then use Citrix XenDesktop, or Citrix XenApp and publish or push the work silo desktop, or applications only to the end user's device. Do, or don't support the user's end point devices, but focus support on the applications and servers only.

We are implementing this in a large number of corporations, and we use it internally as well. It is the way to go, hands down.

http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=longest+running+play+of+all+time

That's how. Google, or Yahoo if you prefer. . . http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aku9Hp_M6GXpSATA.tR9246bvZx4?p=longest+running+play+of+all+time

And no I'm not going to look on Bing as well for you.

Just because you can use wikipedia to find out that one fact about something, that is not all wikipedia is designed for, so if that is all you want to know, and you don't want to accidently find out more, and get a spoiler from a site that will tell you "everything about anything" then don't look there.

It's not wikipedia or anyone else's job, to make the end user have common sense.

I don't get it. If your going to wikipedia to read about the play, then you already should be aware of the fact that it is going to tell you about the play. If you think that knowledge will spoil your viewing of the play, then you should be smart enough to not read about the play until after you go see it.

I don't agree with your analogy.

I agree with the fact that Paid Prioritization is the opposite of net neutrality, however I don't think your argument is helpful.

The internet is more like a highway that connects you to destinations (Websites).

The internet is not the websites themselves, and no information is stored on the internet, information is stored at destinations (servers) and the internet is the avenue that you can use to access that destination.

AT&T is saying that they want to maintain the right to put up a toll, and charge the traffic on that toll, and provide different speeds for different types of traffic on that toll road.

The problem is that AT&T wants to charge the destinations the toll, to allow the traffic to reach their destinations faster. This is very different then what they already are doing which is charging the traffic (the end users) that use their ISP a rate for a specified speed of access.

The argument is really a double dip. Charge the driver, and charge the destination they are wanting to get to, in order for that driver to get to that destination faster.

and that is because as soon as Apple does something different the competitors tend to copycat.

More so because if it is still listed at Beta, there is an assumption that you can't get support. Saves Google a ton of money in the Support Center.

So well. . . that Palm had to sell the company?

You forget who Apple is. They don't do that with their computers. Odds are they won't do it with their phone. CDMA for the iPhone would suck, and I doubt Apple would do it, specially when even Verizon has a road map for getting away from it.

There is a few things that make this improbable.

Apple is very strict about time tables for release. I could see a January update, but not for what we know as the iPhone. I would lean towards Apple opening their phone market with a different handset all together. Maybe the vPhone, or maybe the iVone (Little jest there).

More likely is something with the iPad which is released during the January cycle.

If. . . If it happens, don't expect it to be the same iPhone that just came out. It will have different features, but I don't think Verizon will be able to pull off the ability to use the data network at the same time as making a call.

OH and btw:

The IT department doesn't determine what is needed in a School environment. The teachers do. That's why most schools are years behind the corporate world. But slowly this is changing.

And I assume you know how crappy SEP works?

And I also assume you know that the licensing that Schools pay for SEP is for School owned networked PCs.

And thus I can assume you know that Win 7 Starter isn't exactly an OS that support AD Domains.


Caveat. . . Worked as an IT director for a University, and delt specifically with negotiating licensing agreements with all the major vendors. . . Currently working as a Consultant for a number of Large Corporate Clients, and managing a number of SEP installs in those environments.

Oh, come on mods. . . that was funny.