SandboxGeneral
Mar 20, 07:28 AM
I don't have any horror stories, but at the end of this year I am going to drop two of the sites I maintain because of an extremely annoying woman. I do a site for her, and an association she is involved with plus many other sites for local governments, like townships.
All of my clients are easy to work with and give me periodic things to update, fix or add. That's never a problem for me since they're paying for it. But this woman sends me things nearly everyday to do, wanting to change font sizes, add giant gaudy stars and attention grabbers and the like. She's one of those people who uses 15 question marks or other punctuation in her emails to express her tone or meaning. Oftentimes she want the exact same information that is on one page to be on another page, "just in case people don't click on the first page." I keep telling her that it is redundant to do so and people aren't as dumb as you think they are. Essentially she is a micromanager of her site and she also has authority over the association site I maintain too. So I get the same stuff from her for that one too.
But wait! There's more! She also feels the need to send things to me for another site she has no business giving input towards (it's an association site her husband belongs to!) and offers her opinion to change things there too. This one really drives me nuts. She sent some changes to me a few months ago and CC'd the person with authority over this site. I ignored her request and subsequently so did the other guy. Then last week she FW's it to me again with giant font and multiple question marks wanting to know why I didn't do anything with it. I replied back saying that I was waiting for "Hank" to authorize it. So she fires an email off to him and I demanding that he authorize me to make the changes. Wouldn't you know it, he ignored her again! ;) I told the associations president and he is going to put a stop to her trying to mess with his site.
But as I said, I am dropping her site and her association site at the end of the year. I don't need her money that bad. Living headache free and a bit lighter in the wallet is OK with me.
All of my clients are easy to work with and give me periodic things to update, fix or add. That's never a problem for me since they're paying for it. But this woman sends me things nearly everyday to do, wanting to change font sizes, add giant gaudy stars and attention grabbers and the like. She's one of those people who uses 15 question marks or other punctuation in her emails to express her tone or meaning. Oftentimes she want the exact same information that is on one page to be on another page, "just in case people don't click on the first page." I keep telling her that it is redundant to do so and people aren't as dumb as you think they are. Essentially she is a micromanager of her site and she also has authority over the association site I maintain too. So I get the same stuff from her for that one too.
But wait! There's more! She also feels the need to send things to me for another site she has no business giving input towards (it's an association site her husband belongs to!) and offers her opinion to change things there too. This one really drives me nuts. She sent some changes to me a few months ago and CC'd the person with authority over this site. I ignored her request and subsequently so did the other guy. Then last week she FW's it to me again with giant font and multiple question marks wanting to know why I didn't do anything with it. I replied back saying that I was waiting for "Hank" to authorize it. So she fires an email off to him and I demanding that he authorize me to make the changes. Wouldn't you know it, he ignored her again! ;) I told the associations president and he is going to put a stop to her trying to mess with his site.
But as I said, I am dropping her site and her association site at the end of the year. I don't need her money that bad. Living headache free and a bit lighter in the wallet is OK with me.
techfreak85
Jan 2, 12:23 AM
Alright thanks a ton guys will fold for a long long time.
And you're set up to fold for team 3446 right?
And you're set up to fold for team 3446 right?
res1233
Apr 4, 10:55 PM
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
willber
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Is anyone wanting the psd?
more...
MacDawg
Mar 10, 06:16 AM
Specific moderation is typically not discussed within the Forum itself
If you have questions about how something has been handled, please use the Contact Us (http://forums.macrumors.com/sendmessage.php) link at the bottom of most pages and it will be addressed privately
Thanks!
If you have questions about how something has been handled, please use the Contact Us (http://forums.macrumors.com/sendmessage.php) link at the bottom of most pages and it will be addressed privately
Thanks!
BornToMac
Dec 1, 11:24 AM
I'll go out on a limb here and say you are a fan of Marvel comic books.;)
Not the biggest fan TBH but I have always been a fan of comic book art...
...indeed, busier than my normal wallpapers but the colors pop on my screen and it looks rad imo. :D
Not the biggest fan TBH but I have always been a fan of comic book art...
...indeed, busier than my normal wallpapers but the colors pop on my screen and it looks rad imo. :D
more...
kas23
Apr 13, 11:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
Actually, I hate to start a flamewar...As for my iPhone 4, it already seems a bit dated and laggy (takes 10 seconds to open Camera, laggy keyboard when searching in Maps, choppy animations in games). I think this is a software problem though. If Apple came out with a much more efficient and smoother iOS 5 (that made my iPhone 4 feel like a new phone), I would be perfectly satisfied.
What!? I've had my iPhone 4 for seven whole days and I have not had this happen on my phone. Camera takes about 2-3 seconds to open on my phone-I do not have keyboard lag under maps and I have seen some amazing graphics (and no 'choppiness') with some of the games on my phone ('Death Rally' anyone?).
You might be having some problems with your phone-I haven't come across similar threads with your reported problems. I don't see this as a symptom of the iPhone 4 as being "a bit dated".
If you havent seen any threads on choppy animations and a lag when opening up the Camera app, you likely haven't been to the iPhone forum. My problems are not unique. And if you think about it, 2-3 seconds to have the ability to shoot a picture is still way too long.
And besides, your phone is a full 7 days old. It's brand new! Everyone would expect it to be functioning perfectly. Mine is 10 months-old and feels long in the tooth.
Actually, I hate to start a flamewar...As for my iPhone 4, it already seems a bit dated and laggy (takes 10 seconds to open Camera, laggy keyboard when searching in Maps, choppy animations in games). I think this is a software problem though. If Apple came out with a much more efficient and smoother iOS 5 (that made my iPhone 4 feel like a new phone), I would be perfectly satisfied.
What!? I've had my iPhone 4 for seven whole days and I have not had this happen on my phone. Camera takes about 2-3 seconds to open on my phone-I do not have keyboard lag under maps and I have seen some amazing graphics (and no 'choppiness') with some of the games on my phone ('Death Rally' anyone?).
You might be having some problems with your phone-I haven't come across similar threads with your reported problems. I don't see this as a symptom of the iPhone 4 as being "a bit dated".
If you havent seen any threads on choppy animations and a lag when opening up the Camera app, you likely haven't been to the iPhone forum. My problems are not unique. And if you think about it, 2-3 seconds to have the ability to shoot a picture is still way too long.
And besides, your phone is a full 7 days old. It's brand new! Everyone would expect it to be functioning perfectly. Mine is 10 months-old and feels long in the tooth.
spillproof
Oct 13, 08:29 AM
Meow. (http://wallpapers.pixxp.com/20__Leopard_big_cats.htm)
255571
255571
more...
MacFreak2011
Apr 6, 11:46 AM
How much is that?
Per wikipedia, 1 Petabyte = 1000 terabytes
Per wikipedia, 1 Petabyte = 1000 terabytes
ianp
Jan 25, 10:08 AM
Hi All,
First off I am new here, so Hi again
I have a small problem getting Microsoft Outlook 2001 to use my 2003 Exchange server. I have to admit I am new to macs and am finding it a little hard to do anything but I am trying.
From what I can tell is that for some reason my the mac will not resolve the server name to an ip address. I mean when I look in the Outlook settings, under services --> properties if I place the servers IP address there and then the user name and then 'check the name' it resolves the name of the server and under lines the user name (which as far as I am concerned has worked).
Yet when I then launch Outlook I get a message saying folders could not be opened. The attempt to log on to the server failed..... Microdoft Outlook could not be started. The attempt to log on to the MS Exchange Server failed....................
What I have done so far:-
Updated the /etc/hosts file and added the ip address for the server (can ping both IP and name from the console and network util)
When in Outlook settings --> properties and user the server name instead of the IP address and try and check name I get an error.. The name could not be resolved. Network problems are preventing connection to the MS Exchange Server, Contact your system adminsitrator (me).
Sorry for the long post but this is a real problem. Any help would be much appreciated.
Ian
PS The only thing I can sort of think of at the moment is that Outlook starts I think in classic mode??? I am not sure if this starts a new shell and therefore ignores the /etc/hosts file and that is the reason why it can not resolve the server name. If I am right my next question would be where is the hosts file for the classic enviroment??
First off I am new here, so Hi again
I have a small problem getting Microsoft Outlook 2001 to use my 2003 Exchange server. I have to admit I am new to macs and am finding it a little hard to do anything but I am trying.
From what I can tell is that for some reason my the mac will not resolve the server name to an ip address. I mean when I look in the Outlook settings, under services --> properties if I place the servers IP address there and then the user name and then 'check the name' it resolves the name of the server and under lines the user name (which as far as I am concerned has worked).
Yet when I then launch Outlook I get a message saying folders could not be opened. The attempt to log on to the server failed..... Microdoft Outlook could not be started. The attempt to log on to the MS Exchange Server failed....................
What I have done so far:-
Updated the /etc/hosts file and added the ip address for the server (can ping both IP and name from the console and network util)
When in Outlook settings --> properties and user the server name instead of the IP address and try and check name I get an error.. The name could not be resolved. Network problems are preventing connection to the MS Exchange Server, Contact your system adminsitrator (me).
Sorry for the long post but this is a real problem. Any help would be much appreciated.
Ian
PS The only thing I can sort of think of at the moment is that Outlook starts I think in classic mode??? I am not sure if this starts a new shell and therefore ignores the /etc/hosts file and that is the reason why it can not resolve the server name. If I am right my next question would be where is the hosts file for the classic enviroment??
more...
tj2001
Aug 22, 03:37 PM
If someone could please look at: site redesign (http://macmasta.homeip.net/macdynamix_new/www/) and notice the teal bar at the bottom that is cutting through the content.
Please look at the source and advise on issue and how to correct. Thank you!
Please look at the source and advise on issue and how to correct. Thank you!
bgoman
May 6, 06:12 PM
Applied to the local store and got invited to a seminar. What should I expect? I heard they sometimes have you work in groups to create a video, skit, or presentation of some kind. None of which I'm very good at.
more...
Dr.Didg
Oct 24, 01:29 PM
Not sure about any specials. All I have read is about 500 T-shirts for those who get it.
I am not sure if I am going to go to the Burlington store or Cambridgeside yet. I work in Cambridge, so its easy. But then again I was one of the original workers of the Burlington store. :confused:
I am not sure if I am going to go to the Burlington store or Cambridgeside yet. I work in Cambridge, so its easy. But then again I was one of the original workers of the Burlington store. :confused:
bobbytallant
Apr 25, 02:53 AM
I have a black iPhone 4 but I am gonna list it on ebay and get the white one.
I'm gonna do this partly because I have wanted the white since day 1 and I want a change having had the black since launch... Doesn't sound logical to most I know but hey I don't care!
Secondly, having sold many iPhones on ebay, I know that the white versions sell well and when it comes to the time to sell again shortly before the iPhone 5 comes out (in say September) - the white will do better than the black would.
All in all I expect to pay around �80 for the switch from black to white and, as I say, I expect to get a better price for the white when it comes to sell in the future.
Still, a completely well thought out, illogical decision to most I know I know lol!
I'm gonna do this partly because I have wanted the white since day 1 and I want a change having had the black since launch... Doesn't sound logical to most I know but hey I don't care!
Secondly, having sold many iPhones on ebay, I know that the white versions sell well and when it comes to the time to sell again shortly before the iPhone 5 comes out (in say September) - the white will do better than the black would.
All in all I expect to pay around �80 for the switch from black to white and, as I say, I expect to get a better price for the white when it comes to sell in the future.
Still, a completely well thought out, illogical decision to most I know I know lol!
more...
albbreinholt
Mar 27, 11:43 PM
I have some pal formate VHS tapes I bought while I lived in Albania. However now I have now way yo watch them. Does anyone know a simple and inexpensive way I can convert them to an mp4 file for viewing on my computer? Thanks.
fivepoint
Mar 2, 12:06 PM
According to data on your first chart I'd say that corporate income tax revenues need to increase dramatically. Corporate income taxes only represent 9%(191 billion) of revenue yet individual income tax represents 41% (899 billion). Combine that with all the bailouts the government handed out to the banks and some corporations and I'm guessing the net rate might be close to 0%.
I'm not saying individual taxpayers won't have to sacrifice in order to solve the problem, but I'm not sure why there are those that argue that no matter how many tax breaks corporations get or even government bailouts---that's its always the individual who has to pay.
It's a policy based on greed straight from the richest people and companies in this country.
Two things... first, higher taxes does not = higher government 'revenue.'
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pic3.jpg
Second off, corporate taxes are actually just taxes on consumers of their products. Companies simply pass these taxes along to their customers in the form of increased cost in the good or service they sell. There's no such thing as a corporate tax... it's just a disguised sales tax on consumers.
Social Security is fully funded to 2037, will run a surplus at that point and is separate from the budget. The ACA is fully designed to lower health care costs and lower the deficit, something which the right consistently ignores.
If the US were screwed, you wouldn't have countries queuing up to lend you money. Stop cutting taxes on the wealthy and pursuing unfunded wars for a start.
The biggest problem I see with SS is that it's an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme which requires constant growth in population in order to sustain costs incurred by smaller and smaller groups of people.
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.willisms.com/archives/morebeneficiariesss.gif&sa=X&ei=_4duTfbZMcPEtgeA4MSFDw&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGUZmmxGmWTjhsusK87sBeYmpuH9Q
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://allfinancialmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/social-security-taxes-on-average-wages-graph.gif&sa=X&ei=R4huTamPDs_AtgfQiM2UDw&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE1AHMAQ1ZbM_osxqj-Fa3sJH3itQ
I'm not saying individual taxpayers won't have to sacrifice in order to solve the problem, but I'm not sure why there are those that argue that no matter how many tax breaks corporations get or even government bailouts---that's its always the individual who has to pay.
It's a policy based on greed straight from the richest people and companies in this country.
Two things... first, higher taxes does not = higher government 'revenue.'
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pic3.jpg
Second off, corporate taxes are actually just taxes on consumers of their products. Companies simply pass these taxes along to their customers in the form of increased cost in the good or service they sell. There's no such thing as a corporate tax... it's just a disguised sales tax on consumers.
Social Security is fully funded to 2037, will run a surplus at that point and is separate from the budget. The ACA is fully designed to lower health care costs and lower the deficit, something which the right consistently ignores.
If the US were screwed, you wouldn't have countries queuing up to lend you money. Stop cutting taxes on the wealthy and pursuing unfunded wars for a start.
The biggest problem I see with SS is that it's an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme which requires constant growth in population in order to sustain costs incurred by smaller and smaller groups of people.
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.willisms.com/archives/morebeneficiariesss.gif&sa=X&ei=_4duTfbZMcPEtgeA4MSFDw&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGUZmmxGmWTjhsusK87sBeYmpuH9Q
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://allfinancialmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/social-security-taxes-on-average-wages-graph.gif&sa=X&ei=R4huTamPDs_AtgfQiM2UDw&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE1AHMAQ1ZbM_osxqj-Fa3sJH3itQ
more...
trigonometry
Mar 27, 02:14 PM
I wouldn't buy anything from anybody with that low of a feedback rating in the first place. Hope he is banned and the buyer isn't dumb enough to pay for it.
Detrius
May 1, 12:48 AM
What about straight up Kerberos?
galaxy121
Jun 23, 03:42 PM
I am from PA and vacationing in the Outer Banks in NC right now, so I think I might make a drive to MacArthur to line up and get iPhones tomorrow. I just called and got the same info about the store opening at 7 while the mall is opening at 6 for people on line so I might get there at 5am tomorrow.
ChicoWeb
Mar 21, 03:18 PM
1) Never work with a friend of a friend.
2) Never work for free.
3) Never work for a start up business UNLESS it has a larger group behind it (Public/private equity group, blue chip client with a new business, etc.. is ok).
4) Never do work for a religious organisation (seriously not a good idea). Or for that matter a union...
5) If you lie with dogs you'll get flees. Never work on a project you wouldn't want other clients seeing as a client of yours on your Portfolio.
6) Never work with a company where they can't speak your native language... Cheque time comes and "miso soli me no undastandy".
7) Be choosy about who you want to work with. Talented designers will always find work while talentless designers wont.
8) Other artists. They always have pre-defined notions are are rarely up for up for interpretation
9) Design by committee. When there is more then 2 or 3 people approving your design, RUN.
I've only had to fire 2 clients in 8 years of business. One photographer, and one glass blowing gallery. To that I say no more!
2) Never work for free.
3) Never work for a start up business UNLESS it has a larger group behind it (Public/private equity group, blue chip client with a new business, etc.. is ok).
4) Never do work for a religious organisation (seriously not a good idea). Or for that matter a union...
5) If you lie with dogs you'll get flees. Never work on a project you wouldn't want other clients seeing as a client of yours on your Portfolio.
6) Never work with a company where they can't speak your native language... Cheque time comes and "miso soli me no undastandy".
7) Be choosy about who you want to work with. Talented designers will always find work while talentless designers wont.
8) Other artists. They always have pre-defined notions are are rarely up for up for interpretation
9) Design by committee. When there is more then 2 or 3 people approving your design, RUN.
I've only had to fire 2 clients in 8 years of business. One photographer, and one glass blowing gallery. To that I say no more!
wywern209
Sep 11, 01:15 AM
Thank you sir!
Glad to be of help. Remember the mantra. If i ever need to find a pic, tineye.com is a god.
Glad to be of help. Remember the mantra. If i ever need to find a pic, tineye.com is a god.
davidgrimm
Mar 21, 06:32 PM
Wow, $25 an hour sounds very reasonable to me. Is that really the going rate for graphic design or is that the "just getting started in design" rate? Anyway, hope it works out for you. Sometimes the difficult clients can provide the most rewarding work, but the psycho ones are seldom worth the effort.
satcomer
May 5, 11:27 AM
Clear you font cache. I personally use the application Yasu (http://jimmitchell.org/yasu/) to do this.
flgator85
Feb 11, 10:42 AM
I currently have 850 family plan with unlimited family texting. I tried to sign up with a CS rep, but I was told that my 850 min family was not eligible. I guess that I will keep the extra 150 min rather than drop to the 700 min family plan. Has others with 850 family plan been able to add this new messaging plan?