Category Archives: Technology

3 Lies That Sprint Employees “Tell” (+ My Success Activating Sprint iPhone on Net10)

Note: Consider reading Part 1 of this ongoing saga here. This is a continuation of that earlier article.

Let me say, at the start, that I currently have, in my hands, an iPhone 4s that originated with Sprint, and it is currently activated on the Net10 carrier and functioning, and the device has never been “jailbroken,” nor has any GPP chip, or any other strange, after-market SIM card, been used or needed. That’s just for sake of clarity and so you can trust that this article is not leading you on any wild goose chase.

Before we ever left Sprint, I called them to talk about options for lowering our monthly bill. We had been excellent Sprint customers for between 9 and 10 years.  I was told that there was no way to lower our bill on their post-paid service, but that by going with their pre-paid service we could get a better deal. However, I was told that our current iPhones (two of them, a 4 and a 4s), which were purchased through Sprint contracts and were fully paid-for and owned by us, would not be accepted on Sprint’s pre-paid service; I was told by the Sprint rep that we would need to buy new phones. Seriously? Furthermore, I was told there was absolutely no way to switch us over from Sprint post-paid to Sprint pre-paid by a phone call to Sprint: the only option was to physically go to a Sprint store.

At that point I pressed until I was permitted to speak to a proclaimed supervisor. He indicated that it was perhaps possible that I might be able to get our current iPhones switched over (unlocked) for use with Sprint’s pre-paid service, but, if so, it would only be by physically going to a Sprint store. I pressed more. He insisted, supporting the earlier rep’s claim that there was absolutely no way to switch us over to pre-paid without physically going to a Sprint store. (While that may be Sprint’s policy decision, it is not because of any genuine technological need to physically go to a store. They could do this over the phone if they wanted to.) I made clear to him that if Sprint did not lower our monthly bill during that current call, I would soon be leaving Sprint by porting our numbers to another carrier. He essentially conveyed, so sorry; no can do; so long.

I then called back (connecting with a different employee, of course) and said I wanted to have my Sprint iPhone 4 and Sprint iPhone 4s unlocked. I was still in service with them at that time, with the account paid up and in good standing. I told the rep that both phones were fully paid for, their contracts were satisfied, and I wanted them unlocked. The rep put me on hold, then eventually came back and verbally gave me an “unlock code” for the iPhone 4.

  • Error/Deception #1:
    “Let us get you that MSL code.”
    For an iPhone, an “unlock code” (also known as an “MSL code”) is worthless. The MSL code cannot be used to unlock an iPhone. According to Apple’s websitethe only way to unlock an iPhone is for the carrier of the device’s origin to send in a request to Apple to unlock the device, which results in a change in a database maintained by Apple. Anyone who knows their stuff knows this. So, is this offer (made to me by multiple Sprint employees) merely an indication of their ignorance? Or is this a less-than-honest tactic? Whether through deceit or ignorance, often Sprint employees seem to think that giving out the MSL code is the thing to do. It usually satisfies the caller and gets them off the line!

Interestingly, after more hold time, the rep told me that he could not get the “unlock code” (MSL code) for my iPhone 4s.  He said it could not be unlocked except for international use on Sprint’s overseas network (which uses a GSM network instead of a CDMA network). The key point here is that when I asked about it being unlocked, while I was still in service with them, I was told no.

Over time, I have been given a litany of so-called “reasons” by various Sprint employees as to why they either could not, or would not, unlock my iPhone 4s. All were either “mistaken” statements or outright lies. I made requests both while I was in service with them (with the contract satisfied and the account paid up and in good standing) and after having left Sprint. Here are a couple of examples:

  • Error/Deception #2:
    “It’s impossible to switch an iPhone to another carrier, due to incompatibility.”
    In the alternate reality where Sprint and its mal-trained employees live, an iPhone that originated with Sprint can only communicate with Sprint’s network, which is a CDMA network, therefore the phone can only work as a Sprint device. They imply that the device’s hardwired frequencies are supposedly unique to Sprint. This is a clever deception. The truth is, other carriers can and do provide service for devices that originated with Sprint, some by the fact that they lease cell tower time from Sprint. Thus, you can do business with other carriers, such as Net10 or Ting, using a device that came from Sprint, and have smartphone service for about half the money you were paying to Sprint. Yet the Sprint employee, reading from a carefully-crafted narrative written either by the devil himself or a lawyer that is a close cousin to the devil, would have you believe that, basically, outside of their network, a Sprint iPhone 4 is good for nothing; an expensive paperweight (it is not large enough or heavy enough to be a doorstop). The way Sprint treats its customers over this causes their devices to be less valuable in the resale market. Regardless, I would never want to resell it to someone (resulting in another Sprint customer), because I would not wish Sprint’s service and policies on my worst enemy! Bottom line: Sprint leaves one with the understanding that the device’s only possible use is via wi-fi as an expensive, makeshift “iPod.” The Sprint iPhone 4 has only a CDMA radio. The 4s is the same regarding its CDMA radio and its frequencies, but different because it has a GSM radio too, which was placed there for overseas use. However, in theory its GSM radio could be used domestically, yet only if one can get it freed up by Sprint.

After porting my numbers away from Sprint, I did some more online research and found claims (for instance, here) of people saying they convinced Sprint to  unlock a 4s. However, disregard all such mentions of Sprint having given out an “unlock code,” as those codes are useless. One post I found spoke of the need to have Sprint remove a “CDMA carrier flag” from the iPhone 4s, and, regarding the GSM radio in the 4s, asking Sprint to send in a request to Apple to unlock the phone. That seems like the valid way to do it, but all my direct requests to Sprint employees for that, have resulted in flat refusals. Some reports have mistakenly indicated that all unlocking has to be done while the phone is still in service with Sprint. That is incorrect. That policy only applies to Sprint unlocking the GSM radio in an iPhone for overseas use on foreign carriers via SIM card. Still, it is noteworthy that I had requested an unlock of my 4s while it was still in service with Sprint, yet I was refused. (Regarding the fact that I later tried some more, calling Sprint again after porting my number out, it also should be noted that a Sprint employee could, if they wanted to, temporarily and remotely reactivate any deactivated Sprint phone that has been unaffected since deactivation. One of their employees had done that for me before in unrelated work.) However, the ultimate answer to that is the policy only applies to requests for Sprint to unlock the GSM radio for overseas use, which has nothing to do with unlocking it for domestic use.

Sprint employees have told me they “have never contacted Apple,” that “it is not something [they] do,” that they “don’t have any way to do that,” and they “don’t have any procedure for doing that,” and finally, the grand poobah of all such lies: one Sprint employee actually told me “it’s against the law” for him to have Apple unlock the device!

  • Error/Deception #3:
    “It’s illegal for us to have Apple unlock the iPhone for you.”
    There is a decent law currently on the books, that, in effect, prevents, say, Carrier B from causing Apple to unlock a device that is still with Carrier A—the device’s carrier of origin. However, nothing in that law prevents Sprint from having Apple unlock a device that originated with Sprint! Yet in the alternate reality in which Sprint and its mal-trained employees live, some employees claim that the law actually prevents Carrier A from unlocking a device that originated with Carrier A. Ludicrous!

On Sunday, February 2, 2014, I spent more time on the phone (and on hold several times) with Sprint, eventually speaking to three different people, of which the first (Chloe) and third (Amanda) were those whose names I could understand well enough to include here.

Previously, a rep named Kimberly had given me what she said was “the direct number for the Tech Team” (855-899-7924). I decided to call that number. Not surprisingly, it did not lead to the Tech Team, but rather to a normal rep, named Chloe. She listened to my explanation and plea, found my account record, validated my identity, and then told me I needed to speak to the Tech Team. She put me through. After some time on hold, someone (ostensibly from the Tech Team) answered. She also (again) listened to my explanation and plea, found my account record, validated my identity, and then told me I needed to speak to the International Team. She put me through. After some more time on hold, someone from the International Team picked up. Her name was Amanda. She also (for my third time in that call) listened to my explanation and plea, found my account record, validated my identity, and then spent some time trying to discern exactly which device in their system I was calling about. She then set about trying to find out when it was purchased.

Based on my research, I had mentioned the FCC chairman’s letter and the subsequent announcement by the major carriers to voluntarily comply, and I had then asked for the “CDMA carrier flag” to be removed from my iPhone 4s, and, regarding its GSM radio, I asked for her to send in a request to Apple to unlock the phone. Amanda flatly told me that she does not ever send in requests to Apple. She said it’s not something they do.

Amanda then stated that if my phone was purchased and shipped on or before November 11, 2011 (easy to remember: 11-11-11) that my phone already had its GSM radio unlocked by the Apple factory before shipment—though only for international use, not for domestic use. Pay attention to that last part. She was not telling me that Apple has my phone listed as unlocked. Apple only has it listed such that an overseas SIM card will work, and that can only happen if I actually have the phone overseas and activate a foreign-bought SIM card for overseas use.

I told Amanda that I had read of other carriers routinely sending unlock requests to Apple to modify the database record of a certain phone [which facilitates what in this industry is called a “factory unlock”] and I indicated that was what I wanted to be done for my iPhone. She indicated that they just don’t do that. I advised her that, based on my reading of the joint announcement by major carriers including hers, her information seemed obsolete. She stated that she “apologized.” She still refused to offer to contact Apple.

After I hung up, I went to the Net10 website and ordered a domestic SIM card and activation kit on the chance that it just might work for this iPhone 4s. (If not, the items would be useful for some other device in the future.) Net10’s limited-time promotion offered free overnight shipping. The SIM card and service activation kit arrived Wednesday, February 5.

Update (as of Thursday, February 6):

Yesterday and today (Feb. 5-6) have been a techno-yoyo, a bit of a roller coaster, regarding cell phone activation efforts and hopes. When the SIM card arrived yesterday, I installed it according the instructions, and I called Net10, a carrier that supports both GSM network access and CDMA network access (basically via cell tower time leased from major carriers such as AT&T, Sprint, etc). Some of my reasoning for going ahead and ordering the SIM card was this: while I’m no mobile-network expert, it seemed that if a SIM card can reprogram the radio, then it can reprogram the radio. I figured that if I was wrong, and I found that the phone is still domestically limited to Sprint-only use (because of a database somewhere, apparently at Apple), then I will continue to pursue having Sprint unlock it. I figured that sooner or later I would need the SIM card anyway. I fully expected to get this 4s working on some GSM carrier (some company other than Sprint) sooner or later—hopefully sooner.

The SIM card was immediately recognized by the iPhone, but the SIM was found to be “not valid.”  I called Net10, and a helpful employee told me that I needed to abandon the GSM approach, and let Net10 use the iPhone’s CDMA radio. She said this would work. It would require an access code that costs $14.99 (with tax and fees it came to $15.89). I used a credit card over the phone and bought that code. She went through the steps to transfer the desired number to the iPhone. We ended the call with certain instructions about what I was to do.

I followed the directions, but the phone never started working, and continued to say “Sprint” in the connection area. I called Net10 back. After I was transferred from one to another, and then another, of Net10’s help staff, one of them finally told me that he thought it would never work, because, he feared, the iPhone had never been unlocked.

By this time it was too late at night to keep bothering with it. I decided to wait until the next day and try to have Net10 switch our number back to the Net10 Android we were using for it.

The next day, Feb. 6, I called Net10 back for the above stated purpose. I wish I had just checked the iPhone. I wish I had just tried to dial a call. Unbeknown to me, it had activated during the night, and it was working! But the night before, the Net10 website had told me the pairing (of the phone number to the phone) was classed as a “fail.” That, combined with the words of the tech support agent who told me it would not work, caused me to give up on it.

I had Net10 switch the number away from the iPhone. As soon as I hung up from doing so, I noticed some text messages had arrived on the iPhone during the night. They seemed to be intended for my wife. (It’s her number that we had moved to the iPhone.) I grew hopeful. I picked up the phone, and dialed my own cell. The call went through, and the caller ID showed my wife’s number as the incoming caller!

I then called Net10 back and asked them to cancel the re-moving of the number. They did not succeed in that, but they were willing to do a re-re-moving of the number! (Is that even a word?) I don’t remember how many Net10 customer service reps I spoke to on this date, but it was somewhere around three to four. I do remember which one finally got it done for me: Kendra. Kudos to you madam!

Important note about the “service update code” supplied by Net10 employees:

All the Net10 employees told me to use the following code to get the service update to happen on the phone:

Dial ##72786# and press the “send” button. — NO GOOD. 

However, that does not do anything of value. I remembered that during my many previous calls to Sprint, one of the reps had told me a service update code as follows:

Dial ##873283# and press the “send” button. — WORKS.

Whenever the former code is used then a call gets placed, and a prerecorded voice tells you that you’re not able to place a call. Whenever the latter code is used, you see this hope-inspiring message:


Honestly, I don’t know whether that service update code helped or was in any way necessary, but if so, then my article would be incomplete without it. So, I am including it here.

Within about 90 minutes of Kendra (of Net10) making the number switch back to the iPhone (and after me repeatedly applying the latter service update code mentioned above), I got the following message on the iPhone in focus:


Notice that in the service area it again states “Sprint” as the network, but the phone is with Net10, for about half the price of Sprint! The mention of Sprint in the service area (upper left corner) is apparently due to the fact that Net10 is leasing cell tower time from Sprint. I’m fine with that.

I should add two important notes:

  • After successful activation of an iPhone on Net10’s “BYOP” (Bring Your Own Phone) option, you need to make another call to them and have them help you do something called “update the APN” so you get full advantage of services on the iPhone.
  • While I was on the phone in the latest call with Net10, Kendra told me that a memo had come through just today, saying that Sprint iPhone 4 and Sprint iPhone 4s devices were compatible with Net10. This was presumably a result of high-level negotiations between Sprint and Net10’s parent company.
  • It seems clear that Sprint can somehow convey to Net10 whether a formerly Sprint device is cleared (contract satisfied, bill paid) and allowed to be used in service with Net10. A full and proper unlocking (a factory unlock from Sprint via Apple) is not needed to use the device with such companies that buy wholesale minutes on Sprint’s towers. A full unlock is still the right thing for Sprint to do, but it is unneeded for use on Ting and Net10, etc.
  • I will now be working to activate my iPhone 4 that also originated with Sprint.

Final update:

I later succeeded in getting our iPhone 4 (note: now both 4s and 4) activated with Net10 also. On both these phones I did not need to bother with convincing Sprint to admit to me that they had contacted Apple. (After many tries, I’m convinced their corporate culture won’t allow it.)  Net10 apparently has an agreement with Sprint that makes it unnecessary, but both phones are now fully functional on a different carrier, for about half the cost of Sprint.

My personal battle with Sprint to get an iPhone4s unlocked

Note: This Part 1 of a two-parter. You can read the conclusion here.

First, some background:

Firm pressure is coming from the FCC on all cell phone companies about this issue of not unlocking mobile devices (including a deadline backed by a threat of regulatory action by the FCC):

  • On November 14, 2013, Tom Wheeler, chairman for the FCC, sent a letter to the president of the CTIA insisting on a voluntary policy of unlocking of all cell phones that meet certain requirements, such as a finished contract. You can read the letter on the FCC website.
  • The letter states that the cell phone carriers ought to voluntarily establish a policy to unlock paid-for phones before the start of the December holiday shopping season or start facing regulatory action.

So, who or what is the CTIA?

  • According to Sprint’s own site, the “CTIA is an international nonprofit membership organization that has represented the wireless communications industry since 1984. It also coordinates consumer information efforts that include voluntary industry guidelines.”

In response (about a month later) to the FCC’s insistence in the above letter, the major cell service providers announced they plan to  [eventually] comply. The leading edge of the announcement pledges that they will “move quickly,” yet digging in reveals  some sad notions about what those words  mean to them. Hint: they want months to comply with some, but not all, of the provisions (and they get to choose which ones), and they want up to a year to comply with all of the provisions. That’s not my definition of “quickly.”

  • As of December 12, 2013, a public release by CTIA stated in part, “We are pleased to announce AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular and Verizon Wireless agreed to adopt a voluntary set of six principles for unlocking of consumers’ mobile phones and tablets. We will recommend that this set of principles be included in the CTIA Consumer Code for Wireless Service, in accordance with CTIA’s bylaws. Once they have been adopted, the companies will move quickly to implement these principles.”

On Saturday, February 1, 2014, I spent over an hour on the phone (and on hold many times) with Sprint, eventually speaking to three different people, of which the second (Kimberly) and third (Maria) were those whose names I could understand well enough to include here.

First call:

The customer service rep quickly looked up my account by my old Sprint number, and verified my identity. I told her we had ported our numbers out due to Sprint’s refusal to work with us on lowering our monthly bill, and I asked if my final bill was paid and if the account was squared away. After putting me on hold several times, with me waiting long enough that the whole call was longer than about 15 minutes, she finally confirmed that the account was finalized; the last bill was paid, and we were square. I then told her that the iPhone 4s on the closed account, which was purchased and completely paid for, needed to be unlocked. Since the account was squared away, I requested her help with unlocking it. She told me she would be happy to help, and then she instantly hung up on me, and she never called back. This was not a “dropped call.” Whether intentionally or accidentally, she hung up on me.

Second call:

I called Sprint back, and got Kimberly. Kimberly was unable to find my record at all, even though I had been an excellent customer of Sprint’s for between 9 and 10 years. Even though the previous Sprint rep had found my account within seconds, this rep, Kimberly, said no records could be found matching the info I was giving. This went on for some time. I insisted until she finally elevated it to the attention of a supervisor, and after being on hold several times, with a combined waiting time of over 20 minutes, they finally “found” my account record. She then had me wait on hold while she verified the account was paid in full and finalized. She then offered to connect me to the Tech Team to get the phone unlocked.

Still on second call—holding for Tech Team, who never picked up:

After about another 10 minutes on hold, Kimberly finally came back on the line, and told me that the Tech Team was having high call volumes, and she asked me if I would please hang up, wait about a half an hour, and call them back directly. She gave me the direct number of the Tech Team. I told her that I had already waited on hold a long time, and that by her taking me out of their queue and speaking to me again, she had put me to the back of the line, and that if I hung up and called back, I would still be at the back of the line. I asked her to please put me back through to the Tech Team. She then put me on hold, and after another wait, she said the Tech Team would not be talking to me. She said the Tech Team told her to tell me that no iOS devices can be unlocked. I informed her that is patently false, and that other carriers unlock Apple iOS phone devices. (For proof that iOS devices can be unlocked, see Apple’s website.) Over the course of more holds and wait time, Kimberly told me several different stories, all obviously false, about why no iOS devices can be unlocked. I pressed her about the error of each story, and she then decided to get a superior on the line.

Still on second call—switching me to a superior:

Maria, the proclaimed superior of Kimberly, came into the conversation. She flatly claimed that iOS devices cannot be unlocked. I countered that they can be. [Just because iPhones are not unlocked via an MSL code (aka “unlock code”) does not mean they cannot be unlocked. See Apple’s website for proof.] She then claimed that they can only be unlocked for international travel. I explained why that is not true, and that we’re not discussing Sprint’s policy about travel or their desire to limit the phone to such, but the reality of what is right and doable and needs to be done. She then asked if I had updated the phone, seemingly (and amazingly), trying to hint or to pretend that legitimate iOS updates to the phone might possibly have something to do with their inability to unlock the phone. She stopped short of plainly making such a statement. She then said simply that they “cannot unlock iOS devices.” I told her that they can. She then actually claimed her refusal was based on a new policy that was just made earlier this month. (That is the exact opposite of the actual policy made only a few days ago). I tried to speak at that point, telling her that other carriers unlock iOS phones, that only Sprint seems to be this way, and she repeatedly attempted to interrupt, speaking while I was speaking, so that the call became rather tense. Eventually I was permitted to speak, but she was not budging.

Maria then had the gall to claim that they (Sprint), “used to be able to unlock iOS devices, but,” she said, “we have lost that info.”

I replied, “You cannot be serious.”

Maria actually said, “I am serious. We cannot unlock your phone.”

I told her that Sprint could indeed unlock it, and that she needed to connect me to someone who could help me get that done. I told her that if someone did not get the phone unlocked for me, my next communication would be with the FCC and the Attorney General (which I followed through with, later that night). I asked her if Sprint was determined to beg for a class action lawsuit.

She then told me she was going to, “have management call me back.”

I replied, “I thought you said you were management.”

She then said, with a pause before and during, “I am management, butI am going to have the Legal Team call you back.” 

No one called back that day. I somehow doubt anyone will.


I have already spoken to another carrier that told me that an unlocked Sprint iPhone 4/4s was compatible with their network system, and so this issue is worth quite a bit of money to me. I will not give up. If Sprint does not help me get this device unlocked, I will persist in bugging their support staff until, in the end, Sprint will have wasted hundreds of dollars paid to its mal-trained, stubborn, and discourteous customer service reps, just in dealing with me alone. It would behoove Sprint to simply do right and unlock this phone.

Note: See the all-new info in the conclusion of this saga: 3 Lies That Sprint Employees “Tell” (+ My Success Activating Sprint iPhone on Net10)

Top 5 reasons to stop typing in “Textlish”

Darth Grammar finds your lack of punctuation disturbing.

Reason #5

The perception of you by others may not be what you think. This isn’t about occasional mistakes; we all make typographical errors on occasion. Typing in Textlish is an ongoing practice—a lifestyle, if you will. Seemingly there is no shame, acknowledgement, or awareness in the perpetrators. You may feel you’re always in too much of a hurry to take the extra 0.3 seconds to type “your” instead “ur.” However, the recipient of your Textlish may think you’re ignorant (as in uneducated). Note the fuzzy logic here: “It’s not that I don’t know better, I’m just always short on time.” Well, whenever the Textlish is not just “shortcuts” but also regularly full of blatant errors, such as “there” instead of “they’re” (or “their,” depending), then you leave readers with limited options about what to think. They might give you the benefit of the doubt, but several gaffes in a single post or message, or ongoing habits in every message, will likely push them toward seeing you as unlearned.

Reason #4

Lowering your own standards to type in Textlish is habit forming. Ever hear of “muscle memory”? Whenever you eventually need to switch on your “real English” for communications related to, say, a job interview, you might let something slip that could be detrimental to your reputation or simply less than putting your best foot forward. The habit of typing in Textlish gets entrenched like nicotine addiction, and slips are as noticeable as—well, let’s just say they are very noticeable.

Reason #3

The future deserves better. Textlish is becoming the de facto language of our tech-oriented culture. We’re all connected. “No man is an island.” Type well, and we all are elevated. Type poorly, and we all are brought lower. Your presentation of yourself in text, tweet, post, etc, has an impact on all who read it. Sadly, some “educators” (including, apparently, the authors of Common Core, a plan for nationwide educational standards being implemented in government schools) have reckoned cursive handwriting to be an outdated relic of the past, with plans to stop teaching it in public schools. If we don’t stand up for proper English in all our typed content, we’re allowing, even opting for, a lazy mishmash of confusing fragments as replacement for our established language’s words. Dictionaries give etymologies, which are the origins and histories behind our words. Imagine when, eventually, noble origins such as Greek, Latin, and Old English must be joined by “Textlish” (or some such description) as the explanation for a single letter being forced to stand in for three or four former words. Our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren deserve better.

Reason #2

It’s just not that hard to type it right to begin with. Sometimes the alleged “time savings” don’t make sense, because, after all, how much longer would it have taken to type out a real word? How much time does one “save” by typing one or two fewer characters of what should have been only a three- or four-letter word? And if we’re abbreviating, contracting, or leaving off letters for effect, how hard would it be to use the requisite periods and apostrophes? Don’t even get us started on the lack of commas and periods to denote where phrases and sentences are supposed to start and stop. The “Princess Leia” of this war between light and darkness is a preprogrammed digital assistant inside our phones. Thankfully, she types with proper grammar and spelling while taking dictation. Or, at least, she tries.

Reason #1

Darth Grammar. You really want to avoid death by strangulation. Some people are just that annoyed by it. (Just kidding.) We’ve given the darkness a name. Textlish. Won’t you join our quest to vanquish an enemy of all that is decent with regard to modern communication?

Thoughts to ponder about Textlish:

While this method of typing in a hyper-abbreviated “digital shorthand” seems to have resulted originally from limits imposed on the number of characters permitted in SMS text messages and tweets on, use of it has spread beyond SMS texting and tweeting, even into areas where there are no limits on the number of characters. Examples abound in nearly all typed content, including emails, Facebook posts, and blog articles, etc.

Its use in digital domains that do not limit users on the number of characters supports the observation that the practice is often based on factors other than the original (and potentially obsolete) need to stay under a character limit. These factors may include:

  • Once a habit has formed, the behavior happens even when and where it is not needed.
  • People who were never subject to character limits learn the behavior from others, and emulate it to “fit in.”
  • People who were never subject to character limits may be undereducated and may learn the behavior as a common practice, possibly being unaware that it is not proper English.
  • People may take up or maintain the habit simply out of either laziness, desire to conform to trends, or desire to rebel against “the establishment.”

These potential factors support the concern that the practice could become ubiquitous, displacing proper grammar and spelling with ill-advised, confusing fragments that are a poor substitute for the language structure slowly being replaced.

PhpFox: The Awesomest Social Networking Platform Out There

phpFox-webpagethumbnail-1You name it, you’ve used it. You’ve tried Ning (terrible), BuddyPress (terrible), and Joomla’s JomSocial (terrible). You still have a great idea for a social site that can really meet the needs of the niche group you’re involved with. You’re not looking to get rich, but you wouldn’t mind if there was some great monetization involved. You mainly just want to make sure the community you’re a part of is taken care of. After a long search for social networking that actually works, you’ve all but given up.

I have good news: phpFox is what you’re looking for. Trust me. Your search is over. Instead of prospective members leaving in droves while complaining about how hard the site was to navigate, they will be sending you private messages and posting compliments saying, “So cool! How did you do this!? You’re a genius!” I’m not joking.

Yes, I know; you were hoping for something free. But don’t you see that all the free stuff you’ve tried was why you could not get the thing off the ground? You’ve got to bite the bullet. Pay a one-time fee of $300, and enjoy pure awesomeness. Perhaps you can have the niche group you’re serving pay the $300. If you want to monetize your site and you don’t want your members to know what software you’re using, then pay a one-time brand-removal fee of $49 to have all shred of the software maker’s company name removed from the site and all its code. For real.

At the risk of sounding overly cliché, “if you build it, they will come.”

iPhone 4s is very cool, but…

My rant earlier today about the so-called reputable sources being not so reputable, is now vindicated. Apple finally announced, not the iPhone 5, but just the iPhone 4s. Speaking of which, the iPhone 4s is very cool, but it’s not what the iPhone 5 has been touted to become. We still need a changeable battery and the freedom to insert our own (affordable) storage medium, like a micro SD, for example. Can you say, “Milk it for all it’s worth?” Oh well. It is what it is. Now off the store to go buy one. 🙂

iPhone 5 Release!

We have it from reputable sources that…

All the other reputable sources are disreputable. The “company” (aka Apple, Inc.) are masters of buzz, and part of their wizardry is in getting all these people/sites/news outlets to quoting “sources” that don’t know what they’re talking about, most times without even using quotes, sometimes without using names (or, when they do, not names that have “Apple, Inc.” in them or even remotely connected to them), and without using any concrete details. Anyhoo,

We have it from reputable sources that…

Today, October 4, 2011, Apple may or may not unveil the iPhone 5, and it may or may not have a tear-drop form factor, and it may or may not be available within two to three weeks after the maybe/maybe not unveiling today.

Sorry for the rant. Went online to see if today’s Apple event had already taken place, and if so, what the report was. I found nothing but wild speculation. I finally thought, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Well, actually I thought, “I am about as qualified to speculate as any of these so-called sources,” and I decided to post a rant. I feel better. Thank you for reading. Click comment to vent your own rant. Or just to make me feel better. Or just because you can.

We “less-than-three” you Tim/Tom Cook! Or whatever your name is. <3

I’ve seen the Mac’s future

OS X Snow Leopard was all the rage until Apple released OS X Lion a few days ago. Ever wonder what Apple will use for code names for its new OS X releases once all the big cat names are used up? I’ve seen the future, and it isn’t pretty. On the bright side, the company’s brag lines for the release will tout that holographic interface elements [will] allow you to tap, swipe, and scroll your way through your apps using fluid Mid-Air gestures that make everything you do feel more natural and direct. Also, full-room apps [will] allow you to compute no matter where you are enjoying your Mac. I could tell you more, but then I’d have to go forward in time and stay there, so I would not be killed in this present timeline. 🙂 I’m already in danger. The meerkats are coming for me.

Fixed! VMWare Fusion ‘unable to create a VSS snapshot of the source volume(s) – error code 2147754767 (0x8004230F)’

So, I was trying to use to use VMWare Fusion 3.1.2 to import my existing Windows XP Pro SP3 machine over as a virtual machine for use on my Macbook Pro (OS X 10.6.7). I kept getting a dead stop with this error: “unable to create a VSS snapshot of the source volume(s).” It was usually accompanied with an error code, which at one point I copied as: “2147754767 (0x8004230F).” After hours of searching the Web and trying all kinds of things, I finally found this that worked:

Just in case the above link is dead by the time you read this, below is a copy of the post by Ztruker. (Kudos to Ztruker, by the way!) When I checked the GUID in my system, it did not match. When I edited it in my Regedit app on the XP unit, the MS Software Shadow Copy Provider Service finally became functional. I manually started it, and then the VMWare Fusion Migration Agent finally was able to do its job. Thanks, Ztruker, whoever you are!

Definitely not a space problem then.
More searching found this. A remote possibility but worth taking a few minutes to look at:

This may not be applicable to your situation, however might be worth a look. I have had similar problems with VSS on XP machines that turned out to be caused by the MS Software Shadow Copy Provider Service (SwPrv). You should be able to manually start and stop both VSS and SwPrv (net start vss) (net start SwPrv). If VSS manually starts OK, but you get an error when trying to start SwPrV, then you could have a permissions problem with it (account used to start it? should be system account), or a registry error with the services command line. I have run across several situations with XP machines where the command line for the SwPrv service is incorrect.

Possible Solution (these instructions are for XP):
Open Control Panel, Administrative Tools, COMPONENT Services

Inside the Console Root folder, goto COMPONENT Services -> Computers -> My Computer -> Com+ Applications.

On the top toolbar, click on View, Status (or click the Status button on the toolbar).

You will see all Com+ applications and their statuses including the Application ID and the PID (if currently running).

Make a note of the Application ID for the MS Software Shadow Copy Provider entry.

Next check the command line used for the SwPrv service. Navigate back to the top root folder. Inside the Console Root folder, goto Services (local). Note, you can also get here from Control Panel, Administrative Tools, Services.

Find the MS Software Shadow Copy Provider Service and double click on it. Notice the Path to Executable field. It will have an entry similar to the following:

C:WINDOWSSystem32dllhost.exe /Processid:{xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx}

Check to make sure that the GUID inside the curly brackets is the exact same as what you found in the Application ID in the first step. If it isn’t, then this is what is preventing the service from starting.

To correct, open regedit and navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetServicesSwPrv

Double click on the ImagePath value and make the necessary correction.

It is obviously a good idea to export a backup reg file of the above key in case you make a mistake or need to restore the original settings.

This is from Post #15 here:…rror-/5105.html

I checked this on my XP system and the GUID matched.

Mt. Technology

Back then, technology was a mountain,
     and the young boy thought he could climb it.
And he wanted to.

Back then, his brain was sharp,
     and his brainstorms awesome.
And he had ideas.

Back then, the Internet was unheard of,
     and games beckoned to be created.
And longing peaked.

Then forces beyond his control arose
     and turned his brave new world upside down.
And still he tried.

Then the “how” kept changing, and growing ever harder,
     and his ideas were not enough.
And still he tried.

So now, his brain is dull,
     and his brainstorms are played out.
And he’s out of steam.

So now, his ideas are gone,
     and his hopes are faded and dark.
And he’s giving up.

So now, technology is a mountain,
     but the old man knows he cannot climb it.
And he doesn’t want to.

He sits with a phone that’s a computer,
     and a camera, and a DVR, and a PDA.
And he tries to make a call.

The microwaves have cooked his brain,
     and he cannot work the thing.
And still he tries.

A young boy tries to help him, saying,
     “Here, let me show you.”
But the cancer is too far spread.

The young boy sees technology as a mountain,
     and he knows he can climb it.
And he wants to.

One can tell his brain is sharp,
     and his brainstorms awesome.
And he has ideas.

—Doug Joseph
January 17, 2011