I bet you Apple is not running adds on this!! I always believed Apple is way overrated so buy wisely.

Apple has said that it has found 17 labor violations at its factories. The one garnering most attention is the use of underage employees.

Apple has released its 2010 Supplier Responsibility report (PDF), revealing that three of its suppliers have hired underage workers. Though these employees were either no longer working
at the factories or no longer underage at the time of the audit, Apple’s inspectors found records of 11 employees who had been hired prior to reaching the legal age. However, child labor was not the only violation uncovered by the audit.

Apple also found more than 50 factories that forced employees to work longer than Apple’s maximum 60-hour weeks. Some facilities were depriving staff of benefits such as sick leave. All told, the inspectors uncovered 17 violations; a ‘core violation’ is considered the most serious class of violation. “It refers to any practice or situation that we consider to be contrary to the core principles underlying Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct,” Apple said.

Three of these violations were cases of falsifying records. That is, factories tried to cover up other violations by presenting inspectors with records that had been tampered with. One had tried to cover up hiring underage workers in the past, while the other two tried to cover up the fact that employees were overworked and not awarded days of rest. One facility falsified these records two years running. The company was caught in both 2008 and 2009.

Apple also found a staggering number of facilities that were not paying staff correctly:

At 48 of the facilities audited, we found that overtime wages had been calculated improperly, resulting in underpayment of overtime wages. At 24 facilities, our auditors found that workers had been paid less than minimum wage for regular working hours. In most of these cases, the facility’s pay structure for regular hours depended on attendance-related bonuses to meet minimum wage requirements; without these bonuses, there was no guarantee that the minimum wage would be met. We also found 15 facilities where the facility’s pay structure was unnecessarily complex and could result in underpayment of wages.

Other violations include excessive recruitment
fees and three cases where suppliers contracted with non-certified vendors for hazardous waste disposal.

When a core violation is detected, Apple requires that the facility remedy the situation immediately, as well as implement management systems that ensure continued compliance. The facility is also placed on probation for a period of one year, ending with a reaudit to ensure the violation has not reoccurred.

Apple inspected 102 facilities across China, the Czech Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States.

Source : Tom’s Hardware US

Are you a Verizon Corporate employees and are a little upset at the way the bonuses have been paid for 2010? You are not alone! It’s not a secret Verizon will likely lay off 13k jobs this year; Verizon posted a net loss of $653 million, or 23 cents per share, compared with net income of $1.24 billion, or 43 cents a share in the same quarter a year ago. Ivan and Danny’s words last year was that to be number one you needed to hire top talent and do what was needed to retain that talent. I guess it does not apply this year.
To end a long story short, corporate employees only received 75% and maybe .5 to 1. % base pay increase if they had enough luck…not even to cover the growing cost of 2% reduced fat milk now days (and the cheap generic crap not the organic stuff).
Verizon Wireless employees received the same as last year bonuses, clearly a slap in the face for many. I am not knocking anyone level of dedication and loyalty to the company but Corporate Employees work just as hard and just as long as wireless. But the end result is lower pay for Corporate. I am not one for looking in anyone’s wallet, but I am certain the executives got their fare share regardless of how big the Q4 loss was.

Netbooks. I was actually one of the few that did not think much about them or the success associated with them. The formula is rather simple and clever. Take a ordinary notebook, strip it down. Reduce processing power, shrink its footprint, and reduce the price tag. Current netbooks from HP, Dell or Lenovo cram performance once only reserved for full size notebooks into 2-pounds package. Cost for these netbooks today vary from 250.00 to 500.00 US. These machines aren’t designed to serve as one primary PC, but they are ideal for low cost, low mass secondary systems. Perfect for travel, on the go, or in the house.

Keyboards- Some model may cram in full size keyboards but typically netbooks are 10-20 percent smaller from a keyboard perspective.

CPU- Most common configuration I know of is a 1.3 up to 1.6ghz Intel power Atom processor. Avoid anything less than a 1.ghz.

Memory- 1gb may be standard on most models, however, personally I would avoid anything less than a 2gb in size of memory. Also, if you have Windows 7, 2gb would be the magic number you would want to stick with.

USB- Try to stick with units that have at least 3 ports, USB or mini DV, the more the better!

Screen- 8-10 inches would be your typical netbook. Anything above 12 inches would not be considered a netbook.

Wireless connectivity- Wi-Fi Bluetooth and Wireless N should at least be the minimum you would want to look for. Options may be 3g etc with monthly service associated with it.

Card Readers- SD is typically included in most units

Battery- Most units should at least have a 10-12 hour battery, don’t get any extended battery since it may make the unit heavier and bulkier.

Storage- Most units now have a 250gb storage device either a normal spinning drive or a Solid state drive (at additional cost)
Getting a bigger is an option but careful since it may make the unit run slower. A solide state drive may help but the cost different today does not justify the switch for the normal user. Especially on these low cost netbooks.

I’ve always held the belief that certifications are important, but there are quite a few people who make the argument that certifications aren’t relevant today. A case can be made either way based on empirical data and anecdotal stories.

Some say that there is real data to show that the relationship between training, certification and the functional performance of teams of IT professionals. The results of this study are in the November 2009 report by Cushing Anderson called “Impact of Training on Network Administration: Certification Leads to Operational Productivity.”
IDC’s 36-month study involved surveying more than 1,100 IT managers who are responsible for more than 3,000 teams. The survey asked for details about more than 80 IT performance metrics in 26 different functional domains, which include deployment, development, management, security, storage and support. Having analyzed all that data, IDC has come to the conclusion that certification in relevant areas matters, and here’s why.
Increasingly, companies are relying on their IT departments to go beyond simply deploying and operating IT systems. IT departments are often included in business transformations and process improvements that will help the business grow and become more profitable. This means the department needs to have a staff of people with both business acumen and IT knowledge and skills. In many companies including the one I work in this is something that is expected although certifications are not really pushed or suggested. So again the argument I guess remains open ended and subject to upper management interpretation 

Interesting New Your Post Article….enjoy.

The truth hurts AT&T — and Verizon is all too happy to inflict the pain.

Early this month, AT&T sued Verizon over its new “There’s a Map for That” campaign, claiming the plucky ads mislead consumers about AT&T’s 3G coverage area. Instead of backing down, Verizon took AT&T’s complaint and used it as ammunition for its own legal filing in response.

Verizon opens with this slam: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s ‘There’s A Map For That’ advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”

Verizon’s campaign, which started last month, compares the geographic reach of its 3G network to AT&T’s. The ads feature two maps, including a blue one for AT&T that shows big white gaps where its 3G network isn’t available.

AT&T complains the ads mislead consumers into thinking the white areas reflect parts of the country where AT&T doesn’t have cellphone coverage — not just 3G services. A judge is scheduled to hear a request today from AT&T for a court order to bar Verizon from using the maps in its ads.

The Verizon ads spoof Apple’s “There’s an App for That” commercials for its popular iPhone. The 53-page filing claims the real issue for AT&T is its failure to expand its network ahead of the rollout of Apple’s iPhone, for which AT&T is the sole wireless provider.

“AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger,” Verizon said in its filing.

Verizon said AT&T is seeking an immediate order to yank the ads “to gain a tactical advantage during the critical holiday shopping season.”

Meanwhile, Verizon, with the help of ad agency McCann Erickson, has rolled out three more “Map” spots with a holiday theme, including a riff on “The Island of the Misfit Toys” from a classic Christmas special.

The ad shows an iPhone relegated to the land of castoff toys — not because of its snazzy features and sleek design — but because of AT&T’s spotty 3G coverage. When one of the toys is surprised to see the iPhone banished there, AT&T’s blue coverage map pops up and suddenly the toys understand.

Verizon’s irreverent ads appear to be striking a chord with consumers.

Robert Passikoff, the founder and president of Brand Keys, a consulting firm, said Verizon is moving up his brand index in terms of loyalty and engagement.

“Verizon is getting stronger in the wireless category,” he said. “AT&T is, if not worse, staid.”

The way I see it its going to take far more than the “Iphone” or a single product to keep ATT in the scheme of things. ATT has  far more failures than it has success. Look at the U-Verse product for example. They tried to go the cheap route by trying to mimic FIOS. U-Verse is Fiber to the Node. Basically, it brings fiber out part of the way, to those big refrigerator-sized boxes in the neighborhood. Past that point, it’s just VDSL.  Everything you get with U-Verse rides on that VDSL – the television channels are pure IPTV, and shares the bandwidth with your internet service.

FIOS is fiber to the premises. They actually bring out fiber right up to the building, resulting in significantly higher potential bandwidth available. The other key difference is that with FIOS, the television service is transmitted via QAM, same as digital cable. It is multiplexed on the same fiber optic cable at a different frequency from the IP service. This means that not only do you not have the service delivery issues of IPTV, but also the TV service doesn’t rob bandwidth.

So wich one you think is best? Well if you still cant figure it out, let me help you!  It is the difference between night and day – FIOS is far superior technologically to U-Verse, and always will be.

I found this article on the recent lawsuit by ATT related to the advertising campaign that Verizon ran. The funny thing is that ATT is not suing because of the fact that the campaign is untrue…but rather unfair competition. See below!

Verizon fired back Monday in the war of words between itself and AT&T, arguing that AT&T’s request for a temporary restraining order blocking Verizon’s current ad campaign should be denied, as Verizon’s ads were truthful.

Put another way: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts,” Verizon’s memorandum of law said, filed in response to AT&T’s TRO request.

Verizon’s motion was filed late Monday in a Georgia district court.

On Nov. 3, AT&T sued Verizon, asking for a temporary injunction blocking Verizon’s ad campaign, which has aggressively portrayed Verizon’s network as a reason for customers to switch from AT&T. On Nov. 13, AT&T issued a detailed rebuttal of what it apparently felt were the claims Verizon made in its campaign. One of AT&T’s chief objections was that customers can take advantage of Web browsing and other smartphone features even if they’re outside of the 3G network, but connected to the AT&T EDGE network.

In its response, Verizon claims that its ads should be considered solely on the merits of the 3G networks Verizon claims its ads compare. Verizon’s filing claims that Verizon’s 3G network covers five times more geographic area than AT&T’s 3G network.

“Despite the far smaller size of its 3G network, AT&T has spent tens of millions of dollars making its 3G network, which it dubs the “Nation’s Fastest 3G Network,” the centerpiece of its national advertising since at least the summer of 2008,” Verizon charged. “AT&T now is attempting to silence Verizon’s ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network as compared to Verizon’s own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison.”

Since Verizon’s ads have not been legally found to be misleading or false, a TRO is unwarranted, Verizon argued.

AT&T representatives were not immediately available for comment.