A doorstop is a weighted item that holds open a door. A common door top (in simpler times) was a brick.

All Electronic Devices are doorstops, so the reference to Electronic Devices means that they have no more functionality than a brick. In general, it refers to obsolescence – the previous functionality of the device is long since gone, and you might as well use it as a doorstop. It was more apparent when there were electronic devices that weighed in excess of a few thousands of pounds.

The verb, to brick, which means to render an electronic device useless, so that an unauthorized user cannot access the sensitive information of the owner. The remote software that renders the device no different than a doortop is achieved through remote

software.

A doorstop is a weighted item that holds open a door. A common door top (in simpler times) was a brick.

All Electronic Devices are doorstops, so the reference to Electronic Devices means that they have no more functionality than a brick. In general, it refers to obsolescence – the previous functionality of the device is long since gone, and you might as well use it as a doorstop. It was more apparent when there were electronic devices that weighed in excess of a few thousands of pounds.

The verb, to brick, which means to render an electronic device useless, so that an unauthorized user cannot access the sensitive information of the owner. The remote software that renders the device no different than a doortop is achieved through remote

software.

A doorstop is a weighted item that holds open a door. A common door top (in simpler times) was a brick.

All Electronic Devices are doorstops, so the reference to Electronic Devices means that they have no more functionality than a brick. In general, it refers to obsolescence – the previous functionality of the device is long since gone, and you might as well use it as a doorstop. It was more apparent when there were electronic devices that weighed in excess of a few thousands of pounds.

The verb, to brick, which means to render an electronic device useless, so that an unauthorized user cannot access the sensitive information of the owner. The remote software that renders the device no different than a doortop is achieved through remote

software.

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

enabling I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is relatively stiff in most cases, and same concept can usually be expressed with to I

work to have the means of survival The

phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support I

made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments will not necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might’ve worked, but there are some subtle differences. If there is a temporal distinction, why is it

not there?