CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:20 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
hulugu
Apr 20, 04:54 PM
Sure is. A hypothetical I like to propose:
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
What programs do you consider to be 'forced charity?'
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
What programs do you consider to be 'forced charity?'
patsfan83
Mar 30, 12:06 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
How long has Apple been using .app as an extension for applications?
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
How long has Apple been using .app as an extension for applications?
Peace
Aug 31, 05:52 PM
lol... September 12th is a Tuesday worldwide :p
Ok..You got me..
What I meant was Tuesday was Sept. 12th in Cupertino..NOT monday as the poster said.;)
Ok..You got me..
What I meant was Tuesday was Sept. 12th in Cupertino..NOT monday as the poster said.;)
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 09:01 AM
Android is a huge rip-off of the iPhone, that's obvious. Very early Android was more like a RIM or Symbian-looking thing and when the iPhone appeared it quickly started copying the heck out of that.
BUT - when the iPhone introduced the world to full touch screen phones, how else could someone make the same sort of device without it being a lot like an iPhone? Menus, icons, applications, grids... none of this is exactly new...
I can't stand Android and the layer of pointless fluff like HTC Sense that gets in your way with useless graphical nonsense and widgets. When I got a Desire after an iPhone 3G I thought I had a killer phone and 'got one over on the Apple tax' and would enjoy 'mulitasking' and 'openess'.
For five minutes.... Then I realised iOS is far more usable - even though the Desire was way faster with its 1gz processor much of the old iPhone 3G felt slicker. It makes sense not to have a layer of crap over the basic OS. It makes sense to ration multitasking so the phone doesn't bog down. Music playing on Android is rubbish. The iPhone dock is cool.
That's not to say everything on Android isn't good - in some cases auto text reflow would be GREAT on Safari.
Apple should just ignore the Android cloners and continue to innovate- and offer stripped down slickness as Android gets more and more overwrought.
You do realize that a bare bones Android OS looks nothing like iOS.
BUT - when the iPhone introduced the world to full touch screen phones, how else could someone make the same sort of device without it being a lot like an iPhone? Menus, icons, applications, grids... none of this is exactly new...
I can't stand Android and the layer of pointless fluff like HTC Sense that gets in your way with useless graphical nonsense and widgets. When I got a Desire after an iPhone 3G I thought I had a killer phone and 'got one over on the Apple tax' and would enjoy 'mulitasking' and 'openess'.
For five minutes.... Then I realised iOS is far more usable - even though the Desire was way faster with its 1gz processor much of the old iPhone 3G felt slicker. It makes sense not to have a layer of crap over the basic OS. It makes sense to ration multitasking so the phone doesn't bog down. Music playing on Android is rubbish. The iPhone dock is cool.
That's not to say everything on Android isn't good - in some cases auto text reflow would be GREAT on Safari.
Apple should just ignore the Android cloners and continue to innovate- and offer stripped down slickness as Android gets more and more overwrought.
You do realize that a bare bones Android OS looks nothing like iOS.
xper
May 3, 10:38 AM
So when is the ACD gonna support thunderbolt?
When? Well, ACD has supported thunderbolt since day one.
When? Well, ACD has supported thunderbolt since day one.
munkery
Mar 18, 08:10 PM
Linux = ~1%
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
kdarling
Mar 23, 04:33 PM
This is why it's a really bad idea to set yourself up as an application gatekeeper.
And who watches the gatekeeper? Yep, politicians and special interest groups looking for easy publicity.
And who watches the gatekeeper? Yep, politicians and special interest groups looking for easy publicity.
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
dr_lha
Jul 14, 09:55 AM
Der. No! The Woodcrest CPU is widely expected to make its debut in Apple's PowerMac replacement computer (widely expected to be called Mac Pro) on
August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers' Conference.
Rumored maybe, but not "widely expected". I only expect the high end Mac Pros to have Woodcrest, I can see the low end having Conroe easily.
August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers' Conference.
Rumored maybe, but not "widely expected". I only expect the high end Mac Pros to have Woodcrest, I can see the low end having Conroe easily.
Equitek
Apr 22, 11:53 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
I'd have pulled the trigger on a 13" MPB if screen resolution was higher... But now I'll likely be happier with an 11" Air with ThunderBolt. Maybe I can get a 500GB SSD in there by the time it's released, then I'll have all I want (for now).
I'd have pulled the trigger on a 13" MPB if screen resolution was higher... But now I'll likely be happier with an 11" Air with ThunderBolt. Maybe I can get a 500GB SSD in there by the time it's released, then I'll have all I want (for now).
neil1980
Apr 25, 02:29 PM
I love the way so many people say that 'nobody' has a use for the SuperDrive.
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
mdntcallr
Sep 14, 12:38 AM
sounds like a nice starter level phone/ipod.
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
xlii
Mar 23, 04:28 PM
Let me see... wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... high unemployment in the USA. Cost of energy is killing the average guy in the pocketbook. I know... lets spend our time getting those terrible DUI apps out of the app store... that way we can tell our Constituents what a great job we are doing representing them in Washington.
PS
Don't forget to vote (them out).
PS
Don't forget to vote (them out).
bousozoku
Aug 23, 06:02 PM
I hope this eventually leads to Sound Blaster support for macs.
I hope not. We've been down that...well, it wasn't even a road...it was a road construction project.
Creative created a Fourpoint card, priced it like the DD5.1 card, and didn't work on the drivers past the initial release at a time when Mac OS X was becoming important, so it was never Mac OS X-compatible or reasonably good.
As far as the patent debates went, the filing system and visual access were patents that seemed all too generic.
I hope not. We've been down that...well, it wasn't even a road...it was a road construction project.
Creative created a Fourpoint card, priced it like the DD5.1 card, and didn't work on the drivers past the initial release at a time when Mac OS X was becoming important, so it was never Mac OS X-compatible or reasonably good.
As far as the patent debates went, the filing system and visual access were patents that seemed all too generic.
whatever
Aug 23, 10:34 PM
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Actually there are two other reasons why Apple settled.
What if Creative was bought by Microsoft, then without a settlement they could have continued the suit.
Now that Creative has money they can sue others (Microsoft) who also planning on infridging on their patents.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Actually there are two other reasons why Apple settled.
What if Creative was bought by Microsoft, then without a settlement they could have continued the suit.
Now that Creative has money they can sue others (Microsoft) who also planning on infridging on their patents.
Bern
Aug 23, 05:14 PM
Well for a company that's almost bankrupt I guess this was a worthwhile event for them. Now Creative can continue to make "adapted copies" of the iPod and lose money all over again.
Judging by their past business practices it's only a matter of time before they teeter on the edge of insolvency then I guess they'll have to come up with another reason to sue Apple all over again.
Judging by their past business practices it's only a matter of time before they teeter on the edge of insolvency then I guess they'll have to come up with another reason to sue Apple all over again.
%252Bwallpapers%252BHQ%252BHD%252BWide%252Bscreen%252Bwallpapers%252Bmicrosoft%252Bsurface%252Bwallpapers.jpg "wallpaper hd windows 7. of")
One Bad Duck
Sep 17, 04:49 PM
OK, so if the apple phone is coming (I bet apple are going to call it anything but iphone) it will certainly rock the boat in the market, however there is one thing the ipod is good for that a cellphone will never be able to reach.
I was thinking the other day as I boarded my flight if all ipods became cellphones we would cease to be able to use them on planes, which is probably not much for some people but if you have one device that handles everything then you are inevitably going to get on a plane with it.
I think i might sugest to apple to put them ahead of the rest of some way of disabling the phone part of the "Nano + Phone" or whatever it looks like so it wont bring the plane down as one listens to one's own trippin hip hop mixin vibes.
what d'you reckon guys?
-1BadDuk-
I was thinking the other day as I boarded my flight if all ipods became cellphones we would cease to be able to use them on planes, which is probably not much for some people but if you have one device that handles everything then you are inevitably going to get on a plane with it.
I think i might sugest to apple to put them ahead of the rest of some way of disabling the phone part of the "Nano + Phone" or whatever it looks like so it wont bring the plane down as one listens to one's own trippin hip hop mixin vibes.
what d'you reckon guys?
-1BadDuk-
homsar
Mar 29, 11:11 AM
I call (early) April Fool's joke. The figures don't make any sense, and they're being given by Llamas.
Cybix
Sep 13, 10:17 PM
thats not an artist rendition.. it's a very very poor photochop job. poorly aligned, among other things.... urgh..
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
swindmill
Aug 31, 02:22 PM
I hope they update the macbooks, but my dad just ordered one for my mom yesterday, so it would be a bit unfortunate for her if she ended up with a brand new - old model.
Small White Car
Nov 13, 02:06 PM
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
You should try it!
They didn't break the rules.
You should try it!
They didn't break the rules.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 18, 03:53 PM
Identity theft is not malware and it's not targeted at just Mac or Windows. It can be done without using computers at all. There is no antivirus software that can protect a computer from the user's own stupidity or gullibility.
If you said "not just" I might agree. But if you think keyboard capture code isn't being used for identity threat and/or want to lump anyone who has every run into such malware as "stupid" or "gullible" well my opinion of you just keeps dropping even lower. Perhaps I can interest you in some kryptonite Superman?
If you said "not just" I might agree. But if you think keyboard capture code isn't being used for identity threat and/or want to lump anyone who has every run into such malware as "stupid" or "gullible" well my opinion of you just keeps dropping even lower. Perhaps I can interest you in some kryptonite Superman?
No comments:
Post a Comment