The closes thing they do is to use a 302 http header redirect, but again, that's got nothing to do with javascript.
Wrong. Google attaches an OnMouseDown event to all the links on the search results page, which means even if you right click on a link that event fires and Google knows you right clicked on it.
The function that handles that event creates a new image object that has an src (loads from) www.google.com/url?sa=T&source=...&oi=..&cad=.....
Everything after the/url part of the image are pairs of key/value tokens. So the script running at/url gets: Sa = T source =... etc.
These key/value pairs basically contain what search terms you used, which link you clicked on, etc. And since the request is on google.com the/url script gets your cookies for Google too so it knows who you are.
This is basically what webmasters did back in the day with transparent 1 pixel images for web analysis tracking, only in this case the image is never embedded in the document or even used, its object is generated on the fly using Javascript and the/url script never even returns anything when your browser tries to request the image, just a HTTP 204 (no content).
Bing seems to have an OnMouseDown event too, so I'm assuming it's doing something similar. I didn't dig into the code though.
Then your company needs to advise that you will have to charge more money to support a deprecated and standards non-compliant application.
We do. There's usually a line item called "Browser testing" which specifies which browsers/platforms the site will be thoroughly tested on (a.k.a. almost-pixel-perfect guarantee). Whenever IE6 is on that list, the numbers get inflated.
We never churn anything out but XHTML 1.0 Strict pages with all the best practices for performance and accessibility (e.g. css/js inclusion order, css sprites, graceful degradation, etc.).
IE6 support usually consists of major CSS hacks in a ie6.css that's included only for that browser. There are also other things to keep in mind, such as not using transparent PNGs in backgrounds of elements, etc.
It sucks, but it's possible to write standards compliant and performing websites that still work on IE6, it's just a major headache.
You weren't addressing to me directly, but *I* wasn't using it, I just found out from the poster's informative post that Adobe Acrobat Reader was using it.
Rather than upgrade something I can't get rid of, I will be uninstalling Acrobat Reader and anything else that uses it.
And how will you know if another program on your system isn't using it?
It's been established that IE is part of Windows. Whether you use it or not, it's a major component in your chosen OS and it needs to be upgraded with everything else.
So le's rephrase that to anything stupid enough to not use my default browser without my permission deserves to be uninstalled.
I'm still sticking with "people should upgrade all of their OS components". The "stupid" in my last post was a result of being slightly pissed-off at the ignorance of the parent's post.
If Windows' update requests that you upgrade something and mark it as critical, then for the love of $DEITY, please do it.
If you think IE should not be a major component of Windows or you don't like how MS is running their OS upgrade cycle, then it's time to jump boat. Linux/OS X are perfectly viable alternatives:)
Ok, so gender-wise it's reversed. I'm a "he" and my boss is a "she":)
I stood up to bosses before, many times actually. I worked on (lead and developed) a huge custom web-based CMS in a job I had before. My boss was a past programmer and kept nagging me about putting all the sites/clients in one centralized database.
I whole-heatedly disagreed for performance and junior-programmers-writing code-unchecked reasons (which I tried to address separately). And I simply didn't do it. I told him flat out, if you want it done, you'll have to code it yourself because I'm not doing that, and you'll be shooting yourself in the foot.
Why did I take a stand there and not with IE6? Well, that was all back-end, it wasn't something a client would even care about and it was a stupid request given the company's circumstances. But when it comes to IE6 compatibility, if we "screw up" as far as the client is concerned, we can lose a 6-7 figures contract.
I've told my managers about how horrible IE6 is, and they know to add certain padding in development time if IE6 is involved. But as far as companies go, big clients say jump, the company says how high.
I hope when you hire people that you look for someone who's technical but also able to understand the business side, otherwise you'll have projects running way past deadlines and lose money because of a religious programming issue.
I do what I can to make sure my work is kosher. I follow W3C's standards (when I'm doing front-end) in everything I do.
But guess what, if the client wants a site in DotNetNuke built in tables because the WYSIWYG editor can't understand DIVs, and they're paying the bills, well, then they get what they asked for, no questions asked.
Customer is king (regardless of IQ), never forget that.
Seems like they shouldn't care about GIMPs name, or OOo's lack of the dirty corners of Office.
They don't, it's all about the business case. Most graphic designers coming out of school nowadays are accustomed to Adobe's suite of tools (Photoshop/Illustrator, etc.), and to a company dropping $4000-5000 on a Mac+CS4 is nothing compared to the hours of lost productivity that a designer would spend getting up to speed and working around GIMP.
OOo on the other hand and older versions of MS Office stop being attractive when you try to send editable word documents to clients. Once one of your big clients switches over to Office 2007 you pretty much have to as well.
The only way for OOo to get a strong hold in the small/medium business world, is if they achieve very high compatibility with MS Office, which (knowing Microsoft) will be a very hard thing to do.
For people who *never* use IE, that's the version we're going to have installed.
Wrong. IE7 and IE8 have both been pushed via windows update servers and if you have automatic updates on, you will be running IE8 right about now.
If you work in a company with more than 3 employees (or have competent IT) you will probably be using WSUS or any other patch management software. Your IT department would have been offered to upgrade all the machines to IE8 around mid last year, and IE7 (as a critical update IIRC) even longer before that.
Basically, the only way for you to be running IE6 is if you couldn't be bothered upgrading your machines or if you're doing it on purpose because of a legacy app.
What was shocking to me is that Google would do either one of those.
IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.
If you're stupid enough to refuse upgrading a major component of your system just because you don't think you're using it, well, then you deserve what you get.
I can. I did some contracting work for a company before that ran some specialized software that cannot run on anything past XP.
The software they used modeled their business and also ran their books (accounting, employee hours, etc.).
They were not a computer shop, and couldn't possibly fathom why they needed to upgrade their machines.
Their sentiment was: we paid $xx,000 for this software, and we can't even begin to imagine life without it. It's quirky and does some things it shouldn't do, but it works good enough.
I'm not saying it was the best solution to stay with what they had, but honestly, it did work and everyone (non-techies) were very proficient at it (they even learned the shortcuts for crying out loud!).
It's hard for us geeks to understand that people can run s*itty software and be "ok" with it. But they have different measures of what's tolerable and what is not, be it ROI, comfort zone or overhead of re-training staff.
And yes, they believed in the software so much that they shaped their business and processes around it. Sad, but it happens, everyday.
The way that _you_ type is _extremely_ _annoying_. You don't have to tack on underscores to words or do anything else to them for that matter for people to understand what it is you're saying. Trying to add emphasis to words in your posts like this is completely unnecessary.
_I_ am _very_ sorryif _this_ "annoyed" ||you||. I'll "try" tobe more _careful_ next 'time'.
About me refusing freelance work that doesn't live to my standards? Guess what, it's "extra", and if my main job takes care of everything and then some, then I get to be VERY freaking picky about what I do with time I can spend doing what _I_ want.
Or did the $x,000 freak you out? Do you even work? What's your hourly rate?
Bah, I know better than to respond to ACs, but this was just infuriating.
Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random_vulnerable browser
I'm afraid if I do that I'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.
My company has high-profile clients who run IE6. I've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is. But at the end of the day, if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department, and they look at the site and it's broken, then guess who they get to blame?
I happen to do freelance work on the side (for extra s*its-and-giggles), and when I do that I run the show and basically say "If you want IE6 support, you have to pay $X,000 extra." and honestly, if the project is not that challenging I will just refuse to take it regardless of how many zeros are in-front of the decimals on the check.
I _hate_ IE6 with a passion (and 7 and somewhat 8 for that matter), but I have to do what I have to do to pay mortgage, keep the lights on and feed the kids.
It's not _that_ self demising. The main reason I get up and go to work everyday is to provide for my family. I may enjoy it and I may not sometimes, but that's not the question, it's what gets the job done for my (our) clients that will pay for the life-style I've chosen to take.
If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long. Happy now?
The attack is very reliable on Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP... That's apparently what happened at Google late last year, when hackers were able to get into the company's internal systems
Google has employees running XP/IE6???
The only way I run IE6 nowadays is in a VM and basically just to test websites we're developing on local/trusted hosts. I wouldn't dare accessing anything with IE6 (especially with reputable sites being hacked and all).
All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.
Utter rubbish. The fact that he chooses to give up his privacy does not mean that I'm interested in giving up my privacy, or have any expectation to give up my privacy.
Not just you though, but from the article (my emphasis):
"A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they've built," he said. "Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do.
"But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it."
To me that sounds like they just couldn't care less about their "customers'" (read: products') privacy. A very arrogant attitude that I hope will take them down someday.
Changing a setting for 350 million users is not something that I would take lightly, especially when it's something as big as privacy. But then again I guess those 350 million users can't/don't care to begin with.
I've always avoided "social networking" sites, this quote is just another perfect example of why people should run like hell.
I will be using it in my "Why are you not on Facebook?" conversations.
I've used Twitter's search before (out of desperation) when my wife thought that we had an earth quake and I didn't.
To my surprise just 3 minutes later (time it took me to exhaust regular search engines), someone tweeted that they're having an earthquake a few miles away from where we live.
Since that day I've been using Twitter's search to find up to the minute updates for topics that interest me (Intel's SSD firmware bug, conferences, etc.).
I think Twitter is shaking up to be a very good source of news/information, if you can manage to find gems in the pile of "I just landed. WOOT!" tweets.
Well let's see. The Taiwanese LCD producer Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) agreed to pay $220 million for violations over 5 years (2001-2006) which comes up to $44 million per year of violations.
CMO is a publicly traded company, for 2009 their net sales up to November has been almost $30 billion dollars.
We take additional steps to protect the privacy of stored search information by __removing the entirety of the IP address__, __cookies__ and __other cross session identifiers__, after 18 months.
I like that a LOT more than randomizing the C class and keeping everything else forever, even if it's 18 months in the future.
Palm actually uses a bunch of GPL'd code (the Pre is Linux based) and they do make the code available. In fact, I think some of it even comes on the device itself.
I know you (and the others making menstruation jokes) are just trying to be funny, and you probably are to a lot of people reading this thread, but writing about women as computers with buggy code isn't exactly the best way to show them your respect. I wonder how many people connect comments like this to the threads that pop up from time to time wondering why there are so few women programmers and computer scientists?
No one here meant this in a derogatory way, it was an innocent (sexually-laced) joke.
The posters I replied to are (apparently) married and so am I. I'm pretty sure my wife would have a few jokes of her own about me or men in general, although she probably wouldn't express it in computer terms.
There's no need to turn this into a gender war or a political crusade, it was a funny innocent joke, let's leave it at that:)
I remember watching their commercials and going to their website to check it out. The fine print clearly stated that you will not receive their computer printer/combo/etc. until after you mail off the last payment!
I thought to myself, who in their right mind would even consider giving this company a dime, but apparently there were 35,000 such individuals.
The lesson here folks: if it's too good to be true then it probably is.
Slashdot Mirror
The closes thing they do is to use a 302 http header redirect, but again, that's got nothing to do with javascript.
Wrong. Google attaches an OnMouseDown event to all the links on the search results page, which means even if you right click on a link that event fires and Google knows you right clicked on it.
The function that handles that event creates a new image object that has an src (loads from) www.google.com/url?sa=T&source=...&oi=..&cad=.. ...
Everything after the /url part of the image are pairs of key/value tokens. So the script running at /url gets: ...
Sa = T
source =
etc.
These key/value pairs basically contain what search terms you used, which link you clicked on, etc. And since the request is on google.com the /url script gets your cookies for Google too so it knows who you are.
This is basically what webmasters did back in the day with transparent 1 pixel images for web analysis tracking, only in this case the image is never embedded in the document or even used, its object is generated on the fly using Javascript and the /url script never even returns anything when your browser tries to request the image, just a HTTP 204 (no content).
Bing seems to have an OnMouseDown event too, so I'm assuming it's doing something similar. I didn't dig into the code though.
Then your company needs to advise that you will have to charge more money to support a deprecated and standards non-compliant application.
We do. There's usually a line item called "Browser testing" which specifies which browsers/platforms the site will be thoroughly tested on (a.k.a. almost-pixel-perfect guarantee). Whenever IE6 is on that list, the numbers get inflated.
We never churn anything out but XHTML 1.0 Strict pages with all the best practices for performance and accessibility (e.g. css/js inclusion order, css sprites, graceful degradation, etc.).
IE6 support usually consists of major CSS hacks in a ie6.css that's included only for that browser. There are also other things to keep in mind, such as not using transparent PNGs in backgrounds of elements, etc.
It sucks, but it's possible to write standards compliant and performing websites that still work on IE6, it's just a major headache.
You weren't addressing to me directly, but *I* wasn't using it, I just found out from the poster's informative post that Adobe Acrobat Reader was using it.
Rather than upgrade something I can't get rid of, I will be uninstalling Acrobat Reader and anything else that uses it.
And how will you know if another program on your system isn't using it?
It's been established that IE is part of Windows. Whether you use it or not, it's a major component in your chosen OS and it needs to be upgraded with everything else.
So le's rephrase that to anything stupid enough to not use my default browser without my permission deserves to be uninstalled.
I'm still sticking with "people should upgrade all of their OS components". The "stupid" in my last post was a result of being slightly pissed-off at the ignorance of the parent's post.
If Windows' update requests that you upgrade something and mark it as critical, then for the love of $DEITY, please do it.
If you think IE should not be a major component of Windows or you don't like how MS is running their OS upgrade cycle, then it's time to jump boat. Linux/OS X are perfectly viable alternatives :)
Ok, so gender-wise it's reversed. I'm a "he" and my boss is a "she" :)
I stood up to bosses before, many times actually. I worked on (lead and developed) a huge custom web-based CMS in a job I had before. My boss was a past programmer and kept nagging me about putting all the sites/clients in one centralized database.
I whole-heatedly disagreed for performance and junior-programmers-writing code-unchecked reasons (which I tried to address separately). And I simply didn't do it. I told him flat out, if you want it done, you'll have to code it yourself because I'm not doing that, and you'll be shooting yourself in the foot.
Why did I take a stand there and not with IE6? Well, that was all back-end, it wasn't something a client would even care about and it was a stupid request given the company's circumstances. But when it comes to IE6 compatibility, if we "screw up" as far as the client is concerned, we can lose a 6-7 figures contract.
I've told my managers about how horrible IE6 is, and they know to add certain padding in development time if IE6 is involved. But as far as companies go, big clients say jump, the company says how high.
I hope when you hire people that you look for someone who's technical but also able to understand the business side, otherwise you'll have projects running way past deadlines and lose money because of a religious programming issue.
I do what I can to make sure my work is kosher. I follow W3C's standards (when I'm doing front-end) in everything I do.
But guess what, if the client wants a site in DotNetNuke built in tables because the WYSIWYG editor can't understand DIVs, and they're paying the bills, well, then they get what they asked for, no questions asked.
Customer is king (regardless of IQ), never forget that.
Seems like they shouldn't care about GIMPs name, or OOo's lack of the dirty corners of Office.
They don't, it's all about the business case. Most graphic designers coming out of school nowadays are accustomed to Adobe's suite of tools (Photoshop/Illustrator, etc.), and to a company dropping $4000-5000 on a Mac+CS4 is nothing compared to the hours of lost productivity that a designer would spend getting up to speed and working around GIMP.
OOo on the other hand and older versions of MS Office stop being attractive when you try to send editable word documents to clients. Once one of your big clients switches over to Office 2007 you pretty much have to as well.
The only way for OOo to get a strong hold in the small/medium business world, is if they achieve very high compatibility with MS Office, which (knowing Microsoft) will be a very hard thing to do.
Just my 2 cents.
For people who *never* use IE, that's the version we're going to have installed.
Wrong. IE7 and IE8 have both been pushed via windows update servers and if you have automatic updates on, you will be running IE8 right about now.
If you work in a company with more than 3 employees (or have competent IT) you will probably be using WSUS or any other patch management software. Your IT department would have been offered to upgrade all the machines to IE8 around mid last year, and IE7 (as a critical update IIRC) even longer before that.
Basically, the only way for you to be running IE6 is if you couldn't be bothered upgrading your machines or if you're doing it on purpose because of a legacy app.
What was shocking to me is that Google would do either one of those.
IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.
If you're stupid enough to refuse upgrading a major component of your system just because you don't think you're using it, well, then you deserve what you get.
I suggest you check your websites on firefox 2.xx. I was at a business this morning that still runs Windows 98 and firefox 2.xx. ...
There are people out there who can't change for good reasons.
Can you give us some of those "good reasons"?
I can. I did some contracting work for a company before...
I'm not the GP/AC, I was chiming in about why some companies have their reasons to not change. It wasn't about which version of OS/browser anymore.
I was shooting for funny but I guess I annoyed someone else too :P
Can you give us some of those "good reasons"?
I can. I did some contracting work for a company before that ran some specialized software that cannot run on anything past XP.
The software they used modeled their business and also ran their books (accounting, employee hours, etc.).
They were not a computer shop, and couldn't possibly fathom why they needed to upgrade their machines.
Their sentiment was: we paid $xx,000 for this software, and we can't even begin to imagine life without it. It's quirky and does some things it shouldn't do, but it works good enough.
I'm not saying it was the best solution to stay with what they had, but honestly, it did work and everyone (non-techies) were very proficient at it (they even learned the shortcuts for crying out loud!).
It's hard for us geeks to understand that people can run s*itty software and be "ok" with it. But they have different measures of what's tolerable and what is not, be it ROI, comfort zone or overhead of re-training staff.
And yes, they believed in the software so much that they shaped their business and processes around it. Sad, but it happens, everyday.
The way that _you_ type is _extremely_ _annoying_. You don't have to tack on underscores to words or do anything else to them for that matter for people to understand what it is you're saying. Trying to add emphasis to words in your posts like this is completely unnecessary.
_I_ am _very_ sorry if _this_ "annoyed" ||you||. I'll "try" to be more _careful_ next 'time'.
Anyone else smell the BS from this post?
What BS Mr. AC? Name something.
About me refusing freelance work that doesn't live to my standards? Guess what, it's "extra", and if my main job takes care of everything and then some, then I get to be VERY freaking picky about what I do with time I can spend doing what _I_ want.
Or did the $x,000 freak you out? Do you even work? What's your hourly rate?
Bah, I know better than to respond to ACs, but this was just infuriating.
Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random_vulnerable browser
I'm afraid if I do that I'll be jobless and unable to pay my mortgage.
My company has high-profile clients who run IE6. I've lectured on-and-on about what a terrible browser IE6 is. But at the end of the day, if SVP of Marketing is running IE6 because of their IT department, and they look at the site and it's broken, then guess who they get to blame?
I happen to do freelance work on the side (for extra s*its-and-giggles), and when I do that I run the show and basically say "If you want IE6 support, you have to pay $X,000 extra." and honestly, if the project is not that challenging I will just refuse to take it regardless of how many zeros are in-front of the decimals on the check.
I _hate_ IE6 with a passion (and 7 and somewhat 8 for that matter), but I have to do what I have to do to pay mortgage, keep the lights on and feed the kids.
It's not _that_ self demising. The main reason I get up and go to work everyday is to provide for my family. I may enjoy it and I may not sometimes, but that's not the question, it's what gets the job done for my (our) clients that will pay for the life-style I've chosen to take.
If it was up to me to do things I enjoy, I would probably play WOW, eat pizza and masturbate all day long. Happy now?
The attack is very reliable on Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP ...
That's apparently what happened at Google late last year, when hackers were able to get into the company's internal systems
Google has employees running XP/IE6???
The only way I run IE6 nowadays is in a VM and basically just to test websites we're developing on local/trusted hosts. I wouldn't dare accessing anything with IE6 (especially with reputable sites being hacked and all).
All the legacy IE6 users I've met tend to be government, non-technical corporates or extremely pro-Microsoft shops that bet the farm on IE6 and wrote everything in IE6/ActiveX fashion.
This is a shocker!
Utter rubbish. The fact that he chooses to give up his privacy does not mean that I'm interested in giving up my privacy, or have any expectation to give up my privacy.
Not just you though, but from the article (my emphasis):
"A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they've built," he said. "Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do.
"But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it."
To me that sounds like they just couldn't care less about their "customers'" (read: products') privacy. A very arrogant attitude that I hope will take them down someday.
Changing a setting for 350 million users is not something that I would take lightly, especially when it's something as big as privacy. But then again I guess those 350 million users can't/don't care to begin with.
I've always avoided "social networking" sites, this quote is just another perfect example of why people should run like hell.
I will be using it in my "Why are you not on Facebook?" conversations.
I think Twitter is shaking up...
Grr.. I need more coffee. That's "is shaping up".
Or maybe "shaking" with all the earthquake tweets!
I've used Twitter's search before (out of desperation) when my wife thought that we had an earth quake and I didn't.
To my surprise just 3 minutes later (time it took me to exhaust regular search engines), someone tweeted that they're having an earthquake a few miles away from where we live.
Since that day I've been using Twitter's search to find up to the minute updates for topics that interest me (Intel's SSD firmware bug, conferences, etc.).
I think Twitter is shaking up to be a very good source of news/information, if you can manage to find gems in the pile of "I just landed. WOOT!" tweets.
imho, lol looks like someone sticking their hands up. "So the police yell 'Stick em up', so I'm, like, lol"
Great, thanks for ruining "lol" for me forever! I can't see the letters anymore :\
As one getting married in 11 days...
Well let me be the first on Slashdot (maybe?) to say: CONGRATULATIONS!
I don't know you or how long you knew your fiance, but I just want to wish you all the best in your journey. It will be fun :)
Ignore the AC above, he's mad because he was raped in an alley yesterday.
And yea mods, you can mod this off-topic. There goes Karma :\
Well let's see. The Taiwanese LCD producer Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) agreed to pay $220 million for violations over 5 years (2001-2006) which comes up to $44 million per year of violations.
CMO is a publicly traded company, for 2009 their net sales up to November has been almost $30 billion dollars.
CMO's market cap is $150 billion dollars.
I think it's safe to say that $44 million dollars a year is a drop in the bucket for them.
The other $640 million is divided across 5 other companies so far, which sets them about $128 million dollars each, or $25.6 million dollars a year.
Justice is served!
From Bing's privacy policy:
We take additional steps to protect the privacy of stored search information by
__removing the entirety of the IP address__,
__cookies__ and
__other cross session identifiers__ , after 18 months.
I like that a LOT more than randomizing the C class and keeping everything else forever, even if it's 18 months in the future.
I can't even find the word "anonymize" in Google's new privacy policy.
Palm actually uses a bunch of GPL'd code (the Pre is Linux based) and they do make the code available. In fact, I think some of it even comes on the device itself.
...citation?
Search engines are your friends:
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html.
Now, is this actually compliant with the GPL? I'm not sure.
I would like to think that the muPDF people are not sue-happy, so maybe Palm is supposed to release some other code that's not on that page.
I know you (and the others making menstruation jokes) are just trying to be funny, and you probably are to a lot of people reading this thread, but writing about women as computers with buggy code isn't exactly the best way to show them your respect. I wonder how many people connect comments like this to the threads that pop up from time to time wondering why there are so few women programmers and computer scientists?
No one here meant this in a derogatory way, it was an innocent (sexually-laced) joke.
The posters I replied to are (apparently) married and so am I. I'm pretty sure my wife would have a few jokes of her own about me or men in general, although she probably wouldn't express it in computer terms.
There's no need to turn this into a gender war or a political crusade, it was a funny innocent joke, let's leave it at that :)
Yeah, I'm hoping I can adapt this patch to my wife's integers too.
You don't need to, there's a patch available today!
I believe another patch that fixes the same problem is implemented in wife-menopause-1.0.55.
Um. . . . too good to be true? Anyone ever calculate up what they give you for what your total payments would be?
I agree, it was clearly over-priced as well. The "too good to be true" part I was referring to was the:
"No money down, no credit check! You, YES YOU, can get a computer TODAY for the low monthly payment of $x!!"
... commercials that they ran all the time.
I remember watching their commercials and going to their website to check it out. The fine print clearly stated that you will not receive their computer printer/combo/etc. until after you mail off the last payment!
I thought to myself, who in their right mind would even consider giving this company a dime, but apparently there were 35,000 such individuals.
The lesson here folks: if it's too good to be true then it probably is.