Is Jobs senile?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Jim on 18 Apr 2010 02:08 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Apple's shown its true colours some time ago - when it explained to the > EU that it was right for Apple to break the law in Europe by denying > cross-border purchases to EU residents, and it was right because Apple > wanted to do it. As I understand it it was the record labels that enforced that, not Apple. BICBW. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Richard Tobin on 18 Apr 2010 04:09 In article <1jh4g18.1sgtmbu1ajg8lcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: >Uh huh, of course you can prove this? No Firth, I'm not interested in one of your "arguments". -- Richard
From: Steve Firth on 18 Apr 2010 05:49 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article <1jh4g18.1sgtmbu1ajg8lcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > >Uh huh, of course you can prove this? > > No Thought so.
From: Bruce Horrocks on 18 Apr 2010 09:05 On 18/04/2010 02:12, David Empson wrote: > Bruce Horrocks<07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > >> On 17/04/2010 17:38, David Empson wrote: >>>>> Anyone with a Mid 2010 17" MacBook Pro care to confirm whether your >>>>> computer's serial number is 12 characters long, and if so, what >>>>> characters are in the third, fourth and fifth positions? (Alleged date >>>>> code, using an alphanumeric coding system.) >>> Sorry, off by one. Should be fourth, fifth and sixth positions if the >>> MacRumors article had the details right. >>> >> >> Off by one year as well. :-) > > Eh? The MacRumours article claimed the 17" Mid 2010 MacBook Pro (just > released) is the first to use the new serial number format. Oh, sorry. Calling April 'Mid 2010' seemed a bit premature so I thought you meant mid 2009. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Bruce Horrocks on 18 Apr 2010 09:09
On 17/04/2010 21:27, Richard Tobin wrote: > In article<1jh3za4.gw5i4h12elt8gN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, > Steve Firth<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > >> Except they didn't, in the end, ban his work. > > They realised that the ban was a publicity disaster, so they pretended > it was a mistake. In the comments to one of The Register stories, an iPhone developer says he had his (pass through app that aggregates headlines, or similar) rejected because there were some 'unfortunate' headlines on the day it was reviewed. He implied that he'd resubmitted it with no changes and it had then been accepted. So it rather sounds like Apple's vetting mechanism is robotic with no initiative allowed to be displayed by the staff doing it. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com) |