Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #55165 > unrolled thread

Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus)

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-26 20:13 -0700
    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-26 23:56 -0400
      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) I R A Darth Aggie <n0b0dy@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-29 21:16 +0000
        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 01:44 +0000
    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 03:56 +0000
      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 04:04 +0000
        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-27 08:09 -0700
          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 11:33 -0400
            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 16:12 +0000
              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-27 11:03 -0700
                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 14:19 -0400
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 19:24 +0000
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-27 13:24 -0700
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 16:34 -0400
                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 22:24 +0000
            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-08-27 22:03 +0100
              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-27 14:10 -0700
                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:27 -0700
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 17:53 -0400
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 22:24 +0000
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) joe <none@domain.invalid> - 2018-08-27 17:33 -0500
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 23:02 +0000
                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 19:19 -0400
                          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-28 23:16 +0000
                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) joe <none@domain.invalid> - 2018-08-27 19:46 -0500
                          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-28 23:16 +0000
                            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) joe <none@domain.invalid> - 2018-08-28 18:56 -0500
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 00:38 +0000
                            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) I R A Darth Aggie <n0b0dy@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-29 21:32 +0000
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 22:11 +0000
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) I R A Darth Aggie <n0b0dy@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-03 16:13 +0000
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-29 16:06 -0700
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 01:52 +0000
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 02:02 +0000
                                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
                                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 04:41 +0000
                                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-30 00:55 -0400
                                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 12:22 +0000
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 19:19 -0400
                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-08-27 22:52 +0100
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-27 15:00 -0700
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 22:24 +0000
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 07:18 -0700
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-28 23:16 +0000
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 20:34 -0700
                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 12:56 +0000
                          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 13:30 +0000
                            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-29 08:29 -0700
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 11:41 -0400
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 16:04 +0000
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 16:16 +0000
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 16:05 +0000
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-29 10:45 -0700
                                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 14:09 -0400
                                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-08-29 18:52 +0000
                                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 22:01 +0000
                                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 22:01 +0000
                                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 23:02 +0000
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 04:01 +0000
              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 12:49 +0000
                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-30 09:36 -0400
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 01:53 +0000
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-30 22:57 -0400
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 12:45 +0000
          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 16:12 +0000
            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:52 -0700
              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-27 13:59 -0400
                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 22:08 +0000
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-29 15:13 -0700
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-29 22:58 +0000
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-29 19:32 -0700
                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 02:48 +0000
                          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-29 20:02 -0700
                            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 04:15 +0000
                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-29 21:26 -0700
                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 04:43 +0000
                                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-29 21:54 -0700
                                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 12:22 +0000
                                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-30 08:44 -0700
                                        Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) BK@Onramp.net - 2018-08-30 11:03 -0500
                                          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-30 09:09 -0700
                                            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) BK@Onramp.net - 2018-08-30 12:47 -0500
                                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 01:59 +0000
                                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-30 19:10 -0700
                                          Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 01:55 +0000
                                            Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-30 19:08 -0700
                                              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 02:46 +0000
                                                Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-08-30 20:11 -0700
                  Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-29 18:18 -0700
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 02:29 +0000
                    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
                      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-30 04:15 +0000
              Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-27 19:24 +0000
    Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> - 2018-08-27 08:51 -0400
      Re: Moto X4 on Sale at Newegg for $199.99 ($100 off). Closest Android Phone to an iPhone 8 (non-plus) sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-27 08:12 -0700

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#55195

On 8/27/2018 5:24 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 14:27:44 GMT, sms wrote:
>
>> The end of 2020 is still 2.4 years away. For 10 years Android has had
>> the advantage of not limiting the web content its users can view. Flash
>> will be around long after Adobe stops distributing it.
>
> While Alan Baker is a well known Apple Apologist who lives in the same
> Apple-prescribed imaginary world that nospam lives in, it's a fact that you
> can pick up, today, the APK for Flash from the official web site.

How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

>
> Hence, as always, the Apple Apologists are dead wrong on their facts.
>
> Why are these two Apple Apologists always dead wrong on facts?
> I don't know why.
>
> It seems they live in a make-believe world of imaginary circumstances
> that Apple MARKETING fed to them but which don't fit into the real world.
>
> When the Apple Apologists step away from playing their silly semantic
> games, there's no getting around the fact that you can buy from two (Moto
> X4) to five (LG Stylo 3 Plus) far more functional Android phones (both in
> most of the hardware and app software functionality) for the price of a
> single iPhone (iPhone 8 & iPhone 7 Plus respectively).
>
> Those are facts that even the Apple Apologists don't dare dispute.
>
> If the Apple Apologists dare dispute the facts - they will be shown to be
> the fools that they are - simply by their own words since those are facts
> that all reasonable adults easily agree upon.
>
> Facts re funny that way.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55196

On 27 Aug 2018 15:33:49 GMT, joe wrote:

> How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

This is a *great* question from the Apple side of the house becuase the
Apple user typically would rather forgo functionality for safety.

The fact that the Apple user makes most of their decisions based on three
commonly held traits is why you ask that question.
1. Utter abject fear.
2. Slavish following of style
3. Lack of reasonable adult logic (see the two reasons above)

The fact you ask that question is why I'm often found quoting the fact that
Apple gives you a butterknife to cut down a tree because a chain saw is
"too dangerous" for you Apple users.

Often, sms says that the iOS equipment isn't really a butterknife, since it
is functional - so we have agreed that using iOS is like using a hand saw
to cut down a tree instead of a chain saw.

Those who are in abject fear of saws would use the iOS handsaw.
Those not in abject fear would use a chainsaw (if that's what's needed).

Apple users are Apple users precisely because of their abject fear.
Android users are Android users precisely because they don't have abject
fear.

Having said that, the answer to your 1/2 your question is logically simple.
https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
January 20, 2016

iOS = hand saw
Android = chainsaw

Notice that Apple iOS mobile devices are always far less functional than
Android mobile devices simply because Apple limits what iOS mobile devices
can do which the Apple users *love* because they fear the power and
flexibility that Android users simply do not fear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55198

In article <pm1vtg$r67$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> > How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?



> Having said that, the answer to your 1/2 your question is logically simple.

so simple, yet you still got it wrong.

> https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html

no mention of android. fail.

> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.
> 115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
> January 20, 2016

wrong date. fail.

the correct answer is 5 years old:
<https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.
html>
  On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for
  Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x in keeping with
  statements made in Adobe's publicly available Flash Roadmap. This
  release is the final update release of Flash Player for the Android
  operating system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55214

On 27 Aug 2018 16:19:12 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
> 
> no mention of android. fail.

That link was provided as a courtesy to "joe" so that "joe" could click on
the link to ascertain the current version. 


>> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.
>> 115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
>> January 20, 2016
> 
> wrong date. fail.

That information was cut and pasted verbatim out of this web page:
<https://www.androidapksfree.com/apk/adobe-flash-player-apk-latest-download/>
Which says, verbatim:
 "Flash Player is available on AndroidAPKsFree since its release on 
  January 20, 2016. The current version is 11.1.115.81 and the 
  cumulative downloads from our platform are more than 87,690."

As you an see, I cut and pasted the date verbatim from that second URL as
the answer to "joe", who, let's be clear, was only asking because his point
is that he's afraid of any Flash version other than the most current flash
version (which is why I gave "joe" the first URL).

> the correct answer is 5 years old:
> <https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.
> html>
>   On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for
>   Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x in keeping with
>   statements made in Adobe's publicly available Flash Roadmap. This
>   release is the final update release of Flash Player for the Android
>   operating system.

Thank you for that link of:
<https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html>
Which says, verbatim:
 "On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for 
  Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x"

Hence, either the original URL comments are wrong, or, what they meant most
likely was that they copied the APK from Adobe on January 20, 2016.

Hence, I agree with your facts since all sentient adults agree on facts.
(Facts are funny that way.)

So I publicly agree that the 11.1.115.81 Flask APK was originally released
on September 10 2013 and apparently hosted on AndroidAPKsFree 
 "since its release on January 20, 2016".

The main point is threefold:
a. The Apple Apologists are driven by abject fear.
b. The Apple Apologists would rather go without functionality.
c. Hence, to the Apple Apologists, the release date is a "big deal".

While I don't disagree with the release date correction (facts are funny in
that all logical adults agree on facts), the actual date doesn't change
that the Apple Apologists would fear the APK the same whether it was
released on September 10 2013 or January 20, 2016 since they fear anything
that isn't the latest release, and, even for flash, they fear flash so much
that even the latest release won't work on iOS.

Still - the topic of this thread isn't Flash, despite the desperate
attempts by the Apple Apologists to make it so.

The topic is that it's been proven before that a far more functional in
most ways Android phone (e.g., the 8-core LG Stylo 3 Plus) is five times
less expensive than a far less functional in most ways iPhone 7 Plus ...
and ... a far more functional in most ways Android Moto X4 is about half as
expensive as a far less functional in most ways iPHone 8.

Those are facts any sentient logical adult will immediately agree with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55199

On 8/27/2018 6:02 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 15:33:49 GMT, joe wrote:
> 
>> How old is that apk and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?
> 
> This is a *great* question from the Apple side of the house becuase the
> Apple user typically would rather forgo functionality for safety.
> 
> The fact that the Apple user makes most of their decisions based on three
> commonly held traits is why you ask that question.
> 1. Utter abject fear.
> 2. Slavish following of style
> 3. Lack of reasonable adult logic (see the two reasons above)
> 
> The fact you ask that question is why I'm often found quoting the fact that
> Apple gives you a butterknife to cut down a tree because a chain saw is
> "too dangerous" for you Apple users.
> 
> Often, sms says that the iOS equipment isn't really a butterknife, since it
> is functional - so we have agreed that using iOS is like using a hand saw
> to cut down a tree instead of a chain saw.
> 
> Those who are in abject fear of saws would use the iOS handsaw.
> Those not in abject fear would use a chainsaw (if that's what's needed).
> 
> Apple users are Apple users precisely because of their abject fear.
> Android users are Android users precisely because they don't have abject
> fear.
> 
> Having said that, the answer to your 1/2 your question is logically simple.
> https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/android/11.1.115.81/install_flash_player_ics.apk
> January 20, 2016
> 

Why are the dates on the files in the apk from September 2009?


> iOS = hand saw
> Android = chainsaw
> 
> Notice that Apple iOS mobile devices are always far less functional than
> Android mobile devices simply because Apple limits what iOS mobile devices
> can do which the Apple users *love* because they fear the power and
> flexibility that Android users simply do not fear.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55213

On 27 Aug 2018 17:46:47 GMT, joe wrote:

> Why are the dates on the files in the apk from September 2009?

See the detailed response with quotes and cites just sent moments ago to
nospam.

I relize your point is that you're afraid of Flash.
I get that. 
I understand that.

I really do.
My wife and kids are afraid of the chain saw when I start it up.
It makes noise. It cuts things. It tasks skill to use. It's dangerous.

But it's also very functionally powerful.

From what you write, you seem to be very much like my wife & kids.
You're afraid of Flash just like they're afraid of the chain saw.

The fact is that trees exist in the real world.
They just do.

You can wish them away like nospam does with Flash.
But only in nospam's imaginary world do trees not exist.

For him, everything is inside the manicured flowers of the walled garden.
He and you apparently live in a fantasy world, that doesn't actually exist.

So when you run into a tree that needs to be cut down, you "just give up".
I understand.

It's what most Apple users do when they confront things in the real world.
All Apple users "just give up" all day, every day.

*It's a very common daily trait of the Apple user to "just give up".*

The tradeoff is they *feel safe* by "just giving up".
(No dangerous chain saws to deal with - but they live in a walled garden.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55216

On 8/28/2018 6:16 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2018 17:46:47 GMT, joe wrote:
>
>> Why are the dates on the files in the apk from September 2009?
>
> See the detailed response with quotes and cites just sent moments ago to
> nospam.

Obviously,you can't answer the question. Neither here nor in that 
"detailed" response.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55218

On 28 Aug 2018 16:56:31 GMT, joe wrote:

> Obviously,you can't answer the question. Neither here nor in that 
> "detailed" response.

*You, "joe", have yet again proven you possess the intellect of a child.*

You fear Flash so much that your brain can't comprehend simple facts.
You're like a small child who insists there's a monster in the closet.

Notice that *only* the Apple Apologists said what you said.
Only the Apple Apologists can't comprehend even the _simplest_ of facts.

*No normal sentient adult would ever say anything like what you said.*
They just wouldn't.

You prove, in every post, "joe", that you possess the intellect of a child.
Only you Apple Apologists are incapable of comprehending facts.

In this case, I will *repeat* the facts, as corrected by nospam:
1. The Flash latest Android APK version is 11.1.115.81 
2. It was last released by Adobe on September 10, 2013
3. It was also hosted by androidapksfree.com on January 20, 2016
   (which was the date I erroneously previously quoted)
  
These dates are clearly what are listed on the associated web sites.
Any sentient adult would agree that those dates are listed at those sites.

That's because those are facts.
Facts are funny that way.

If you _still_ can't comprehend those simple facts ... then ... 
you have simply proven to all that you possess the intellect of a child.

Or, that you Apple Apologists constantly revel in playing childish games.
a. You Apple Apologists are either incomprehensibly stupid, or, 
b. You're simply playing a game that you're incomprehensibly stupid.

Pick one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55241

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 23:16:27 -0000 (UTC),
Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net>, in
<pm4l4a$9bc$1@news.mixmin.net> wrote:

>  I relize your point is that you're afraid of Flash.
>  I get that. 
>  I understand that.

You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".

AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.

followups to comp.mobile.android

-- 
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55246

On 29 Aug 2018 21:32:46 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

> You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> 
> AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.

You can deny that the world exists around you.

But, the fact is that the world exists outside of your desires.
It just does.

If you have iOS, you have to "just give up".
If you have Android, you can do what you want if and when you want to.

It's like handing a person an iOS butterknife to chop down a tree when the
Android user has a chainsaw to do the same job.

-- 
Kept the followup to c.m.a only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55489

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:11:46 -0000 (UTC),
Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net>, in
<pm75n1$i7e$1@news.mixmin.net> wrote:
>  On 29 Aug 2018 21:32:46 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
> 
> > You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> > security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> > 
> > AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.
> 
>  You can deny that the world exists around you.
> 
>  But, the fact is that the world exists outside of your desires.
>  It just does.
> 
>  If you have iOS, you have to "just give up".
>  If you have Android, you can do what you want if and when you want to.
> 
>  It's like handing a person an iOS butterknife to chop down a tree when the
>  Android user has a chainsaw to do the same job.

Except that the Adroid user with the assualt chainsaw will end up
hacking off his feet.

I'll say this one more time. ADOBE FLASH IS DEAD ON
ANDROID. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.

That is the realtiy of the world. And even if it weren't dead, it was
a festering shithole of a security breach waiting to happen.

But don't take my word for here. Ask google about these search terms

drive by adobe flash breaches from advertising networks

-- 
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55251

On 8/29/2018 2:32 PM, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 23:16:27 -0000 (UTC),
> Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net>, in
> <pm4l4a$9bc$1@news.mixmin.net> wrote:
> 
>>   I relize your point is that you're afraid of Flash.
>>   I get that.
>>   I understand that.
> 
> You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> 
> AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.

While there isn't a lot of new Flash content being produced, there is 
still an enormous quantity of it still out there, and it's useful to be 
able to view it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55262

In article <pm78t2$dfg$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> > security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> > 
> > AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.
> 
> While there isn't a lot of new Flash content being produced, there is 
> still an enormous quantity of it still out there, and it's useful to be 
> able to view it.

there isn't. 

flash is currently used on less than 5% of *all* sites, down from 7%
last year, and at the rate it's dropping, it should be around 3% as
soon as early next year. 

that is nowhere near 'an enormous quantity'. quite the opposite. it's
almost none.

and if you look at *only* mobile sites, which is what would be served
to a phone or tablet, it's actually much less than 5% since those sites
have already been designed to not need flash.

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/flash-used-on-5-percent-
of-all-websites-down-from-285-percent-seven-years-ago/>
  Only 4.9 percent of today's websites utilize Flash code, a number
  that has plummeted from a 28.5 percent market share recorded at the
  start of 2011.
...
  Back then, speaking at a security conference in San Diego, Parisa
  Tabriz, Director of Engineering at Google, said that the percentage
  of daily Chrome users who've loaded at least one page containing
  Flash content per day had gone down from around 80 percent in 2014 
  to under 8 percent in early 2018.
  Tabriz, one of the people in charge of Chrome's security, blamed the
  downfall on the rise of web-based technologies like HTML5 and CSS3,
  but also on configuration changes made by Chrome and other browsers,
  which disabled Flash rendering and moved to an "HTML5-by-default"
  experience.

note that many desktop browsers have *also* disabled flash.

it's dead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55255

On 29 Aug 2018 21:32:46 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

> You should be, too. Adobe Flash, as implemented is a festering
> security hole. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, "unsafe at any speed".
> 
> AF has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Please leave it there.
> 
> followups to comp.mobile.android


This Android thread wasn't intended to be about Flash.
The Apple Apologists nospam made it so.

Still - let's be logical adults - and not emotional creatures.

If this thread is going to be derailed into a flash thread, we should at 
least strive to have the facts straight on flash, apart from the emotions.

As I recall, if you read the Google & Apple canonical explanations of why 
they dropped Flash support, the "festering security hole" was *not* on top 
of why they said they dropped flash.

Let's see what Apple & Google actually said before we proclaim our own 
reasons for hating flash.

Here is the Apple pronouncement signed by Steve Jobs in April of 2010:
 <https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/>
Which says the faults are, in this order:
1. Adobe┬ Flash products are 100% proprietary. 
2. The "full web" (meaning Flash market share)
3. An extremely short paragraph on reliability, security and performance.
4. Battery life
5. Touch
6. Apps (which Steve Jobs very clearly said is the *most important reason*)

Notice in a page of about 118 sentences, only a *single sentence mentioned 
reliability, with a summary sentence (a repeat) also mentioning 
reliability.

That's about 1% to 2% of the sentences in Steve Jobs' extremely well-vetted 
pronouncement that even mentions reliability and both sentences said the 
same thing.

Meanwhile, there were 116 sentences that were NOT about reliability.

These are facts.
While the Apple Apologists are all about childish emotion - I am only about 
facts.

Facts are things all logical sentient adults agree upon.
And that Steve Jobs letter is a fact.

All logical sentient adults can read the Steve Jobs letter just as well as 
I can, where *intelligent* adults would, most likely, come to the same 
conclusion as I - since I can comprehend what Steve Jobs actually said.

Steve Jobs clearly said the most important reason was that Adobe wanted to 
develop apps for iOS using Flash. Period. That's the main reason. 
Steve Jobs said it very clearly himself.

Now, the Apple Apologists tend to deny even what Apple publicly admits, so, 
it wouldn't be surprising for them to make the decision into something that 
it's not. (Or, Steve Jobs could have been lying, which we know Tim Cook has 
been caught twice last year doing - so it's not unheard of.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55256

On 30 Aug 2018 01:52:10 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Steve Jobs clearly said the most important reason was that Adobe wanted to 
> develop apps for iOS using Flash. Period. That's the main reason. 
> Steve Jobs said it very clearly himself.

While the Steve Jobs letter dedicated a single sentence out of more than
100 sentences to "reliability" (actually two, but the second was a summary)
it's harder to find the rationale from Google.

Steve Jobs' rationale was very clearly (he said it so himself it was the
most important reason) that Adobe wanted to develop Flash apps on iOS.

Can anyone find a good summary from Google themselves as to their
rationale?

Even this article reputedly on why Google didn't support it talks a lot
about why Steve Jobs didn't support it!
 <https://www.lifewire.com/android-and-flash-1616859>
 "Steve Jobs declared that iOS devices not only would not support Flash
  but that they would never support Flash. Why? A combination of factors. 
  Flash was a proprietary system created by Adobe and not an open Web 
  standard. A lot of the existing Flash content was old and developed
  for mouse rollovers, not touch, so it would do no good for phone 
  users to see it. Flash performed very poorly on mobile devices
  and ate battery juice like it was going out of fashion. Sure, 
  some of the anti-Flash talk was simply that Steve Jobs was a 
  stubborn man who was irritated with Adobe for foot-dragging with 
  their development of other Adobe products (it took Adobe years to
  finally develop a 64-bit version of Photoshop for Mac.) Adobe 
  probably hoped that Apple would adopt Flash after Android users 
  got used to the idea and started eating into iPhone and iPad sales."

It's clear Steve Jobs didn't like the Adobe management or their actions.

The point is that anyone who says that flash was dropped because it was
buggy is someone who is simply proving that they can't comprehend an adult
answer

Still - I haven't found a first order Google pronouncement on why they
dropped Flash. 

Here's a google pronouncement for Chrome (but that's not only Android).
 <https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/saying-goodbye-flash-chrome/>
While they give only a portion of a sentence to security, they still have
it in Chrome, as this is their summary:
 "We will remove Flash completely from Chrome toward the end of 2020."

We know Steve Jobs dropped flash not for its security but mainly because
Adobe wanted to develop Flash apps.

Does anyone have a good link to Google's explanation of why they dropped
Flash in Android?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55263

In article <pm7j6t$bml$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> Does anyone have a good link to Google's explanation of why they dropped
> Flash in Android?

they tried, but it didn't work very well and it was clear that the
future was html5. their resources were better spent elsewhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55271

On 29 Aug 2018 20:06:43 GMT, nospam wrote:

> they tried, but it didn't work very well and it was clear that the
> future was html5. their resources were better spent elsewhere.

This is one of the rare times your guesses are probably correct.

I'm not sure if there _is_ a Google pronouncement on why they don't like
Flash, and Lord knows, most of us hate flash too - but it's in the real
world whether we like it or not.

Steve Jobs clearly said that he didn't want iOS to support flash mainly
because Adobe wanted developers to code apps using flash. Notice that
security was only the tiniest of concerns in Steve Jobs' 2010 letter. 

I realize most Apple buyers are consumed by fear, so, for an Apple buyer,
security is paramount (even if it wasn't paramount to Steve Jobs). 

But Android buyers don't tend to be consumed by fear like Apple buyers are.

So Google's rationale, if we can find it, would be enlightening.
I can't find a google pronouncement - so maybe they never made one.

Here's Adobe's Jun 28 2012 pronouncement on Android support of Flash:
<https://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-update.html#sthash.KhY91EhD.dpbs>
  "Beginning August 15th we will use the configuration settings 
   in the Google Play Store to limit continued access to Flash Player
   updates to only those devices that have Flash Player already installed."

So maybe it wasn't Google at all that limited flash on Android.
It seems that Adobe may have unilaterally done it themselves.

Adobe doesn't seem to support Flash after Android 4.1:
 "We recommend uninstalling Flash Player on devices which 
  have been upgraded to Android 4.1."

There is further information in this Adobe roadmap, which, confusingly,
does show Flash support well after Android 4.1 so it's a bit confusing:
 <https://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html>

But it seems that maybe it wasn't Google after all that dropped Flash.
For Android, it was perhaps unilaterally only Adobe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55274

In article <pm7si4$rot$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> 
> > they tried, but it didn't work very well and it was clear that the
> > future was html5. their resources were better spent elsewhere.
> 
> This is one of the rare times your guesses are probably correct.

it's not a guess.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55278

On 29 Aug 2018 21:55:52 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> This is one of the rare times your guesses are probably correct.
> 
> it's not a guess.

You're not like a normal adult nospam, as you're much closer to the child
mindset of Alan Baker and Jolly Roger. 

You're different than both though, as Alan Baker is literally an idiot,
while Jolly Roger is as dumb as Alan Baker but at least Jolly Roger has
some minor technical skills. 

You don't have any technical skills but sometimes you seem up to date on
Apple but most of the time you are dead wrong. In fact, you're dead wrong
so many times that even when you might guess right, every single guess from
you has to be fact checked since you have zero credibility.

My credibility is stellar on facts simply becasue when I guess I say it's a
guess, like my guess that you're responding to - which is a guess that
maybe Google didn't announce any ending for flash on Android - maybe it was
only Adobe.

Notice my guesses are backed up by references, and notice I state that it's
a guess.

Yours are almost never backed up by any references. 
You state all your guesses as if they are fact.
And yet, almost all the time, you're dead wrong.

The fact you don't care one whit about your utter lack of credibility is
what makes me feel very strongly that you lack any semblance of formal
education. I'm well educated, as is sms - where we were *taught* not to
guess on everything we write. 

We were taught you speak facts and to back up our guesses with facts.
You were never taught either.

Hence, you just guess - where - almost all the time - you guess wrong.
The facts show it clearly.

You can't find a single instance in my thousand of posts where my facts are
wrong - or - where if pointed out - I don't immediately agree with the
clarifications (as I did with the Adobe release date of Flash).

All logical adults agree with facts.
Facts are funny that way.

It seems that you & the other Apple Apologists are often immune to facts.
Apple Apologists are funny that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55197

In article <pm1u89$i14$1@gioia.aioe.org>, joe <none@domain.invalid>
wrote:

> >, it's a fact that you
> > can pick up, today, the APK for Flash from the official web site.
> 
> How old is that apk 

it will be 5 years in two weeks.

> and how many unpatched vulnerabilities does it have?

850 known exploits listed, going back to september 24, 2013 (page 17):
<https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-53/product_id-6
761/Adobe-Flash-Player.html>

and that's assuming something that old will even work on recent
versions of android. 

<https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.
html>
  On September 10 2013, Adobe released Flash Player 11.1.111.73 for
  Android 2.x and 3.x and 11.1.115.81 for Android 4.0.x in keeping with
  statements made in Adobe's publicly available Flash Roadmap. This
  release is the final update release of Flash Player for the Android
  operating system.

<http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-upd
ate.html>
  Devices that don¹t have the Flash Player provided by the manufacturer
  typically are uncertified, meaning the manufacturer has not completed
  the certification testing requirements. In many cases users of
  uncertified devices have been able to download the Flash Player from
  the Google Play Store, and in most cases it worked. However, with
  Android 4.1 this is no longer going to be the case, as we have not
  continued developing and testing Flash Player for this new version of
  Android and its available browser options.  There will be no
  certified implementations of Flash Player for Android 4.1.
...
  If a device is upgraded from Android 4.0 to Android 4.1, the current
  version of Flash Player may exhibit unpredictable behavior, as it is
  not certified for use with Android 4.1.  Future updates to Flash
  Player will not work.  We recommend uninstalling Flash Player on
  devices which have been upgraded to Android 4.1.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web