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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #95100 > unrolled thread

Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201610.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-10-03 15:35 +0000
    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-03 16:12 +0000
      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 12:26 -0400
        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 12:36 -0400
          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 12:59 -0400
            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 13:16 -0400
              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Anonymous <nobody@roance.net> - 2016-10-03 17:30 -0400
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 15:22 -0700
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 18:38 -0400
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:20 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 22:51 -0400
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 23:56 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 20:55 -0700
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:10 -0400
                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-04 10:04 -0700
                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 14:21 -0400
                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 22:14 -0400
                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 23:14 -0400
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 16:06 -0700
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:29 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 20:55 -0700
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:12 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-10-04 10:03 -0400
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 10:17 -0400
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 09:44 -0500
          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 16:08 -0400
            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 16:31 -0400
            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 16:46 -0400
              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 18:26 -0400
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 18:38 -0400
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:25 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 21:08 -0700
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:24 -0400
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-04 14:22 -0600
                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-05 01:40 -0700
                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 11:05 -0600
                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 16:18 -0400
                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 22:45 +0200
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 16:50 -0400
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 16:53 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:15 -0400
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-06 09:22 -0400
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:50 -0400
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:07 +0200
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 17:08 -0400
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:17 +0200
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:22 -0400
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:05 -0600
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:07 -0600
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:22 -0600
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0400
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 09:47 -0400
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:08 -0400
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-10-06 15:07 +0100
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0600
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 10:33 -0700
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 16:43 -0400
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 16:48 -0400
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 14:56 -0700
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:53 -0400
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:04 -0700
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:59 -0400
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:08 -0700
                                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:31 -0400
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:43 -0700
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-10-07 00:44 +0100
                                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 06:40 -0500
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 19:45 -0400
                                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:12 -0600
                                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
                                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:25 -0600
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 19:09 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:18 -0400
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:21 +0200
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:34 -0400
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:42 +0200
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:53 -0400
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:17 +0200
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 18:26 -0400
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:45 +0200
                                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:09 -0400
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 15:22 +0200
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:34 -0400
                                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:02 -0400
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:32 +0200
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-05 19:03 -0400
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:30 +0200
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:46 +0200
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:58 +0200
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:54 -0400
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 09:57 -0400
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:14 -0400
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 16:56 -0400
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:24 -0600
                                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:54 -0400
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:13 -0600
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 23:49 +0200
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:00 -0700
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 00:05 +0200
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:31 -0700
                                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:15 -0600
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
                                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-07 00:01 -0700
                                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:28 -0600
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:23 +0200
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-10-05 16:40 -0700
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-05 20:29 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:02 -0600
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:19 -0600
                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 16:51 -0400
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:04 +0200
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 17:05 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:16 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:16 +0200
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:10 -0600
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:21 -0600
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:27 -0600
                                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0700
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:00 -0400
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:09 -0700
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:36 -0400
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:42 -0700
                                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:20 -0600
                                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
                                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:31 -0600
                                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 14:43 -0400
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-05 22:07 -0700
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:22 -0600
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 10:36 -0700
                                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:32 -0600
                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:01 -0600
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:42 -0400
                            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:20 -0700
                              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:28 -0600
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2016-10-06 21:03 -0500
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-10-06 19:18 -0700
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-10-06 19:27 -0700
                                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:33 -0600
                                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 20:41 +0200
                                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 13:37 -0600
                                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-07 00:00 -0700
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 22:32 -0700
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:42 -0400
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 15:59 -0700
              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:16 -0400
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 22:51 -0400
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 23:51 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 23:55 -0400
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:21 -0400
                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 10:29 -0400
        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 10:26 -0700
          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:09 -0400
            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:19 -0700
              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:27 -0400
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:35 -0700
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:56 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:59 -0700
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 15:01 -0400
                      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:07 -0700
                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 15:35 -0400
                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:43 -0700
                        Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 15:36 -0400
                          Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:45 -0700
            Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 20:54 +0000
              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 17:17 -0400
              Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-03 16:48 -0600
                Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 22:55 +0000
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 19:04 -0400
                    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 23:17 +0000
                  Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-03 19:30 -0600
    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-03 16:01 -0600
      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-10-17 10:00 -0700
    Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 20:16 +0100
      Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 14:51 -0500

Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10  Next page →

#95382

On 10/06/2016 11:36 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2016-10-06 10:22 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 10/05/2016 11:07 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-05 5:10 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2016 02:51 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>>> In article <nt3n6r$2o2$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what
>>>>>> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple is happy
>>>>>> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I
>>>>>> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini
>>>>>> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even
>>>>>> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or
>>>>>> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_
>>>>>> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience
>>>>>> would be fantastic.
>>>>>
>>>>> that only means that you weren't memory bound.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is
>>>>>> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is
>>>>>> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less
>>>>>> implement.
>>>>>
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a
>>>> prompt then?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, because I can open it and get a prompt instantly.
>>
>> Well, what could cause the terminal prompt to take 7 seconds to appear?
>> That one I really like to know.
>> Wife is really starting to hate this new iMac.
>>
> 
> Create a brand-new user account and see if the behaviour persists.

I contacted Apple, and they didn't know, but suggested the same as you
have.  It didn't help.

So, I googled for the problem, due to a suspicion of a certain plist,
and I deleted the terminals plist and logged out, then logged back in.
The problem went away, and now the terminal snaps up like it should.
It's been that way from day one.  What I do suspect is that the old Time
Machine external drive had all of the old Snow Leopard files and plists
port over to El Capitan, and I believe that there is some kind of
compatibility issues.

The main last issue she has is when Mail using classic mode, and getting
an email with some photos, then printing those out, preview shows a
chopped up image or incomplete image.  The printer is a new HP 8610.
Not sure where to start investigating the problem yet.

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

#95312

On 10/05/2016 02:18 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 2016-10-05 1:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>
>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, not yet.
>>>
>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to
>>> adopt the latest thing.
>>>
>>> :-)
> 
>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow. 
>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or
>> a big SSD.
> 
> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what
> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. Apple is happy
> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I
> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini
> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even
> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or
> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_
> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience
> would be fantastic. Maybe things will change once the filesystem is
> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is
> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement.
> 

Well, the older iMac with snow leopard I had, it had a 5400 rpm drive in
it and it performed satisfactory.  It had 8Gb of ram, and only a
Core-Duo Intel.  Now it seems that Apple has missed something... could
it be the logic board isn't designed right?  Hard to tell.  One way to
tell is put Linux on it to find out.

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

#95334

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-05 8:01 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 10/05/2016 02:18 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>> On 2016-10-05 1:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra
>>>>> yet?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No, not yet.
>>>> 
>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush
>>>> to adopt the latest thing.
>>>> 
>>>> :-)
>> 
>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>>  Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard
>>> drive or a big SSD.
>> 
>> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter
>> what kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. Apple
>> is happy to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing
>> at all. I recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on
>> their Mac Mini to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD
>> in there but even that kind of old technology would work
>> relatively well with Linux or Windows on it. On the Mac?
>> Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ from 4GB to 8GB despiet
>> assurances from zealots that the experience would be fantastic.
>> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is replaced (did it
>> happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is something absolutely
>> no one at Apple can even spell much less implement.
>> 
> 
> Well, the older iMac with snow leopard I had, it had a 5400 rpm
> drive in it and it performed satisfactory.  It had 8Gb of ram, and
> only a Core-Duo Intel.  Now it seems that Apple has missed
> something... could it be the logic board isn't designed right?
> Hard to tell.  One way to tell is put Linux on it to find out.

Well, I imagine that Apple's motherboards are some of the crappier
ones on the market. I mean, even on the PC, if you buy a motherboard
from a garbage company, you won't be getting the kind of performance
you would get from the same CPU on an ASUS. It's quite possible that
whatever they use is limiting the potential of the chip.

- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.AI: @silverslimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9lTHAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uD/cH/0t6arIUXVXxwzrPVMHqT1by
V1oYnVkHLDeKtiKiXS6biUP5pXDTWVDkxXhjjsKUJLRdkNSXOUg1Tyny6TMXcSJq
kYgudyR9Rqpu5aQ6FGtmFw7+XeVEpZubcd/UfNkt6XlFsW1l8p2CrZ/mddGf/VGK
+ZVsuGqceZlqOFiJ5q3GnPQJqHX8UkIdvO9DoyPgx7dOjs4sLO/DLcMEjVihCZtr
nGLFDpSk5PwOkOG7qM1saytDIPm1WdOiKhhrdyFm0RLMimbTOlkHjM/ZuAscvmkS
shhzHoz00r+qeG8N6Lq42rSzQ4W4H44tRJbhyRi3GCwcb5ITwQ6ya6dDpigUsNk=
=pVpr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#95395

On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>
>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>
>>
>> No, not yet.
>>
>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt the
>> latest thing.
>>
>> :-)
>
> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
> big SSD.

I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's 
using your CPU...

>
> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of the
> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.

I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.


Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple 
Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image, and 
printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for me, 
if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and choose 
Print... again, it will printer properly.
>
> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>

I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer 
driver I select.

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

#95406

On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>
>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, not yet.
>>>
>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt the
>>> latest thing.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>> big SSD.
> 
> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
> using your CPU...
> 

I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
That would be a very good check.
I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.

>>
>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of the
>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
> 
> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
> 
> 
> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image, and
> printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for me,
> if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and choose
> Print... again, it will printer properly.

That is an oddity.  HP printer?

>>
>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>
> 
> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
> driver I select.

I take it you have more than one printer brand then.

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

#95407

On 10/6/2016 8:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, not yet.
>>>>
>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt the
>>>> latest thing.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>>> big SSD.
>>
>> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
>> using your CPU...
>>
>
> I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
> That would be a very good check.
> I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
> over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
> some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
> I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.
>
>>>
>>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of the
>>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
>>
>> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
>>
>>
>> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
>> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image, and
>> printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for me,
>> if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and choose
>> Print... again, it will printer properly.
>
> That is an oddity.  HP printer?
>
>>>
>>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>>
>>
>> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
>> driver I select.
>
> I take it you have more than one printer brand then.
>
>

Why are we discussing Apples problems on a Windows NG?

Rene

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

#95408

In article <nt6vp5$n0a$1@dont-email.me>,
 Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> Why are we discussing Apples problems on a Windows NG?
> 
Because some Windows trolls looking for a brawl cross-posted to four 
groups looking to start a brouhaha. The Mac people, who were the targets 
of the attack, seem unable to ignore trolls, and those who are replying 
to them haven't bothered to trim back the cross-posted groups. In 
fairness, some of the Mac people have said in the past that they enjoy 
making fun of visiting Windows trolls, and those who don't have likely 
filtered out the entire thread.
-- 
bill

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

#95413

On 2016-10-07 02:03:30 +0000, Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> said:

> On 10/6/2016 8:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, not yet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt the
>>>>> latest thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> :-)
>>>> 
>>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>>>> big SSD.
>>> 
>>> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
>>> using your CPU...
>>> 
>> 
>> I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
>> That would be a very good check.
>> I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
>> over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
>> some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
>> I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>>>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of the
>>>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
>>> 
>>> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
>>> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image, and
>>> printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for me,
>>> if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and choose
>>> Print... again, it will printer properly.
>> 
>> That is an oddity.  HP printer?
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
>>> driver I select.
>> 
>> I take it you have more than one printer brand then.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Why are we discussing Apples problems on a Windows NG?
> 
> Rene

Because the clown who originally started this thread, did so with a 
trollish X-post.
-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#95430

On 10/06/2016 08:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 10/6/2016 8:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, not yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt
>>>>> the
>>>>> latest thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>>>> big SSD.
>>>
>>> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
>>> using your CPU...
>>>
>>
>> I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
>> That would be a very good check.
>> I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
>> over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
>> some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
>> I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.
>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>>>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of
>>>> the
>>>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
>>>
>>> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
>>> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image, and
>>> printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for me,
>>> if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and choose
>>> Print... again, it will printer properly.
>>
>> That is an oddity.  HP printer?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
>>> driver I select.
>>
>> I take it you have more than one printer brand then.
>>
>>
> 
> Why are we discussing Apples problems on a Windows NG?
> 

I'm talking to Baker in CSMA.  The topic has obviously been
cross-posted.  I subscribe to  COLA.  You'll have to find out who cross
posted this topic.

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

#95431

GreyCloud wrote:

> On 10/06/2016 08:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 10/6/2016 8:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, not yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> latest thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>>>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>>>>> big SSD.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
>>>> using your CPU...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
>>> That would be a very good check.
>>> I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
>>> over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
>>> some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
>>> I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>>>>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of
>>>>> the
>>>>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
>>>>
>>>> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
>>>> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image,
>>>> and printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for
>>>> me, if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and
>>>> choose Print... again, it will printer properly.
>>>
>>> That is an oddity.  HP printer?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
>>>> driver I select.
>>>
>>> I take it you have more than one printer brand then.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Why are we discussing Apples problems on a Windows NG?
>> 
> 
> I'm talking to Baker in CSMA.  The topic has obviously been
> cross-posted.  I subscribe to  COLA.  You'll have to find out who cross
> posted this topic.

It was "Fritz Wuehler" the dizum coward

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

#95434

On 10/07/2016 12:41 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
> 
>> On 10/06/2016 08:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>> On 10/6/2016 8:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, not yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> latest thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>>>>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>>>>>> big SSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
>>>>> using your CPU...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
>>>> That would be a very good check.
>>>> I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
>>>> over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
>>>> some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
>>>> I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>>>>>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
>>>>> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image,
>>>>> and printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for
>>>>> me, if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and
>>>>> choose Print... again, it will printer properly.
>>>>
>>>> That is an oddity.  HP printer?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
>>>>> driver I select.
>>>>
>>>> I take it you have more than one printer brand then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are we discussing Apples problems on a Windows NG?
>>>
>>
>> I'm talking to Baker in CSMA.  The topic has obviously been
>> cross-posted.  I subscribe to  COLA.  You'll have to find out who cross
>> posted this topic.
> 
> It was "Fritz Wuehler" the dizum coward
> 

That explains a lot.  I posted, then looked.

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

#95416

On 2016-10-06 6:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 05:20 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2016-10-05 10:05 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, did it speed up any?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, not yet.
>>>>
>>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush to adopt the
>>>> latest thing.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> That's why I'm asking.  The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
>>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard drive or a
>>> big SSD.
>>
>> I suggest some investigation with Activity Monitor might reveal what's
>> using your CPU...
>>
>
> I'd need a list of what should be running in El Capitan.
> That would be a very good check.
> I've also, again, suspected something from Snow Leopard that was ported
> over to El Capitan.  It's starting to look that way.  I'll have to spend
> some time inside the root area and see what shouldn't be there.
> I've already tossed out a lot of old stuff as it is.
>
>>>
>>> BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
>>> the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of the
>>> photo?  We're having this problem on and off since last spring.
>>
>> I can't say, because I haven't printed a photo in a long time.
>>
>>
>> Interesting... I just tried this and on my system printing from Apple
>> Mail, it alternates between cutting off the lower half of the image, and
>> printing the whole thing. I don't know why it's happening, but for me,
>> if the image is cut off and a simply cancel the print dialog and choose
>> Print... again, it will printer properly.
>
> That is an oddity.  HP printer?
>
>>>
>>> Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?
>>>
>>
>> I doubt it, because it seems to happen irrespective of the printer
>> driver I select.
>
> I take it you have more than one printer brand then.
>
>

As I do tech support for a number of different clients I inevitably have 
at least half a dozen different printers set up at any given time.

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

#95229

In article <uqEIz.46340$Vf2.3746@fx04.iad>, Wolf K
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> If you get a lot from the community, you owe a lot to that community. Why? 
> Because without them you'd get nothing at all.

If one's effort creates jobs for a community that generates taxes for a
community and one pays the taxes the community thinks it is owed, how
is one a bad guy?
A person that makes a lot of money while playing within the community
rules is simply smarter and better than "you" are. Dealing with one's
own intellectual shortcomings is hard to accept. Few do. 
I know. I know! I came to terms with my own intellectual shortcomings
by the time I was thirty five. Deal with it. Envy is unhealthy, and
envy is the root of the insidious, rotten weed of progressivism.
Progressivism will evaporate instantly with the first nuke wherever you
may live. Enjoy your tomfoolery. I'm hoping to check out before the
obdurate stupidity you are buying into turns into world war. I might
even make it. I hope you do.

Have a good day,

leo

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

#95238

On 2016-10-04 01:32, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article <uqEIz.46340$Vf2.3746@fx04.iad>, Wolf K
> <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> If you get a lot from the community, you owe a lot to that community. Why?
>> Because without them you'd get nothing at all.
>
> If one's effort creates jobs for a community that generates taxes for a
> community and one pays the taxes the community thinks it is owed, how
> is one a bad guy?

That depends on what you think the purpose of the game is. if it's 
merely to win, well, you have a might-is-right society.

It depends also on who made the rules, and for whose benefit. The rules 
are stacked against "the little people". As Leona Helmsley famously said 
(when charged with tax evasion): "We don't pay taxes. Only the little 
people pay taxes."

> A person that makes a lot of money while playing within the community
> rules is simply smarter and better than "you" are. Dealing with one's
> own intellectual shortcomings is hard to accept. Few do.

Ah, yes, the old "If I'm smarter than you are I deserve to win" 
argument. Love it. I History shows that if you go that route, the 
brainless sooner or later realise that it's easy to turn a smart brain 
into pulp. they've done it repeatedly.

> I know. I know! I came to terms with my own intellectual shortcomings
> by the time I was thirty five. Deal with it. Envy is unhealthy, and
> envy is the root of the insidious, rotten weed of progressivism.
> Progressivism will evaporate instantly with the first nuke wherever you
> may live. Enjoy your tomfoolery. I'm hoping to check out before the
> obdurate stupidity you are buying into turns into world war. I might
> even make it. I hope you do.
>
> Have a good day,
>
> leo

That's the standard self-styled "libertarian" argument. Intellectually 
bankrupt. Read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience for the most cogent analysis 
of libertarianism. Note especially the irony in the first sentence of 
Civil Disobedience:

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs 
least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and 
systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I 
believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when 
men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they 
will have."

"... when men are prepared for it..."

Are they?

Have a good day,



Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

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

#95158

On 2016-10-03 3:26 PM, Mongoose wrote:
>
>
> "nospam"  wrote in message news:031020161646468484%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>
> In article <nsudqt$1oc$1@dont-email.me>, Mongoose
> <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Especially in the light of they don't pay any taxes.
>>
>> >apple pays a shitload of taxes.
>>
>> But not their fair share.
>
>> wrong. they pay every penny they're required to pay.
>
> At the expense of US taxpayers.
>
>> google, microsoft, facebook, intel and many others use the same tax
>> code in the same way, but as is typical with haters, they get a free
>> pass.
>
> The only haters here are Appholes like you.  No one really cares about
> google, microsoft, facebook, intel.  Only you Appholes make it your
> lifes work to defend an uncaring corporate entity.   Something must be
> lacking in your life.  Buy another Apple toy, it might assuage your
> discontent.

Wow.

You don't even get what you just said, do you?

"No one really cares about google, microsoft, facebook, intel."

So why do you care so much about Apple?

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

#95208

On 2016-10-03 16:46, nospam wrote:
> In article <nsudqt$1oc$1@dont-email.me>, Mongoose
> <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> wrote:
>
>>> > >
>>> > > Especially in the light of they don't pay any taxes.
>> >
>>> > >apple pays a shitload of taxes.
>> >
>> > But not their fair share.
> wrong. they pay every penny they're required to pay. [...]

True, but that's not the issue. "Fair" and "legal" aren't the same 
thing. "Acquitted" and "innocent" aren't the same thing. "Justice" and 
"law" aren't the same thing.

Have a good day,

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

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

#95215

In article <niEIz.8802$9A2.5438@fx09.iad>, Wolf K
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> >>> > > Especially in the light of they don't pay any taxes.
> >> >
> >>> > >apple pays a shitload of taxes.
> >> >
> >> > But not their fair share.
> > wrong. they pay every penny they're required to pay. [...]
> 
> True, but that's not the issue. 

yes it is the issue.

the claim is that apple has avoided or evaded paying taxes that they
owe. they have not avoided nor evaded anything. they paid what they
owe.

> "Fair" and "legal" aren't the same 
> thing. "Acquitted" and "innocent" aren't the same thing. "Justice" and 
> "law" aren't the same thing.

irrelevant and you don't get to decide what's fair anyway.

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

#95219

On 2016-10-03 22:51, nospam wrote:
> In article <niEIz.8802$9A2.5438@fx09.iad>, Wolf K
> <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Especially in the light of they don't pay any taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> apple pays a shitload of taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not their fair share.
>>> wrong. they pay every penny they're required to pay. [...]
>>
>> True, but that's not the issue.
>
> yes it is the issue.
>
> the claim is that apple has avoided or evaded paying taxes that they
> owe. they have not avoided nor evaded anything. they paid what they
> owe.

The issue is whether they paid their fair share, not whether they paid 
what they owe.

>> "Fair" and "legal" aren't the same
>> thing. "Acquitted" and "innocent" aren't the same thing. "Justice" and
>> "law" aren't the same thing.
>
> irrelevant

On the contrary, that's the nub of the issue. The fact that you don't 
get that indicates a gap in your education. BTW, I left out "convicted" 
and "guilty" aren't the same thing.

> and you don't get to decide what's fair anyway.

Now that's an irrelevant remark. Unless you're willing to accept that 
you don't get to decide, either.

have a good day,

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

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

#95222

In article <NGFIz.7785$iA2.4804@fx18.iad>, Wolf K
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> >>>>>>> Especially in the light of they don't pay any taxes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> apple pays a shitload of taxes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But not their fair share.
> >>> wrong. they pay every penny they're required to pay. [...]
> >>
> >> True, but that's not the issue.
> >
> > yes it is the issue.
> >
> > the claim is that apple has avoided or evaded paying taxes that they
> > owe. they have not avoided nor evaded anything. they paid what they
> > owe.
> 
> The issue is whether they paid their fair share, not whether they paid 
> what they owe.

they did pay their fair share.

> >> "Fair" and "legal" aren't the same
> >> thing. "Acquitted" and "innocent" aren't the same thing. "Justice" and
> >> "law" aren't the same thing.
> >
> > irrelevant
> 
> On the contrary, that's the nub of the issue. The fact that you don't 
> get that indicates a gap in your education. BTW, I left out "convicted" 
> and "guilty" aren't the same thing.

nope. it's irrelevant.

> > and you don't get to decide what's fair anyway.
> 
> Now that's an irrelevant remark. Unless you're willing to accept that 
> you don't get to decide, either.

i'm not deciding anything.

ireland decided what's fair when they came up with their tax code.

apple is in full compliance with irish tax law, as are plenty of other
companies.

the fact that you only criticize apple when everyone else does the same
thing tells all.

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

#95236

On 2016-10-03 23:55, nospam wrote:
> In article <NGFIz.7785$iA2.4804@fx18.iad>, Wolf K
> <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Especially in the light of they don't pay any taxes.
>>>>>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> apple pays a shitload of taxes.
>>>>>>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>> > >>>>> But not their fair share.
>>>>> > >>> wrong. they pay every penny they're required to pay. [...]
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> True, but that's not the issue.
>>> > >
>>> > > yes it is the issue.
>>> > >
>>> > > the claim is that apple has avoided or evaded paying taxes that they
>>> > > owe. they have not avoided nor evaded anything. they paid what they
>>> > > owe.
>> >
>> > The issue is whether they paid their fair share, not whether they paid
>> > what they owe.
> they did pay their fair share.

Only if "legal" equals "fair". It doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't need 
both words.

Read the Washington Post articles on the issue. On August 30, 2016, WP 
reported:
"Apple paid a tax rate of 1 percent or even less — 0.0005 percent, in 
some years —..."

WP also reports (repeatedly) that Ireland made a special deal with 
Apple. BTW, Luxembourg does the same kind of thing. The EU Commission is 
invoking a rule that says members are not permitted to offer special 
"state aid".

Have a good day,




-- 
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

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

Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web