backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by Kurz.. on Jan 31 at 9:49 AM


Americans are the most fearful of government monitoring online.  (Source: Opera Software ASA/YouGov)

Americans were quite confident their passwords were strong, though.  (Source: Opera Software ASA/YouGov)

Opera has approved a Web of Trust extension for its browser.  (Source: Opera Software ASA)
Study also shows men have slightly different browsing security tendencies than women

In honor of Data Privacy Day 2011, Norwegian browser-maker Opera Software ASA has released a security study [press release].  The study offers some pretty humorous and intriguing statistics.

The study finds that more Americans worry about their online privacy being violated (25 percent) than going bankrupt (23 percent) or losing their job (22 percent).  

Also Americans appeared to be the most fearful of their government.  Of the three web-heavy nations studied -- the U.S., Japan, and Russia -- Americans were by far the most fearful of the government monitoring their online activities.  Over 35 percent said they were the most worried about the government having too much insight into their online activities, versus only 14 percent in Russia and 7 percent in Japan.

Still, Americans appeared to be generally more confident than their security savvy than their foreign peers.  The results show 61 percent of Americans surveyed believed their passwords were very secure, versus only ~50 percent and ~26 percent in Russia and Japan, respectively.  Americans also deleted their web histories most often and were second only to the Russians in antivirus use percentage (79 percent in the U.S.).

Interestingly there was some observed gender difference in terms of web browsing habits.  The study found 52 percent of men surveyed delete their web browsing history regularly, versus only 42 percent of women.

The survey was carried out via contractor YouGov and included over 1,000 participants over the age of 18 in each of the three countries examined.

In related news, Opera released a minor update -- 11.01 [download] [changelog] -- to its browser, fixing several security vulnerabilities, one of which was critical.  You can read more about that vulnerability here.

Opera also added support for a new extension [add-ons] that is popular on other browsers -- Web of Trust [press release].  The extensions offers user-submitted and expert reviews of sites' trustworthiness when you mouse-over a web-link.  The service also offers child safety ratings, to help prevent children from being exposed to inappropriate content online.

Vesa Perälä, CEO of WOT describes, "WOT brings transparency to the Web and makes it more difficult for unscrupulous site owners to operate. For example, the WOT community is better at detecting scam sites than automated systems alone, because it requires input from real consumers to identify bad customer service. We are pleased to make the WOT extension available as another line of defense for Opera users."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

None of this is really surprising
By amanojaku on 1/28/2011 1:08:57 PM , Rating: 5
Americans historically do not trust the government, which is probably why our government is as honest as it is. And there's plenty of evidence confirming bipartisan support for and initiation of invasive, normally-illegal monitoring. Other countries probably spy, but their people are used to being spied on and controlled, so it isn't as big a deal as it would be here.

As to why men clean up their history more than women: porn.




RE: None of this is really surprising
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/28/2011 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 5
Our government is honest? lol only if you cant tell truth from fiction.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By mcnabney on 1/28/2011 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 4
You don't get out of the US much. The American government is amazingly open,.... about 'most' things. Citizens in most nations already assume that they are being tracked at all times, so they don't worry about it.

Also, it is based mostly upon the fear that someone fill find out about the fetish porn that Dad checks out once mommy goes to bed...


By Shadowmaster625 on 1/28/2011 3:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
citizens in this nation assume they are being tracked at all times too. Except for the really dumb ones in the bowels of facebook.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By TSS on 1/28/2011 5:33:30 PM , Rating: 5
Open is not honest. China is probably more honest. Their violating human rights, but their not denying it, their simply telling other countries to mind their own business. Doesn't make it right, but it's not dishonest.

In the US though the government puts out a plethora of statistics about everything you want to know about the government and i doubt even a single one isn't manipulated in some way. I guess the best one would be the unemployment statistic. I hear it drops people who've been unemployed for longer then, what was is, a year? and those who've stopped looking? How is that honest? How is beeing more then 1 year unemployed, not unemployed?

Not saying there aren't countries where it's worse, but it's certainly not amongst the most honest of nations.

I agree the militairy is open though. Want to know where the next offence will be? Just watch cnn. Also agree on the porn thing, but that's kind of universally known :p

Also don't count out the fact that in some nations, prime example beeing japan, people by tradition don't question authority and are very loyal, thus less likely to distrust their government.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By mikeyD95125 on 1/29/2011 4:31:58 AM , Rating: 3
Unemployment only counts people in the labor force. If you don't want to work, or have given up looking for work, then you are not in the pool up potential labor. Therefore you are not counted as unemployed.


By chick0n on 1/29/2011 9:29:41 AM , Rating: 1
but the problem is that, he/she was unemployed in the first place, why count that person out ? Just he/she been out of the job for too long and "you think" he/she is no longer looking for one?

thats because the Economy is in total chaos. but oh wait, the government keep telling us that "its improving", my ASS. thats a big fat lie and everybody knows it.

Our government is honest? hmm yea. sure. I think we have the "worst" government. sure they're honest, they will tell you "what they think you need to know", not "what you should know"


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Flunk on 1/28/2011 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
In comparison to the governments or Iran, Egypt, North Korea, China... I can keep going but you get my point. There are a lot of places with less honest governments than the USA.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/28/2011 2:09:50 PM , Rating: 5
On what degree?
CIA has started revolutions by funding radicals all over Latin America.

Seriously, I trust no Government no matter how small.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By invidious on 1/28/2011 5:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing in the constitution protecting the rights of citizens in other nations.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 10:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Though the government should have an interest in not pissing off entire populations of people that have a tendency of doing sucidal attacks against us.

Doing something Evil to another people does not make them like us. Internal Affairs of country is something we should not be part of.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By dgingeri on 1/28/2011 2:54:19 PM , Rating: 5
I'm glad there are a great many people who don't trust the government. That's good for a democracy. My question is why do people keep giving them more power? We need to greatly restrict the power of the government before it's too late. We, the people, still have that power, but not for much longer if things keep up.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/28/2011 3:27:32 PM , Rating: 4
Problem is there is a fair share of people who believe Government is a positive force and will strive to protect it. Plus the millions of Government Employee's that work and vote for the government.

Tea party, Libertarians are going to have to step up in force to educate and push for limited government. Though I think the damage has been done.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By ClownPuncher on 1/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/28/2011 4:11:14 PM , Rating: 4
I mean I am not happy with the Tea Party.

I being Libertarian, see the Tea Party at least inciting the populous to question authority and hopefully look into history and do their own reading and seek information of why we are in such a mess.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By dgingeri on 1/28/2011 4:27:37 PM , Rating: 4
I think I'd fit more in line to your interpretation of a Libertarian.

I don't understand what people have against those of us who want the government to stay out of our lives unless we have a problem. I don't believe the government is around to make our lives easier. That just leads to lazy people letting down their guard and letting the power mongers to take control.

My beliefs for the place for government:
1. enforce laws to keep people from taking advantage of the weak - murder, theft, fraud, drug dealing, harmful products
2. keep foreign powers from taking over the country - border patrol and protection, anti-smuggling, limited foreign relations
3. keep internal powers from taking too much power over the government or the people - anti-trust, anti-competitive marketing tactics (no one entity should have full control over one market, or the whole system collapses.)

That's it. No "redistribution of wealth" because that interferes with the drive to do more, on both ends of the spectrum, then the society collapses. No "regulation" except in cases to prevent monopolies, as this gives the government too heavy of a hand. Certainly no government sponsored research. That should be handled by market forces. If it is profitable, it will happen. If it is not, we don't need to be researching it.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By roykahn on 1/28/2011 5:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No "regulation"


Don't you realise that the US and many other countries are facing major problems precisely because of poor or no regulations? A free market just rewards the most greedy elements of society. When greed is allowed to rule, then humans suffer. You should step out of your economics class and see how the world is actually affected when human and corporate greed are unregulated. Market forces do not care about the suffering of millions of people.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/28/2011 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
LOL so missinformed.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By roykahn on 1/29/2011 7:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
LOL that's a relief.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 8:14:25 AM , Rating: 4
Who controls the money supply (And constantly inflates it to suit its needs)?
Who decides the Economic policy of a nation?
Who has the ability to subsidize and choose the winners in a free market?

I could go on...


RE: None of this is really surprising
By tamalero on 1/29/2011 10:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
almost every central bank is not controlled by the governament, they're controlled by a group and representatives of all the mayor banks.
and its run like a goodamn company, not a governament service.

and the greed thing this person mentioned before..is correct.
when you have 2-3 companies that control everything (its called corporative feudalism)
they can control the lives of everyone and manage them at their will.. the current modern example is Chinese Foxcoonn factory cities..
they're completely controlled by the foxconn company.
the same way now you can get fired for saying any opinion of your company or worse.. fired because you have different opinion or political affiliation than "what the CEO likes.."
price fixing, fraud (some extreme cases in the insurance companies).

the extreme cases of capitalism based in greed (all banks raising and hiding surcharges at same time.., a)
the saddest part of it is the "resonance" of choices of companies to agree with what others do to extract more money from the consumer, eliminating options..
example.. the supposed "unlimited" internet bull that many internet companies are pulling, now everything seems to be tiered, everyone moving to non-unlimited but byquota mechanism. thus you have not oher place to go since they're all the same.. so the sence of "option" is artificial.
same goes with the incesant merges and company adquissitions.. they just eat up all the smaller ones, lay off their workers.. and create huge monopoly stations where they cannot be challenged (examples are TELMEX of Mexico, and many ISPS in the USA who are unique on their sections, and do their best to block in any way any surging third party company)

id explain better and more detailed but I'm really sleepy currently.

anyway my point is.. pure capitalism is NEVER GOOD nor pure socialism, etc..etc... greed rules over the general concensus and always gives the "GO AHEAD" for one to get all the money in basis of "ohh, more wealth produceed is good for everyone" ( even if only one gets it all).
the key point is BALANCE.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 3
You are completely forgetting how these corporations get into these situations. ISP's in your example have been protected in their markets in the USA. Local governments only allow one Telecom for each major technology (Telephone, Cable, Fiber) in most areas.

Government is often protecting companies which leads to them to having their monopolistic control on the market.

Greed is subjective... You can't quantify greed so leave greed out of your argument.

In Capitalism you should have the ability to charge whatever you want for your product/service. It only becomes a problem when government comes in and claims to protect interests of a group of people.

WE DON'T have Capitalism... We have Corporatism.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By roykahn on 1/30/2011 7:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It only becomes a problem when government comes in and claims to protect interests of a group of people.


Even if the group of people is 99.9% of the population?

I sense that some commentators here think that governments should be limited to critical functions only and let market forces decide the fate of mankind. I believe that's called market fundamentalism. I think the main mistake such commentators make is that they see the US government and corporations as two separate entities.

As the decades have gone by, corporations and been granted more power and political influence. Only a very small reason for this is "protecting companies". Most of it is caused by removing regulations and the emergence of business rights trumping human rights. If the US government was more concerned with human rights then the world would be a much better place. Of course, the same applies to foreign governments as well.

Just look at the attempted austerity measures in the UK, Ireland, Greece, and even in America. Capitalism has been a failure. More regulations are needed so that society as a whole is not harmed by uncontrolled greed. It's also individual greed, like not paying one's taxes. Riots and protests are happening in many countries over such issues. There aren't so many complaints in the US because people have been brought up to believe that greed is good. Individualism is the height of human ambition. If only you work hard enough, then you too will make it big. It's an interesting topic. We should discuss it over tea one day :-)

I know I'm not going to change your opinion, but you should at least realise that many people do not agree with you.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/30/2011 10:19:45 AM , Rating: 3
Even when the Group of people is 99.9 of the population. What you are advocating is Collectivism where a group of people is seen with more rights than an Individual. I am an Individualist, I believe Individuals first. We approach the problems today because Groups are given the right to infringe on rights of individuals solely because they have more people in the group. This group centric philosophy is a moral hazard which leads to what we have today (What we have is a failing economy, Increased wealth disparity, Loss of Individual rights).

US government gives corporations their rights to do what they do. Without Government influence with law, corporations would never have so much power.

The only way to get the US government to respect individual rights is to diminish its power and allow individuals more power.

You can't just cut Public programs, you have to cut taxes, Cut back laws. Allow Private enterprise to come in and compete where the government stop providing. That's why Austerity fails.

Cut greed out of your argument... you cant quantify greed. Since everyone can be seen as greedy if you move the Goal posts enough.

How has capitalism has failed? I ask and you best provide examples of how its failed.

Many people may not agree with me however a growing number are. Though if you want to know more about Libertarianism you should read up/view on Milton Friedman (Youtube it) I find my views closely match his.

I love his youtube on greed 'Milton Friedman Greed'.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By roykahn on 1/30/2011 10:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Economists come up with theories and models. I've completed an economics degree so I'm not unfamiliar with the field. There are a number of reasons why many economists can't be trusted. My memory of Milton Friedman is not very good, but I still remember that most economic theories rely on assumptions. The most incorrect assumption is about market knowledge and flow of information. It assumes that all investors have equal knowledge and that there are no market secrets. Real world is very different. Economic models and theories do a poor job of taking into consideration the impact on humans and environment.

I don't know how anyone can dare say that there should be less regulation after the recent financial crisis that was basically caused by financial industries and poor regulations. A report was recently released by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Here's part of it from a commissioner:

quote:
"The Federal Reserve was clearly the steward of lending standards in this country. They chose not to act. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York certainly could have reined in what was being done in some of the large money-center banks in New York. I mean, on and on and on, regulator after regulator, they either chose not to act or turned a blind eye to what was actually going on. So it’s less about a particular individual than a systematic sense of deregulation and inaction by those who were in power to take action."


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/31/2011 9:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
So why should we trust imperfect invidividuals to make the correct decision with the money supply? What I am stating is a complete reform of our money supply and banking system. Our current system is just a mess that requires a constant influx of debt and money creation to keep it going. Its reaching a point of exponential inflation.

Before we had central banking everything was decentralized. Prices were stable and banking crisis were localized. It took the acts of 1862 1863 to change our banking system to fractional reserve banking which opened pandora's box. Then bank crisis became more common and we started to have the Business cycle of booms and busts.

The market has this inate ability to compensate on its own.
Though when everything is centralized in the banking system it literally puts a strangle hold on the market giving it little ability to recover and compensate for anything.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By ebakke on 1/30/2011 3:05:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't you realise that the US and many other countries are facing major problems precisely because of poor or no regulations?
I'll bite. What industry is it, exactly, that is completely unregulated in the US? I have yet to find a single one.


By roykahn on 1/30/2011 7:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, no need to bite! :) It would've been more accurate if I wrote "no regulations in certain business activities." My mistake.


By ClownPuncher on 1/28/2011 6:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, to a degree it does have to do with interpretation. However, populism (Tea Party) is the opposite of individualism (libertarianism). Yet both parties tend towards the more conservative side of things, with an obvious nod to "classical liberalism" (think Jefferson) in Libertarianism and a more traditional Republican Conservative slant with the Tea Party (think Reagan).

These are pretty much just generalities, though. But there is a pretty significant difference between the two.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/28/2011 3:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people keep "giving them more power"? It's called welfare. Both corporate and social welfare. The US is the biggest socialist nanny welfare state ever conceived. And now over a hundred million are dependent on taxpayer money for a living. Obviously there is not enough taxes to pay all the leeches. But that is what the printing press is for. There can only be one outcome of this, but that wont stop the leeches from enjoying their slide down the toilet bowl.


By dgingeri on 1/28/2011 4:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
I wish the US was the biggest nanny state, as we would be better equipped to smack that behavior down. Unfortunately, most of Europe is worse, and a lot of people look to Europe and say "they're better than us, we need to be like them" while Europe slowly declines into oblivion. As stupid as people are, there are far too many stupid ones that keep pushing for our destruction just so they can get their free lunch.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By roykahn on 1/28/2011 5:51:43 PM , Rating: 1
Simply amazing. I can't imagine anyone claiming that America is a socialist country, and yet, here we have one such deluded individual.

Please explain how your statement can be true given the following:

- Over the past few decades, CEO's have increased their share of wealth sevenfold compared to the average worker.
- 1% of Americans earn 80% of the nation's total after-tax income.
- The top 1% own 70% of financial assets
- 400 Americans have more wealth than 155 million Americans combined (50% of the population)

It's amazing how America continues its slide down the inequality path (e.g. Obama extending the Bush-era corporate tax cuts) and yet we have opinions that the opposite is happening. If the American tax system was more fair, then you'd see the rich getting taxed more so that there would be enough money for social services like welfare. The answer is not to cut welfare, the answer is to increase taxes appropriately. Try redirecting your anger to the correct source of America's problems.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 8:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
Why should we tax the most productive part of society?
Let them use the money since they'll probably invest and spend the money much more wisely than the government ever could.

The source of America's problems stems from the entity that can force you to do anything they want through laws, regulations, IE coercion.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By tamalero on 1/29/2011 10:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
what stops them from thinking in the greedy way of saving money and.. you know.. do what they're doing now...
spending the money in some place like china where they can get everything of lower quality but tons of times cheaper..

with no regulations everyone will abuse of the system (like they're doing right now hardcore)

you're confusing a corrupt governament than a good governament.
a good governament is supposed to protect their citizens from abuse.
what is happening right now is the inversed.. protecting the corporations out of greed. (RIAA, ACTA, MPAA, GOLDMAN SACHS)
the whole "deregularization" to let dumb advanced schemes designed to desestabilice the economy (the whole variables added to smuck up and inflate up the hosing market with super complex formula based shares).
if you leave an hole, the greedy ones will always use it for their advantage.
if you make more holes.. you really think they wont exploit them?
like I said before, the best way to go is a balanced state.

good luck trying to find a "choice" when all monopolies conspire for price fixing and other things.. with a fake sense of "choice" and the governament will then be too weak to defend you. (see many African nations, where they have to do the will of the big euro or american companies exploiting their resources, if not, they do make wars to remove said governaments)


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 11:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
The Money doesn't dissappear... The money comes back and China uses US Dollars to invest in our economy. Further stimulating our economy.

The System is only being abused because government gives Corporations avenues to abuse people. Having Protection against competition, Corn Lobby, Auto Lobby, Health Insurance Lobby.

Government is the reason WE HAVE MONOPOLIES.
They prevent choices everytime they pass laws. Government in itself is a monopoly of coercion. How has government ever been weak? All I see is government getting bigger and more powerful over our day to day lifes.

African Countries only do business with us because its Beneficial to do so! There is no such thing as exploitation.
You need two parties to agree to a deal.
If you agree to paint my house for $1 how is that exploitation?


RE: None of this is really surprising
By roykahn on 1/29/2011 4:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
There's much that I can respond to, but I'll just focus on the exploitation topic as those comments of yours were the most incorrect.

African countries have been exploited for hundreds of years. England, Italy, France, Spain, USA, etc. have all exploited the labour and natural resources from Africa. It wasn't business, it was exploitation. Slavery, deforestation, water pollution, soil degradation are not signs good business. Is it good to earn under $1 per day while also not having clean water?

Globalization and the IMF have also accelerated the suffering of African nations. Negotations and agreements are made by the world's elite (government and multinational corporations) with no representation for the local population or environment. African nations have a history of corrupt leadership that are backed by foreign powers, which is obviously still the case in many nations. The foreign powers will also provide military equipment and training to the corrput leadership in exchange for exploiting cheap labour and resources. Negotiations are made for the benefit of those in power. They'll take as much as they can get away with while trying to convince others that their actions are justifiable or simply hiding their actions.

I'm sorry to say this, but you should really learn some history and the way the world currently operates because it sounds like you're basing your arguments off some bad sources.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 7:41:56 PM , Rating: 3
Are these 'rich' nations coming in with force?
Isn't there a mutual agreement between two parties?
Then there is no exploitation.

Slavery, Deforestation, Water Pollution, Soil Degradation are all signs of Poverty not Exploitation.

Why did Slavery end in the developing world? Because enough wealth, investment, and capital was reached in order to end it. Slavery became inefficient when put up against Industrialization.

All those environmental protection laws cost money. Money is something that Africans don't have much of. They rather worry about Food, Water and saving so they can eventually reach a level of prosperity.

By us investing in them their standard of living is going up. They are glad they are able to work for that $1 a day. before they might have been making pennies a day.

Why should others care if one business owns a stretch of land and he is calling in a foreign business to come in and invest so he can sell the resources? Why should government get involved. The government doesn't own the land the property holder owns it.

I can understand air pollution since thats common property, however again that can make them uncompetitive to the rest of the world. Its expensive in order to have strict air pollution laws.

Corrupt leadership getting guns and training? Well that's a corrupt government not our fault. The people there should be revolting and pushing for a Limited government based on liberty like ours (Though we lost sight of). If we want to do business deals we have to carter to the needs of the other party. If the guy is a Drug Lord then we have to negotiate till everyone is happy.

I do know history, I just have a different interpretation on the world than you do. Though you should learn about Economics, Consequences of policies, Be able to see the difference between Correlation and Causation.

I can see you probably think everyone should be prosperous.
Being Prosperous takes hundreds of years, it takes a lot of time and money to build up that wealth (Wealth is Property, Education, Private Infrastructure). It requires a clear sense of Property rights and it takes a limited government that doesn't impede on the rights of its citizens (Look at Somalia when they went Anarchy for a short period They went through a boon). Free Market is a boon to any economy.


By CowKing on 1/29/2011 2:02:44 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously, when people say the government has to much power it boggles my mind as to what their talking about. "OH WHAT HAPPENED TO 'MERICA? We've changed into a socialist nation!!!!1!one!" We've ALWAYS had socialism. In fact, there are some things capitalism just can't do i.e Utilities, education, police, fireman. Those are called natural monopolies, or should we go back to before they were socialized with the "police and fire departments" acting like mafia gangs forcing people and businesses to pay for their services or there might be an "accident". Socialism has it's place and so does capitalism, but to say that socialism will end nations just shows how little you know about both systems. Instead of just listening to the corporate funded tea-baggers you should probably learn about what you're hating instead of just spouting off talking points like they aren't opinions.


RE: None of this is really surprising
By CowKing on 1/29/2011 2:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
You know what's REALLY good for our Democratic Republic? Education.


By roykahn on 1/29/2011 7:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
Education and a fully functioning media. Democracy is reliant on freedom of press. When the public are not aware of the corruption and lies of the ruling class and government, then democracy dies. Just look at the American mass media. It is failing the American public. Look at the effect Wikileaks has had. It has shamed corrupt governments and has rightly ignited public dissent. It has also exposed how worthless the American mass media is and how much information is hidden from the public.


By bubbastrangelove on 1/28/2011 5:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Since government is historically corrupt and ambiguous I for perceive this as a positive American idiosyncrasy.


By FaceMaster on 1/29/2011 12:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which is probably why our government is as honest as I think it is


Fixed.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki