deannnnn
May 3, 10:24 PM
I'll buy one when it gets a capacitive pressure based screen/stylus (Like the HTC Flyer)
You're getting negative votes on your post just because people here know that Apple will never do that, but I think I have to agree with you. I mean I own the iPad 1 now and love it, but I'd love it even more if I could write on it with a pen. It would be amazing for taking notes. I can't take notes by typing on the thing, I still have to bring a notebook (as in an actual notebook, made of paper lol) or my MacBook.
You're getting negative votes on your post just because people here know that Apple will never do that, but I think I have to agree with you. I mean I own the iPad 1 now and love it, but I'd love it even more if I could write on it with a pen. It would be amazing for taking notes. I can't take notes by typing on the thing, I still have to bring a notebook (as in an actual notebook, made of paper lol) or my MacBook.
Rookies1000
Mar 17, 07:36 AM
That's pretty low and the need to come here and brag about it. Great if you can live with yourself, I couldnt
Patrick J
Apr 30, 09:20 AM
more like late 2012. milestone 2 already leaked
Yep.
Microsoft sorted out the Windows team, they will be doing much more frequent updates now. Same applies to Internet Explorer.
Yep.
Microsoft sorted out the Windows team, they will be doing much more frequent updates now. Same applies to Internet Explorer.
mw360
Apr 6, 09:40 AM
What makes them worthless?
Anyway, you live by the Apple you die by the Apple. Your choice to make your choices theirs.
They're worthless because the user's likelihood of clicking on each iAd is not related to the user's interest in the product. They'll probably just click on all of them, just to see what they look like.
That's a really bad platform for advertisers, where they're basically paying per click to exhibit to a very cynical audience (eg rival advertisers, agencies etc).
Anyway, you live by the Apple you die by the Apple. Your choice to make your choices theirs.
They're worthless because the user's likelihood of clicking on each iAd is not related to the user's interest in the product. They'll probably just click on all of them, just to see what they look like.
That's a really bad platform for advertisers, where they're basically paying per click to exhibit to a very cynical audience (eg rival advertisers, agencies etc).
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
eastercat
May 3, 04:03 PM
I'd still argue that communism isn't really open because it's a top down government, but in theory it is more open than it is in reality.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I was referring to things that work in theory and not in practice. Now that you have me going about it though, communism is, in theory, open and in practice, not open.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I was referring to things that work in theory and not in practice. Now that you have me going about it though, communism is, in theory, open and in practice, not open.
leekohler
Apr 26, 10:24 AM
He is a male, just like me, I can't believe you don't understand that...
He thinks he is female which is a whole other thing
Oh boy- the ignorance displayed in this forum sometimes can be staggering.
I bolded a key word in your quote. IMO
I'm not looking to stir anything up, so stop insinuating.
Just because I have a different opinion from you doesn't justify your annoying statement, "your act is wearing thin"
Really guy? I could care less about what you think so stop -__-
You certainly do come off as less than compassionate. That's for sure.
He thinks he is female which is a whole other thing
Oh boy- the ignorance displayed in this forum sometimes can be staggering.
I bolded a key word in your quote. IMO
I'm not looking to stir anything up, so stop insinuating.
Just because I have a different opinion from you doesn't justify your annoying statement, "your act is wearing thin"
Really guy? I could care less about what you think so stop -__-
You certainly do come off as less than compassionate. That's for sure.
dmr727
Aug 9, 05:33 PM
I completely agree with your position that we should have access to the efficient and modern diesels in this country.
I hear this comment all the time. I was in Europe a few months back, and diesels were all over the place too. I don't know squat about the automotive industry, but given what you guys are saying about diesel's efficiency and so on - it seems to me that offering a modern diesel would be a slam dunk for an automaker in the States.
So it begs the questions - why isn't it happening?
I hear this comment all the time. I was in Europe a few months back, and diesels were all over the place too. I don't know squat about the automotive industry, but given what you guys are saying about diesel's efficiency and so on - it seems to me that offering a modern diesel would be a slam dunk for an automaker in the States.
So it begs the questions - why isn't it happening?
rhett7660
Apr 22, 10:15 AM
Boy I can't wait to see this used on some of the posts by certain members. This is going to be down right comical. Nothing like seeing a -54 on a post. :D
tayloner182
Sep 28, 12:33 PM
The house is a little bigger than those drawings depict, as there are stairs leading to a downstairs that is not shown. Probably to the 5th bedroom that is mentioned, likely a downstairs guest room of sorts or something.
Agree with everyone else though. Simple, not over the top. I like.
Agree with everyone else though. Simple, not over the top. I like.
zeroh3ro
Apr 9, 03:28 AM
http://img.game.co.uk/ml/3/5/3/6/353636ps_500h.jpg
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Don't you mean "Oh yay, another rip off of Steam, XBLA store, Impulse, Gamersgate, PSN, WiiWare or [insert any of the other app download stores that existed years before any of Apple's download stores]."
Hmm?
How quickly they forget, or most likely never knew. Some here think that Apple invented the wheel. :D
Back on topic, I hope that Microsoft listens to their users and lets everyone who want to download the beta and give their feedback. It seems to have worked well for W7.
Hmm?
How quickly they forget, or most likely never knew. Some here think that Apple invented the wheel. :D
Back on topic, I hope that Microsoft listens to their users and lets everyone who want to download the beta and give their feedback. It seems to have worked well for W7.
logandzwon
Mar 17, 08:39 AM
KARMA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
Anyway, if you actually care about the morality of your action, (or technically lack of action,) only you can decide if you did the right thing or not. If you sleep soundly at night then it wasn't immoral.
Ethically, your probably going to heat if you tell people about it. Modern-day ethics say stealing form an individual by a corporation is fine. An individual stealing from a corporation is bad.
Eitherway, it will not come out of his paycheck. However, if he is new he might be fired. If he has done it multiple times he might be fired. Realistically, if it wasn't you it would have been someone else though. We all make mistakes, but apparently that isn't the correct job for him.
BTW... I love all the post by people suggesting that to "fix" the issue by going back and lying about what happened.
Anyway, if you actually care about the morality of your action, (or technically lack of action,) only you can decide if you did the right thing or not. If you sleep soundly at night then it wasn't immoral.
Ethically, your probably going to heat if you tell people about it. Modern-day ethics say stealing form an individual by a corporation is fine. An individual stealing from a corporation is bad.
Eitherway, it will not come out of his paycheck. However, if he is new he might be fired. If he has done it multiple times he might be fired. Realistically, if it wasn't you it would have been someone else though. We all make mistakes, but apparently that isn't the correct job for him.
BTW... I love all the post by people suggesting that to "fix" the issue by going back and lying about what happened.
Leoff
Oct 29, 08:36 AM
Perhaps, (but I still maintain that it's 'easier' to run 'non-Apple' software on a Mac than it is to run OS X on 'non Apple' hardware. But it's true to say that calling Apple exclusively a 'hardware' or 'software' company is a little short sighted, so we're in agreement there.)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already :)
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
To clarify further:
We both agree. Apple is not a Hardware OR Software company. I was simply responding to the earlier rediculous notion that Apple is simply a Hardware company, which both you and I know it isn't. :)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already :)
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
To clarify further:
We both agree. Apple is not a Hardware OR Software company. I was simply responding to the earlier rediculous notion that Apple is simply a Hardware company, which both you and I know it isn't. :)
tny
Nov 16, 04:26 PM
Do they have to remake a new "Universal Binary?" Because aren't the current UB's for Intel and PPC? Please tell me they wont. I don't wnat to have to wait again for new UB's
No. The AMD processors we're talking about have the same instruction set as the Intel processors Apple is currently using; in fact, the 64 bit extensions were written by AMD, not Intel (Intel's original 64-bit solution is Itanium, which on the seamier side of the computer trade - for instance, in the Register - is called the Itanic, because it is still sinking; eventually, Intel was forced to adopt AMD's extensions because the architecture is more compatible with the Pentium/x86 architecture).
Such a switch would be comparable in terms of technological impact to the switch from IBM for the G3 to Motorola for the G4, and then to IBM for the G5.
Now, if Apple switched to Intel Itanium or (if it were ever released again) the Digital Alpha, yes, a new form of Universal Binary would be needed. I suspect that the Cell processor is not completely compatible with the G5, so it's possible that a switch to Cell would require a new form of UB, too.
No. The AMD processors we're talking about have the same instruction set as the Intel processors Apple is currently using; in fact, the 64 bit extensions were written by AMD, not Intel (Intel's original 64-bit solution is Itanium, which on the seamier side of the computer trade - for instance, in the Register - is called the Itanic, because it is still sinking; eventually, Intel was forced to adopt AMD's extensions because the architecture is more compatible with the Pentium/x86 architecture).
Such a switch would be comparable in terms of technological impact to the switch from IBM for the G3 to Motorola for the G4, and then to IBM for the G5.
Now, if Apple switched to Intel Itanium or (if it were ever released again) the Digital Alpha, yes, a new form of Universal Binary would be needed. I suspect that the Cell processor is not completely compatible with the G5, so it's possible that a switch to Cell would require a new form of UB, too.
Chundles
Sep 12, 03:26 AM
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
Oh, we broke it alright. Hey, I used to play Quake against a mate on a 33.6k dial-up connection and it did just fine....
At least my dial-up connection isn't all snobby like your high-speed connection. Mine's got it's feet firmly planted on the ground. Well, it's up to it's hips in mud really. I hate dial-up.
Oh, we broke it alright. Hey, I used to play Quake against a mate on a 33.6k dial-up connection and it did just fine....
At least my dial-up connection isn't all snobby like your high-speed connection. Mine's got it's feet firmly planted on the ground. Well, it's up to it's hips in mud really. I hate dial-up.
fastbite
Jan 12, 02:19 PM
Giz are just a bunch of prats. They want to play like a punk outfit fine, make music then and forget reporting tech stuff. grow up and buy a shaver.
snberk103
Apr 14, 09:19 PM
Just because hijackings are down doesn't mean that TSA is actually working. Since 9/11 we've had a guy who got c4 into his shoe, another who lit his underwear on fire...
Armstrong - Da Money Bag
Much Ado
Jan 9, 01:31 PM
someone posted the whole thing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
And don't ever do that again! :eek: :D :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
And don't ever do that again! :eek: :D :mad:
miamialley
Apr 8, 01:55 PM
I realize this is a rumor site, but posting conflicting rumors in the same day is getting obnoxious. Is there ANY fact checking at all?
Northgrove
Apr 29, 03:59 PM
rorschach: Thanks for the info! Good to hear that the lack of iOS-style scroll bars was a misreport. :)
I liked the lighter background color in the preferences more. :(
Especially since it didn't have to reverse the selected text color to white...
I liked the lighter background color in the preferences more. :(
Especially since it didn't have to reverse the selected text color to white...
twoodcc
Aug 14, 04:20 PM
well i added 2 more GPUs to my folding mix. i got a gtx 465 folding in the same rig as a gtx 260. it took awhile, but finally have them both folding with the gpu3 client. we'll see how it does
abhimat.gautam
May 3, 11:52 PM
Great ad, but the music seemed to fit completely with the "We Believe" ad and not really with this one.
WildCowboy
Jan 5, 08:38 AM
I would just keep checking that second URL to see if it's been posted. Possibly have an occasional look at the first URL just in case they decide to change their directory structure, but I highly doubt they would at this point.