Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Oct 2012 11:35 UTC
Permalink for comment 538560
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-05
Everyone should know by now that this is the same company that found themselves fighting the U.S. government over monopolistic anti-trust issues just over a decade ago. So it should be pretty obvious, despite their recent sneakiness, that if you choose them they should to be monitored like a baby. That really makes them no different than a company that blatantly does is stuff.
I would go as far as saying that no matter what company you consider doing business with, always do a background check. After all--when was the last time anyone got a job at some company that didn't require a thorough background check on all of their potential employees? Trust works both ways.
I automatically do not trust any company until they've been proven. That solves things for the most part.
BTW, Apple can be pretty subtle too. It seems that they used to be even more subtle, but that was when they were smaller. It really seems like Microsoft and Apple are trading places in the way they pull off questionable moves.