 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / May 2007What about all of the data the OS stores about us?
Will someone please address the issue of all of the data caching that goes on in the OS (OSX.3.9, in my case). I would like to replace the files that do this with locked files or maybe with jpegs that can't be written to, or just eliminate them altogether. Is it possible to do this without screwing things up? Right now, I'm interested in eliminating the data in Safari that compares the address I am typing with previously accessed URL's. You know, the menu that drops as I type with guesses about what I'm typing. I notice that I can't delete any of these stored URL's. There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference these. These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, and I guess that the cached data is transmitted to Apple or to software companies during software updates. Is there an app that deals with this issue? > Will someone please address the issue of all of the data caching that > goes on in the OS (OSX.3.9, in my case). I would like to replace the > files that do this with locked files or maybe with jpegs that can't be > written to, or just eliminate them altogether. Is it possible to do > this without screwing things up? Not generically. And you don't even need the "without screwing things up" clause. There's no uniform way such information is stored so there's no central mechanism or simple technique to halt it across the board. > Right now, I'm interested in eliminating the data in Safari that > compares the address I am typing with previously accessed URL's. You > know, the menu that drops as I type with guesses about what I'm typing. > I notice that I can't delete any of these stored URL's. Why not? How have you tried and what has been the result? > There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference > these. These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, Depending on the specific plists and "scripts" you're talking about, I'd be surprised if there are any that aren't primarily there to help you in some way. > and I guess that the cached data is transmitted to Apple or to software > companies during software updates. Why do you guess that? G > > Will someone please address the issue of all of the data caching that > > goes on in the OS (OSX.3.9, in my case). I would like to replace the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not generically. And you don't even need the "without screwing things > up" clause. Thanks for your response. That statement "without screwing things up" indicates that I am operating above my level of competence. > There's no uniform way such information is stored so there's > no central mechanism or simple technique to halt it across the board. Why is it there, I'm wondering, and who gets it and for what purpose? The whole scheme is very elaborate, so I reckon the data is not just "there" and not for some purpose I'm not aware of and which might give me great concern under some circumstances since I'm very security conscious. Could it be that I don't understand the phenomenon because it was made to be that way? > > Right now, I'm interested in eliminating the data in Safari that > > compares the address I am typing with previously accessed URL's. You > > know, the menu that drops as I type with guesses about what I'm typing. > > I notice that I can't delete any of these stored URL's. > > Why not? How have you tried and what has been the result? I selected one of the URL's in the drop down menu and tried to delete it. No luck. It seems permanently hidden away in a file that gets larger by every URL that's different than URL's already cached. > > There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference > > these. These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, > > Depending on the specific plists and "scripts" you're talking about, I'd > be surprised if there are any that aren't primarily there to help you in > some way. That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm quite capable of using Safari without any additional help from cache and data files. Once in a while I can't get or do something because I have javascript disabled, but I feel more secure because there's some bad javascript out there. I don't need any data about my activities stored anyplace, especially since I worry that the data is made available to... to whom? I don't know. That's why I'm asking. > > and I guess that the cached data is transmitted to Apple or to software > > companies during software updates. > > Why do you guess that? I guess it because this is the information age and do we really know what Apple or other companies gets from our 'puters when we go to their servers? I've never seen any discussion about the information from cache and log files, and I cannot possibly be the only one who's wondering, so where are the people who know about these matters and try to deal with them? Again, thanks for responding. > > There's no uniform way such information is stored so there's > > no central mechanism or simple technique to halt it across the board. > > Why is it there, I'm wondering, To make your experience as a user more productive and less frustrating. > and who gets it Nobody. It's there so you don't have to wait as long next time you ask to see something you looked at yesterday as you did when you looked at it yesterday. It's there so you don't have to retype tedious information every time you go to a certain form, increasing your odds of data entry error. > and for what purpose? > The whole scheme is very elaborate, so I reckon the data is not just > "there" and not for some purpose I'm not aware of and which might give > me great concern under some circumstances since I'm very security > conscious. Could it be that I don't understand the phenomenon because > it was made to be that way? I'd say you don't understand it because you haven't really looked into it seriously. > > > Right now, I'm interested in eliminating the data in Safari that > > > compares the address I am typing with previously accessed URL's. You [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it. No luck. It seems permanently hidden away in a file that gets > larger by every URL that's different than URL's already cached. It caches, IIRC, every URL you've visited in the last week. You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL cache completely/immediately. > > > There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference > > > these. These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm quite capable of using Safari > without any additional help from cache and data files. Cache, I'll agree. It'll just be slower, and if you don't want the cache files there you can get rid of them from within Safari any time you like. Data files are a different matter, largely because _everything's_ a data file. Safari doesn't really keep a whole lot around aside from cached pages (which you can purge), auto-entry data (which you can purge and disable from accumulating) and settings (which you can change and time you like or even revert to factory defaults through a menu command). > > > and I guess that the cached data is transmitted to Apple or to software > > > companies during software updates. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what Apple or other companies gets from our 'puters when we go to their > servers? We do if we keep an eye on what's going (or trying to go) through the communication interfaces in our machines, and enough of "us" do that when some vendor tries to gather information silently we hear about it fairly quickly. You've guessed wrong, in this case. G > > and who gets it > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every time you go to a certain form, increasing your odds of data entry > error. Isn't that what bookmarks are for? > > and for what purpose? > > The whole scheme is very elaborate, so I reckon the data is not just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'd say you don't understand it because you haven't really looked into > it seriously. That's why I'm asking about it here. > > > > Right now, I'm interested in eliminating the data in Safari that > > > > compares the address I am typing with previously accessed URL's. > You can let > them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL cache > completely/immediately. I see _Safari > Reset Safari_ and _Safari > Empty Cache_, but I don't see an option to clear that URL cache. Please point me to that. > > > > There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference > > > > these. These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and disable from accumulating) and settings (which you can change and > time you like or even revert to factory defaults through a menu command). Okay, maybe _data files_ was a poor choice of words. And I'm not thinking entirely of Safari, but the many megs of data stored across the OS and applications that are stored in cache or log files. Could all of this simply be for my own convenience? Or is there another purpose to them? If these files are for my convenience only, wouldn't Apple give me a way to turn them off for my own peace of mind if only because people who use Macs are so security sensitive? Since they are persistent and pervasive, it's not a stretch to assume that they have another purpose, a purpose they aren't too up front about. If this sounds paranoid to you, then you have to consider that many people switched to the Mac platform out of security concerns about the evil empire. You'd think that Apple would simply tell us about the log/cache files and exactly what they are used for. I'm looking for something definitive. > > > > and I guess that the cached data is transmitted to Apple or to software > > > > companies during software updates. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > when some vendor tries to gather information silently we hear about it > fairly quickly. You've guessed wrong, in this case. That's not very reassuring. Let me give you an example of one potential problem. If I open an mpeg file while I'm connected to the web and there's a problem, then a connection is made to an Apple website that tells me there's a later version of the software available. How does it know that if some information is not shared with the website? How many other programs do this, and what files does the other server access on my HD to make what determinations about the file I'm opening, what version of the software I'm using, and any other data from cache and log files like registration, etc.? Another instance would be Apple's software update. Boy, do they root around on your HD or not? You know, they say "don't believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear," so what do I believe about stuff that's going on that I don't see _or_ hear? > > > and who gets it > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Isn't that what bookmarks are for? Bookmarks are similar to the URL cache but neither really replaces the other completely. > > You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL > > cache completely/immediately. > > I see _Safari > Reset Safari_ and _Safari > Empty Cache_, but I don't > see an option to clear that URL cache. Please point me to that. The last command in the History menu. > > > > > There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference > > > > > these. These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the OS and applications that are stored in cache or log files. Could > all of this simply be for my own convenience? For your own ... convenience isn't necessarily the word I'd use. They're there to provide benefit to _you_. In some cases the circumstances under which that benefit will manifest are rare, but those are some of the most important cases to have those logs. > If these files are for my convenience only, > wouldn't Apple give me a way to turn them off for my own peace of mind > if only because people who use Macs are so security sensitive? Bluntly, you're not "security sensitive." The level of concern you're expressing at least borders paranoiac. You're conceiving of ways that information could be used and assuming that it _is_ being used that way when there's no evidence supporting that notion and evidence against the notion is easily gathered. > Since > they are persistent and pervasive, it's not a stretch to assume that > they have another purpose, a purpose they aren't too up front about. Yes. Actually it is. > If this sounds paranoid to you, then you have to consider that many > people switched to the Mac platform out of security concerns about the > evil empire. The Soviet Union? People who switched to the Mac out of security concerns generally did so because their experience of Windows was that their machines were too easily compromised by outside agencies without their consent or foreknowledge. While data gathering by Microsoft was an annoyance, I don't think I've heard of a significant number of people who switched platforms because of it. > You'd think that Apple would simply tell us about the > log/cache files and exactly what they are used for. I'm looking for > something definitive. Most people don't care what they're used for, IMO. Those who do can find out. I've told you what they're used for collectively. If you want to know more specifically, you're going to have to be more specific about which ones you're asking about. Although once you get more specific, the intentions are often fairly obvious. > > We do if we keep an eye on what's going (or trying to go) through the > > communication interfaces in our machines, and enough of "us" do that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > website that tells me there's a later version of the software > available. You're leaving something out of that description. What you've described does not inherently occur. Open an MPEG file with what? What nature of problem results in connections? > How does it know that if some information is not shared > with the website? How does a piece of software report to you that it's out of date? It asks the server what the current version is and then the software running locally compares that to its own version and tells you if there's a mismatch. It doesn't require any information to be transmitted out of your machine except the normal stuff that comprises correctly formed TCP packets. The only information "shared" with the website is the implication that you have the software for which you're downloading an update. (Note: downloading. Simply checking for an update may not carry that implication if the vendor has more than one app.) > How many other programs do this, and what files does > the other server access on my HD to make what determinations about the > file I'm opening, what version of the software I'm using, and any other > data from cache and log files like registration, etc.? In general, they don't. On the rare occasions when someone does find a program Mac program that silently transmits information off-site there's invariably a big stink made about it. > Another instance would be Apple's software update. Boy, do they root > around on your HD or not? They don't. They follow a model similar to what I described above. The major difference is that it's not the individual local apps checking for updates, but a task-oriented local app. That local app "roots around" in exactly one directory on your machine, which is there precisely to help SU and the Apple Installer tool provide you with a decent user experience. (Sound familiar?) > You know, they say "don't believe half of > what you see, and none of what you hear," so what do I believe about > stuff that's going on that I don't see _or_ hear? I don't know. But that philosophy raises the question of what reassurance you could possibly hope to find by asking broad questions in an open forum. The only way you such a belief can be counteracted is for you to create your own packet sniffer (because you can't really trust the ones already available; they may be colluding with the OS vendor) and examine the traffic during the rare occasions when you allow your machine to be physically connected to a network. You'll probably also want to keep an eye on the output of lsof (tells you what files are open and by what processes) and track the times files are opened against your other activity. G > > > > and who gets it > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Bookmarks are similar to the URL cache but neither really replaces the > other completely. A bookmark is a stored URL, while a Safari cache entry contains the page itself, along with some other data.  SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > > > > and who gets it > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > A bookmark is a stored URL, while a Safari cache entry contains the page > itself, along with some other data. That part got ambiguous because of the number of concepts in the paragraph. I meant to be talking about the URL history list. > > > You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL > > > cache completely/immediately. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The last command in the History menu. That doesn't work for me, even after emptying the cache and selecting clear history, every time I start typing the URL for the BBC website, I get as far as 'news' before it supplies the full URL to a section of the site about international rugby fixtures that I went to a couple of years ago. I don't share the OP's paranoia, but I do find it irritating. SignatureSara The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies! > > > > You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL > > > > cache completely/immediately. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > site about international rugby fixtures that I went to a couple of years > ago. I don't share the OP's paranoia, but I do find it irritating. Ignore that - the fixtures page was bookmarked. Auto-complete reads bookmarks. It's late and I'm tired, that's my only excuse! SignatureSara The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies! > every time I start typing the URL for the BBC website, I > get as far as 'news' before it supplies the full URL to a section of the > site about international rugby fixtures that I went to a couple of years > ago. I don't share the OP's paranoia, but I do find it irritating. Unlearn touch typing and look at the keys instead and you will not be bothered in most cases <g> Actually, most of the time I find these "auto fills" a very useful business as it so often then requires no or only a little modification. Signaturedorayme In article <doraymeRidThis-EB84F7.08330728042007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, > > every time I start typing the URL for the BBC website, I > > get as far as 'news' before it supplies the full URL to a section of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unlearn touch typing and look at the keys instead and you will > not be bothered in most cases <g> Heh - nice idea but it doesn't make a difference in this case - the URL supplied by Safari is an extention on the one I wanted "news.bbc.co.uk" and "news.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby/international_fixtures" (not exact, but close enough). As I said in my next post, it was reading my bookmarks and supplying a choice from that. After deleting the bookmark it works as I prefer now. > Actually, most of the time I find these "auto fills" a very > useful business as it so often then requires no or only a little > modification. They can be, but most of the time I find them a pain rather than a help. Or it may be that I only notice it when it's being a pain. SignatureSara The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies! > They can be, but most of the time I find them a pain rather than a help. > Or it may be that I only notice it when it's being a pain. Safari > Preferences > AutoFill > Other Forms > Remove All SignatureJohn Rethorst jrethorst at post dot com > > They can be, but most of the time I find them a pain rather than a help. > > Or it may be that I only notice it when it's being a pain. > > Safari > Preferences > AutoFill > Other Forms > Remove All Really? I thought was only for online forms. Ta, I'll give it a go. SignatureSara The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies! > > > > You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL > > > > cache completely/immediately. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > site about international rugby fixtures that I went to a couple of years > ago. I don't share the OP's paranoia, but I do find it irritating. Are you *absolutely* sure that the URL in question isn't stashed somewhere deep in the bowels of your bookmarks? > > > > > You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL > > > > > cache completely/immediately. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Are you *absolutely* sure that the URL in question isn't stashed > somewhere deep in the bowels of your bookmarks? Yes, that was indeed what it was. I went through almost everyone of the buggers and found it hidden away in a corner. SignatureSara The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies! > > > > > > You can let them age off or select the menu command to purge the URL > > > > > > cache completely/immediately. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes, that was indeed what it was. I went through almost everyone of the > buggers and found it hidden away in a corner. Firefox does it properly, AFAICS. Preferences > Privacy > Always clear private data... Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc >> I guess it because this is the information age and do we really know >> what Apple or other companies gets from our 'puters when we go to their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You've guessed wrong, in this case. What's really striking in this all-too-common interchange is that the original poster knows almost nothing about the technology involved, but for some reason *assumes* that everyone else is at least as technically inept and uninformed as he is. Rather than ask "Should I be concerned?" he assumes that he is the only one clever enough to have *ever* considered the idea that computers might compromise privacy, and because he is not technically adept enough to verify this for himself, neither is anyone else. The greater the ignorance, the greater the paranoia and unwillingness to accept the word of those who know better. "Phantasy", anyone? > "Phantasy", anyone? That did occur to me. SignatureSara The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies! > What's really striking in this all-too-common interchange is that the > original poster knows almost nothing about the technology involved, > but for some reason *assumes* that everyone else is at least as > technically inept and uninformed as he is. Sort of reminds me of a conversation I unfortunately had with a stranger in a bar last year. He was absolutely certain that the entirity of Internet and phone traffic all flows through a single central location, and this location is a satellite (because it can see everything from up there), and that secret societies control it, and through it control all the world's governments. I was stupid enough to try and correct him by pointing out that satellites are rarely used for voice calls these days, and that they aren't very good for internet traffic either, and that there is no central authority - that there's a whole lot of independent networks that communicate with each other only because the owners choose to allow it. His response was "oh, I see, you're one of THEM aren't you?" and it wen't downhill from there. Never try to explain tech to a drunk, paranoid, schizophrenic hick. -- David > His response was "oh, I see, you're one of THEM aren't you?" and it > wen't downhill from there. > > Never try to explain tech to a drunk, paranoid, schizophrenic hick. Right. What you _should_ do is engage in a debate on astroturf vs. grass. From "The Six Stages of Drinking..." by Larry Miller: Stage Three: The Devil's bartending. You're engrossed in a pointless debate arguing for astroturf. It's about 1:00. You figure, hey, I'm good with four or five hours of sleep, I'll stay for a while longer. Stage Four: You're now bartending for the Devil, and arguing against astroturf, and now you're the guy just down the bar buying rounds for everyone. It's 1:30 and you figure hey, I'll just stay till the bar closes, I don't need a heck of a lot of sleep. Stage Five: You _are_ astroturf. ... > His response was "oh, I see, you're one of THEM aren't you?" and it > wen't downhill from there. Very astute of him. I had no idea you were one of THEM. Are you sure you're allowed to mention it in a public forum...? Of course, the qualifications for being one of THEM isn't what it used to be... >> What's really striking in this all-too-common interchange is that the >> original poster knows almost nothing about the technology involved, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -- David Heh, should have told him about The Beast ;) - E ============================================================== Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only: http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html ============================================================== > What's really striking in this all-too-common interchange is that the > original poster knows almost nothing about the technology involved, > but for some reason *assumes* that everyone else is at least as > technically inept and uninformed as he is. The reason I own a Mac is to have a computer and OS that are easy to use and don't require me to be a tekkie -- or to be, as you say, which seems unfriendly, technically inept and uninformed. Coming here in the past, when I've had a problem or there was something I didn't understand, nobody accused me or anyone else of being technically inept and uninformed. Is this group going to be an unfriendly place now? >> What's really striking in this all-too-common interchange is that the >> original poster knows almost nothing about the technology involved, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > understand, nobody accused me or anyone else of being technically inept > and uninformed. Perhaps you weren't *arguing* with people about their advice at the time. The problem is not that you don't know details about this stuff, that is to be expected. But when people like Mike and others tell you that there are no issues, and then you start supposing a grand conspiracy of people to hide the *real* facts, and questioning his advice and reassurances (and by implication, competence of those offering advice), that is when you become a net-detriment to the group. Besides, we had already filled our allotment of idiotic security ramblings for this group for the year. I personally help people at all skill levels with their computers and am not a person who feels that deep computer knowledge is something that should be required of the average user. But if someone I'm helping starts to *argue* with me, and tells me my advice and understanding are wrong, then I walk away and they can forget any help from me in the future. > Is this group going to be an unfriendly place now? This newsgroup can be very friendly, or very unfriendly, depending how you approach it. When I ask questions here, I try to accept any answers I get with grace, and treat those who respond with the courtesy appropriate to having received a favor from an expert who is providing me his (or her) advice free of charge. If you can't do that, then perhaps you will never find the Mac newsgroups to be friendly. To me, they seem just as friendly as when I started posting here fifteen years ago or so. > This newsgroup can be very friendly, or very unfriendly, depending > how you approach it. When I ask questions here, I try to accept any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > newsgroups to be friendly. To me, they seem just as friendly as > when I started posting here fifteen years ago or so. Hear, hear. :-) Signature/Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc >> This newsgroup can be very friendly, or very unfriendly, depending >> how you approach it. When I ask questions here, I try to accept any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hear, hear. :-) I'd like to add my own DITTO. - Dushan > This newsgroup can be very friendly, or very unfriendly, depending > how you approach it. When I ask questions here, I try to accept any > answers I get with grace, and treat those who respond with the > courtesy appropriate to having received a favor from an expert who > is providing me his (or her) advice free of charge. To paraphrase Tom Lehrer: USENET (or Life, in the original quote) is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put in. -- David > Will someone please address the issue of all of the data caching that > goes on in the OS (OSX.3.9, in my case). comp.sys.mac.system was invented for that type of discussion. SignatureThank you and have a nice day. > > Will someone please address the issue of all of the data caching that > > goes on in the OS (OSX.3.9, in my case). > > comp.sys.mac.system was invented for that type of discussion. The reason I came here was because I've been here before and found the advice to be very useful. Also because I thought that there'd be an app that makes things tidy in a security sort of way. But I'll go take a look at comp.sys.mac.system as you suggest, and I thank you very much for the tip. > Will someone please address the issue of all of the data caching that goes > on in the OS (OSX.3.9, in my case). I would like to replace the files > that do this with locked files or maybe with jpegs that can't be written > to, or just eliminate them altogether. Is it possible to do this without > screwing things up? That depends on which caches you wish to eliminate. > Right now, I'm interested in eliminating the data in Safari that compares > the address I am typing with previously accessed URL's. You know, the > menu that drops as I type with guesses about what I'm typing. I notice > that I can't delete any of these stored URL's. If your goal is to lock down Safari so that you can browse completely anonymously, even within your own user account, then there's only one solution: Private Browsing. Unfortunately (for you), Private Browsing is a Tiger-only feature. If you turn it on, you won't leave behind a trail of cached information. However, you could just delete ~/Library/Caches/Safari after every use. You can do this in the Finder. > There are items called plists, and there are scripts that reference these. > These are not used for anything in particular that I can see, 'plist' is short for 'property list.' It's an open standard file format used to store just about any kind of information. If you look in, for instance, ~/Library/Preferences, you'll find a bunch of plist files. These store your user preferences. plist files are used for all kinds of things, and are often very important for the continued health of Mac OS X. Any software developer can use this file format, not just Apple. If you install the Developer Tools, you'll end up with an app called Property List Editor. You can use this to look at any plist file and discover what it contains. If you're dying to know what secrets those files contain, you might consider opening them up and looking. > and I guess that the cached data is transmitted to Apple or to software > companies during software updates. Is there an app that deals with this > issue? If you don't want to transmit anything to Apple during Software Update, then just turn off Software Update and download updates from Apple's web site and install them yourself. Signaturehttp://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html > Will someone please... Okay, okay, everyone, I get the message. Can anyone blame me these days for being concerned about data mining? As usual, y'all have given me advice that I will follow, put my mind to ease, and keep on keepin' on with my Mac like I have for the past 15 years. BTW, one of the reasons for using a Mac is to stay stupid about the OS and how everything works, just use it. All of the people I know who use windoze are attached by umbilical to some tech-minded person, and I've not needed that so far except for the occasional new battery in an older Mac (just put a battery in my P-200). Anyway, thanks, and keep up the good (friendly) work. Be patient with those of us who tend to reach our level of (tech) incompetence very quickly. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.