And we're back! Sorry about the late broadcast, kiddies, but just like we warned you, we spent the greater chunk of today with no 'net access as we hooked the AtAT compound into a different and hopefully less problematic cable company. At least in our experience, MediaOne went a little downhill when it became AT&T Broadband, but all hell broke loose once it turned into Comcast. If you're the ultra-attentive type, you might recall that we recently had a four-day outage because-- Oops!-- Comcast kindasorta forget to tell us that the cable modem they were providing us was about to become completely incompatible with their new system. Well, okay, that's not entirely true; they did send us an urgent letter warning us of the problem. Unfortunately they sent it three weeks after our service died, which seemed less like help and more like flailing incompetence. Or gloating. Either way, the really important thing is that our new slate-grey cable modem from RCN goes a lot better with our decor.

Anyway, like we said, we're back, and with a faster connection, even-- although we're still a little shaky after a moment of panic when it looked like our AT&T Broadband-branded TiVo might not be compatible with our new cable service. (Many thanks to Juan at TiVo tech support, whose expert advice and secret codes saved us from a fate worse than death; like the Bible says, what profiteth a man if he gains the Lifetime Movie Network and loses his own TiVo?) Seeing as we stared a TiVoless existence straight in the eye today and lived to tell about it, we're not really up for any heavy lifting as far as the whole drama thing's concerned. How about we ease back into things with an innocuous rumor about Apple being infiltrated by Oracle sales staff?

It's true! Well, the fact that there is a rumor is true; we have no idea if the rumor itself holds any water. But InfoWorld TechWatch most definitely claims that a source at Apple insists that the company "is hiring away Oracle sales people to help [it] target enterprise accounts," and if that's the case, then it's just one more clue that Apple is covertly gearing up for a full-on assault on big business to be launched as soon as Admiral Steve deems the wind to be blowing in Apple's favor.

And just how does Oracle CEO, notorious loudmouth, and all-around snazzy dresser Larry Ellison feel about Bestest Buddy Stevie poaching his free-range sales talent? Surprisingly, he's said to be fine with it; in fact, the same source goes so far as to claim that Larry "gave his blessing" when Apple wanted to swipe a "top Oracle sales executive" to fill out the lineup in Steve's fledgling enterprise sales force. Sounds like Steve's got an eager ringer to help him with his whole "Macs in Enterprise" scheme, and given that it's no less an authority on the subject than Larry "the Six Million Dollar Suit" Ellison, how can anything possibly go wrong?

Decisions, decisions... with limited airtime at our disposal, which ignorant and/or brain-damaged Apple-bashing article currently making the rounds should we decide to chomp on? Because, see, on the one hand there's PC Magazine crowing about that one recently discovered Mac OS X security flaw as if it somehow puts Panther on equally perilous footing with any of those Redmond-born "operating systems"; on the other hand, we've got BusinessWeek actually cheering those guys who defaced a slew of iPod posters with outright lies a few weeks back because an Apple tech gave them some lousy advice.

Oh, the heck with it-- we'll just mention both in as superficial a way as possible and skip the in-depth skewering for another time. Truth be told, that last Enderle rant took a lot out of us, and we still haven't fully recovered. We think we may have strained something.

So here goes. First up, BusinessWeek's Alex Salkever, who starts out slamming the quality of Apple's tech support and then goes so far as to openly condone vandalism: "I applaud the actions of the Neistat brothers, Casey and Van," who videotaped themselves spray-painting the phrase "IPOD'S UNREPLACEABLE BATTERY LASTS ONLY 18 MONTHS" on a gazillion iPod posters in Manhattan after Apple's support personnel allegedly told Casey that there was nothing he could do about his 'Pod's ever-dwindling one-hour battery capacity short of buying a whole new player. Not that Salkever doesn't have a point: if the support tech had actually made some useful suggestions-- such as pointing out that there are plenty of people like Yours Truly who have heavily-used iPods six months older than Casey's, which, following a guts-level update to the latest supported iPod firmware, still hold a good five or six hours of tune time on a charge-- maybe the Neistat brothers wouldn't have felt compelled to film themselves breaking the law.

But while we agree that Apple could have handled the situation better, for BusinessWeek to condone the defacement of property as "a lesson" is just wildly irresponsible. Heck, if the lawyers at Apple were feeling really twitchy, they could sue the Neistats' pants off for the cost of the ads that were trashed (we're guessing ad space in Manhattan ain't cheap), as well as projected lost iPod sales due to the lie they spread. (Talk about an open-and-shut case; the geniuses posted video evidence against themselves.) And yes, it is a lie; maybe Casey's iPod has a battery that crapped out completely after a year and a half, but guess what? We have two iPods that are coming up on their second birthdays and their batteries are just fine.

There's also the fact that Apple now offers a battery-replacement service, as well as AppleCare extended warranties for iPods; maybe those weren't options when the Neistats decided to make their little movie, but they are now. So are the brothers going to go back and videotape themselves fixing all the posters they ruined? Yeah, right. Maybe BusinessWeek should do it instead, lest someone out there decides to tape himself stenciling the phrase "BUSINESSWEEK APPLAUDS ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR LIKE THIS" on the cover of every issue of the magazine he can find.

Moving on... if you want a real head-scratcher of an experience, just try to follow Lance Ulanoff's logic as he asserts that, because of a DHCP security vulnerability made public a couple of weeks ago, "the truth is that the Mac OS is just as vulnerable as Microsoft Windows." Apparently one real vulnerability in a couple of years is just as bad as seven or eight "critical" flaws in a month. Apparently, too, a vulnerability that requires an attacker to have access to the local area network in order to do any damage is no worse than dozens of security holes that make it possible for viruses to propagate automatically via infected web servers or for attackers to gain total control of a system just by its owner opening an email message. And apparently a "flaw" (it's really an ease-of-use feature that goes slightly overboard in its default configuration) that gets "fixed" via unchecking one box in an existing system application is every teensy bit as heinous as the dozens of Windows and IE bugs that require users to download and install monthly patches to prevent armageddon. Who knew?

Since we're getting really tired, we'll just mention in passing Lance's repeated insistence that Mac OS X is just as vulnerable to attack as Windows, but nobody ever attacks Macs because there are too few for anyone for care. Perhaps one day someone will point out to Lance that there are plenty of technical reasons why Mac OS X probably is inherently more secure, such as the fact that it ships with most network services turned off by default and requires users to enter administrative passwords before altering crucial system configurations. Then again, by that time we expect that Lance will be wearing one of those darling white jackets with its sleeves fashionably sewn crosswise to its sides.

Lance ends his whirlwind tour through Demento-Logic thusly: "How cocky are you feeling now, Mac elite? Hmm. Suddenly it's gotten pretty quiet around here." Quiet? Well, Lance, that's because most people are reading your article syndicated over at ABC News ("Bad Eisner! No biscuit!"), and that version lacks any sort of method by which they might actually answer your intriguing question. Attention, Mac elite: you might be interested to know that Lance does have a publicly-posted email address in his PC Mag bio. And remember, if you're feeling compelled to tell him how cocky you may or may not still be feeling, well, he did ask...

Speaking of security, we're going to close out this episode with a quick retraction, because here at AtAT, accuracy is our number one priority. Well, okay, no, it isn't-- it's actually number thirty-seven, ranking just below "squeezing the toothpaste tube at the bottom" and just above "making inane priority lists at least thirty-eight items long." In fact, we'll take "entertaining" over "correct" any day of the week. That said, we're making this correction precisely because it'll be more fun than not making it. Follow us?

Okay, so, yesterday we mentioned that Microsoft, who has had to move to a once-a-month security patch release schedule to avoid drowning its customers in incessant updates, actually announced that there would be no patches released for December. (That actually sounded good until the company admitted that "no patches" didn't mean "no holes"; they just didn't get the updates done in time.) Well, our retraction is this: true, Microsoft did announce that there would be no updates this month, but as faithful viewer Boesterific points out, a CNET article reports that a patch went out anyway. And Microsoft has no idea how or why.

Yup, "the company scrambled on Wednesday morning to figure out why a patch had been issued through its Windows Update service, when the software maker had declared on Tuesday that it would not issue any fixes in December." Unscheduled software fixes propelling themselves through the ether onto customers' systems? We suppose there are worse problems to have-- except that if the Windows Update servers became self-aware at 2:14 AM Eastern time and are now patching FrontPage holes on their own, sooner or later they're going to get the idea that the only thing more bug-ridden and riddled with inconsistencies than Microsoft's software is the human race itself. And "patching" that would probably take on some pretty violent overtones. We sense some kind of SkyNET thing in the offing.

But no worries; if it's a bug, Microsoft will just patch it, right?