So I grabbed the latest version of Safari which is now made for windows last week, and it is indeed a bit faster. But one question comes to mind especially after reading a article today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080322/tc_cmp/206905256 Now I really don't care much either way, but I wonder why Apple doesn't charge for this update since the browser is a new feature that's been added. Considering that Apple blames accounting and hints at Sarbanes Oxley act as the reason for charging us for updates why is this one free as it's definitely a new feature, maybe because it's on a machine they didn't build, or maybe because they want to increase market share and it benefits them. Another interesting thing about Apple and the Sarbanes Oxley act, they've never come out and said that was the reason for charging, they hint at it, but it all goes back to one article written by a pro Apple site. Then all the other sites used that for reference and no one has spoken to a Sarbanes Oxley Specialist to find out exactly why Apple has to do this and no one else does. In fact in the original article found here : http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/mobile/backstage/oh-about-that-80211n-card-in-your-c2d-mac/ The writer goes on to tell us of a representative from a Mac world event, but we never get nor have a confirmed response from Apple. Even in this article this writer and lawyer admits it's plausible but that Apple could work around it. My problem with this kind of reporting and I'm beginning to see it everywhere is that thanks to the internet anyone can become a would be reporter, unfortunately these would be reporters forget the little things like backing up statements of facts or following up on a story for clarification or conflict of interest. And yet this leads to the next problem, once one of these would be reporters finds something of interest they report it as a completed story (something that should never be done without confirmation of your facts and in this case quotes from someone on record) evidenced by their publishing it on the web. Then the real news sites pick up the item and in some of the worst bit of reporting ever seen they run with the story ( I assume that they must think the articles have been checked ) and then everyone else joins in and something that hasn't been fact checked becomes fact in the minds of many simply by the fact of mass media saying it's so. I would wager that if someone had access to one of these much read sites and wrote an article about a new Mac based quantum computer coming out and said they had intel from a Apple rep we would see the same mass media coverage of something that is at this time not even possible. So why are we as a society so eager to just take what we hear as the truth? Should we expect more from our news? And why hasn't anyone followed up on this whole Sarbanes Oxely Act? Well I'm gonna try.