Well, impugn our pine-scented virtue and call us Martha-- it happened again. If you thought Thursday's inexplicable climb of $1.24 was Twilight Zoney, just look at what Apple's stock did today: up $1.58 to a startling $26.74 a share, after going as high as $27.49. Most news outlets are reporting this as a "new 52-week high," but the price actually reached its highest point in two or three years, depending on whether you're going by the intraday max or the closing price. We can at least say this with utter certainty: eyeballing a five-year chart shows that AAPL is "at or near" (gotta love the wiggle room) its highest levels since the Big Scary Cliff-Dive of 2000 (also known as "Black September" or "AAAIIIIIEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeSPLAT!"). If anyone spots Rod Serling delivering a squinty-eyed, moral-ridden monologue into a camera somewhere, tell him we'd like a word with him when he gets a chance.

At least this time the gains are too obvious for the analysts to ignore, though, so people are offering explanations for today's run-up. So far there seem to be only two theories put forth by the mainstream media, neither of which has anything to do with playing card battery packs. (Ingrates!) A Reuters article reports that some analysts attribute AAPL's rise in part to "persistent takeover speculation, with the purported suitor this time being consumer electronics giant Sony Corp." More Sony-Apple merger rumors? Is this about those benign little comments that Sony CEO Nobuyuki Idei made to Business 2.0 about those "joint projects between Sony and Apple"? Geez, just because he mentioned that he's "seen Steve Jobs three times in the past year" doesn't mean a buyout's in the works, people. C'mon, we've seen Steve at least six times in the past year (granted, always through binoculars while hiding in the bushes), but that doesn't mean AtAT is about to replace Apple's Hot News page.

Although, you know, we'd consider a serious offer.

The other factor being thrown around as the catalyst for skyrocketing AAPL shares is the runaway success known (well, to us, anyway) as the miniPod. USA TODAY just ran a big, high-profile story on how the miniPod is a "smash hit" and is "virtually sold out" just about everywhere you look. This follows hot on the heels of a similar gush job in the slightly less visible New York Daily News which surfaced earlier in the week, and even comes with the obligatory sound bite from a harried NYC reseller; this time around it's Jack Wahrman of J&R Music World, saying "I've never seen a product sell like this. The iPod is a phenomenon." Meanwhile, Apple's own Greg Joswiak chimes in to ask customers to "be patient" (since even the Apple Store quotes a lead time of "1-3 weeks") and confirms that the delays and SOLD OUT signs have nothing to do with any kind of component shortage; Apple simply can't build the things fast enough to satisfy demand.

So that's what they came up with: miniPod success and insubstantial Sony takeover rumors. Is that really enough to trigger a 12% price hike in two days? No one knows (though the analysts pretend to), but hey, we'll take it any way we can get it. After all, as faithful viewer Robert Creek points out, Apple's stock is now priced higher than Microsoft's. Okay, sure, it means absolutely squat since Microsoft has a market cap almost thirty times the size of Apple's, but doesn't it still make you feel all sunny inside?

Still feeling listless and unfulfilled because there's something missing in your life? Do you have a gnawing sense that your computing experience is woefully incomplete? When you're out with friends and they all start commiserating about their massive security problems with Windows, do you feel like an utter outcast, unable to bond properly with those in your own social circle? (Of course, if you're out with Wintel users, there may be a bigger issue at hand, but let's let that slide for now.) Clearly what you need is a system vulnerability-- something that lets you stand up and proudly proclaim, "I, too, have security problems with my computer! Accept me! LOVE ME!!"

Actually, you might leave off the last bit. It comes across as a little needy.

But rejoice, folks, for now Mac users can indeed join the throngs of Wintel drones who deal with critical security flaws on an hourly basis! According to ComputerWeekly, Apple was kind enough to include a vulnerability in QuickTime that one security firm has classified as "high severity," both because it exists when the software is installed with default settings and because it reportedly allows Evil People to run Evil Code on your Mac (or your QuickTime-enabled Wintel, for that matter) without your knowledge or say-so. See? You can be just as vulnerable as your Wintel brethren! Finally, something to talk about at the next cocktail party!

Hungry for details? Well, you may have to wait a while, because eEye Digital Security (whose site has the words "Welcome to SECURITY" inscribed in large, friendly letters on its pages-- Douglas Adams would be proud) merely states that there's "a vulnerability in default installations of the affected software that allows malicious code to be executed with little user interaction." Scary without being helpful; excellent! Of course, the lack of detail is entirely necessary, since Apple has not yet fixed the problem, and "under no circumstances does eEye disclose any information to third parties until the manufacturer releases an advisory or patch." Otherwise the aforementioned Evil People would figure out how to compromise your system, dig?

Apple was only notified of the flaw 17 days ago and is reportedly hard at work on a fix, but in the meantime, the only protection for the truly paranoid is presumably to disable QuickTime-- an easy enough task under Mac OS 9 and earlier, but probably somewhat more hazardous under Mac OS X. We recommend instead that you just hide under your desk until the patch is released. It may be a while; eEye figures 30 days is a good reaction time, and anything up to 60 is acceptable. In the meantime, you can amuse yourself by taking quick peeks at the other vulnerabilities listed on eEye's Upcoming Advisories page.

Goodness goshness gracious, just look at all the Microsoft flaws. And look how many are well past eEye's 60-day deadline for fixes. 118 days overdue? Clearly Apple has a lot of work to do on its slacking before it gets to play in the big leagues. Reach for those stars, guys!

"Say, AtAT," several of you have asked, "what's the skinny on this whole thing with Microsoft giving a ton of money to SCO to fund that company's lawsuits against Linux users?" Well, gee, folks, that's a very good question, albeit one fraught with almost mindnumbing complexity. See, the SCO suits in and of themselves are practically beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, and while this claim that Microsoft piped a wad of cash into SCO's coffers in order to stick it to Linux via a hired gun is way more up our alley, following even that aspect of the saga requires an attention span far longer than we've personally encountered in our days on this earth. Although if you actually just made it all the way through that last sentence without getting lost, maybe you're up to the task.

Let's consider the cases themselves, first; as far as we've been able to make out before changing the channel because "F-Troop" was coming on, SCO (which used to be Caldera) originally sued IBM for allegedly contributing some UNIX code (that SCO had bought from Novell) to the open source Linux effort. On top of that, since Linux now contains SCO's code, SCO has started suing corporations that use Linux and who refuse to pay SCO for a license. The most recent such suits filed by SCO were against AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler, both of whom use Linux to run their businesses. Simple enough, right? Except that digging into any detail is like feeding your own feet into a tree-shredder.

Consider this excerpt from an eWeek article titled "Making Sense of the SCO Suits": "There is a claim between IBM and SCO concerning contract essentially independent of the dispute over the code in Linux. Then there's the claim that SCO has brought against AutoZone on the basis of copyrights that it says it has. It is at the same time in litigation against Novell, claiming that it owns those copyrights, despite Novell's denial that it does. Novell was allegedly the seller of those Unix copyright interests to SCO. If SCO loses in the case with Novell on the copyright front, it cannot maintain SCO against AutoZone. So, in theory, the court in SCO against AutoZone should await the conclusion of SCO against Novell."

Clear as day.

As for the "Microsoft's money is paying for the whole thing" conspiracy theory, the gist appears to be that the Open Source Initiative got hold of a leaked email message (which SCO has since confirmed to be real) allegedly tying Microsoft to $86 million in SCO investments. But according to CNET, SCO claims that the message means nothing: while it did include the line "Microsoft will have brought in $86 million for us including BayStar," a SCO spokesperson said that "BayStar Capital's $50 million investment in SCO wasn't due to Microsoft's participation" and the message "was simply a misunderstanding of the facts by an outside consultant." Read the full CNET article if you really want your head to spin.

Once again, clear as day.

So to sum up, we have no idea what we just said, and given that it's the weekend, we haven't the slightest inclination to attain any understanding of these issues whatsoever. Therefore, we take the Enron Approach and simply trust that "SCO bad," that "Microsoft naughty," and that, consequently, "Hulk smash!" Now, what's on TV?