or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anonymouse

I was a little surprised that Maps didn't make it into the iCloud suite of apps this time around.   I think it's great that it'll be available as a Mac app, but, if there's one app that ought to be available through iCloud, it's definitely Maps.
  So? What's your point?
  Funny stuff, GG, no one can even keep track of how many times you've been called out for posting blatantly false information. Then there's always the furious spin to deny that you ever said what you said. You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that, to pretend like you've never been "corrected".     It would be a full time job to keep up with and contradict all his nonsense. After all, it's a full time job for him to post it.   Of course, his most consistent hypocrisy, over...
  More like much ado about nothing.
  There you go again, bashing Mueller when argues against your paymasters, citing him when he argues in their favor. Make up your mind, is he a trusted neutral authority, or a hopelessly biased partisan?   As for the article pointing out the rank hypocrisy of Google, well, that's why they wrote it, and Google deserves to have its hypocrisy held up for the world to see. If that makes you uncomfortable, find another job.
It's a smart move by Microsoft. The BB employees really know nothing about the products in their stores. A representative anecdote as an example: I was in a BB store some time ago with a friend who was looking for a new video card for a generic PC. He tried asking some questions of several employees, but none of them had any clue. We finally found one person who actually seemed to know what he was talking about. So, my friend picks the video card he wants, is about to...
  It's just as probable that the publishers settled out of fear of the consequences of not settling and losing, not because of actual guilt. If the current kangaroo court proceedings are an indication, you can hardly blame them. But, given the strong arm tactics of the DoJ and the bias of the court, you cannot conclude that even the publishers were in reality guilty of collusion. Their settlement may merely be a symptom of fear.
  No, they haven't shown that he was, "thinking about trying to get that to happen." What they've actually shown is that certain thoughts occurred to him which he did not follow through on. Not sending that email, and sending an entirely different email, shows the intent not to follow that line of action. Now the question is, does the DoJ have any real evidence, is the judge interested in hearing any evidence, or is this a kangaroo court?   And, what the publishers did...
New Posts  All Forums: