"He" meaning Anonymouse? I put him on my blocked list and stopped responding to anything he has to say months ago. It had reached the point that whenever he replied to a post I made it comprised a series of ad-homs, false accusations and strawmen. Nothing to be gained by engaging as he gave no indication he wanted to have an honest debate.
You on the other hand sometimes have an actual argument to make responding to things I actually said. So what do [SIZE=14px]you[/SIZE] claim was false about anything I said in this thread?
It's not my problem if you'd rather bury your head in the sand than respond to the arguments being made.
The funniest part of this exchange is that, since you quoted me, he saw what I wrote, but he's still pretending he didn't. I guess he could have "inadvertently" overlooked it.
Basically, GG got tired of me always pointing out his misrepresentations, distortions and omissions, so he's "ignoring" me so he can pretend he isn't being called out.
But, let's not let that distract from the point of this article: The people running Google are essentially criminals and pathological liars who cannot be trusted or believed under any circumstances. And yes, mstone, the outlaw mentality of this company definitely comes from the top down.
Too bad it wasn't $22.5B That would really hurt their little ego and put this malpractice to rest. Identity theft all begins with Google!
The best way to punish large corporations is to make all fines a percentage of revenue. Google breaks law by hacking Safari, the fine is 5% of revenue. Samsung steals IP, 10% of revenue please.
A fine structure like this would put a stop to all intentional theft immediately. Accidental or unintended theft would probably be negotiated out.
I know that you reference the WSJ in your article, but you're also obliged to attribute that graphic to them.
I constantly see people on the Internet not properly attributing materials to their source which is why I typically take such great effort in properly attributing the source materials in my posts.
I constantly see people on the Internet not properly attributing materials to their source which is why I typically take such great effort in properly attributing the source materials in my posts.
Anymouse showed how you were distorting things in your post and provided his reasoning.
I affirmed it.
You accused me of posting without any reasoning.
I explained that the reasoning was in Anonymouse's post and referred you to go there if you want to refute the arguments.
You state that I didn't find anything wrong with your post.
You're really confused. Or dishonest. Or both.
Then just point out the parts of my posts that were incorrect. Apparently you can't, and perhaps because there isn't any? You done a lot of dodging and weaving to avoid answers the past day or so. From what parts of Judge Posner's ruling do you claim he'll be overturned, to what did Mueller write to convince you that Apple will win their touch event patents claims to now this. Perhaps when you get a few minutes. . .
If still concerned a firewall may also be used, the following is recommended:
Little Snitch
Little Snitch is great. It essentially made my decision not to use Chrome easy. Out of all the browsers I have tried, Safari, Firefox, Opera, iCab, and Omniweb, none of these called home unless to check for an update. The exception is Google's Chrome, which called home often every session.
I like Safari (with the except of the tabs on the bottom), but if I didn't, I would go with Firefox as it is greatly improved from a couple of years ago.
Comments
I already told you. See post #18.
It's not my problem if you'd rather bury your head in the sand than respond to the arguments being made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I already told you. See post #18.
It's not my problem if you'd rather bury your head in the sand than respond to the arguments being made.
Which argument? I'm guessing you personally can't find anything wrong with what I've said and looking for an out by blaming it on someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I already told you. See post #18.
It's not my problem if you'd rather bury your head in the sand than respond to the arguments being made.
The funniest part of this exchange is that, since you quoted me, he saw what I wrote, but he's still pretending he didn't. I guess he could have "inadvertently" overlooked it.
Basically, GG got tired of me always pointing out his misrepresentations, distortions and omissions, so he's "ignoring" me so he can pretend he isn't being called out.
But, let's not let that distract from the point of this article: The people running Google are essentially criminals and pathological liars who cannot be trusted or believed under any circumstances. And yes, mstone, the outlaw mentality of this company definitely comes from the top down.
I'd like to know who collects the fine and where does that $22,500,000 actually go? Staff bonuses at the FCC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbc
I'd like to know who collects the fine and where does that $22,500,000 actually go? Staff bonuses at the FCC?
It goes to into the treasury, just like all the other fines. Think of it as supplemental revenue that helps fund law enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus
Too bad it wasn't $22.5B That would really hurt their little ego and put this malpractice to rest. Identity theft all begins with Google!
The best way to punish large corporations is to make all fines a percentage of revenue. Google breaks law by hacking Safari, the fine is 5% of revenue. Samsung steals IP, 10% of revenue please.
A fine structure like this would put a stop to all intentional theft immediately. Accidental or unintended theft would probably be negotiated out.
The Googles did some evil...
I constantly see people on the Internet not properly attributing materials to their source which is why I typically take such great effort in properly attributing the source materials in my posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
I constantly see people on the Internet not properly attributing materials to their source which is why I typically take such great effort in properly attributing the source materials in my posts.
And a fine job you do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpnorton82
Ouch!
I'm glad to see our governing bodies actually taking a measurable stance in defense of our privacy.
Hopefully this will send a clear message.
Funny because they are usually the ones invading it
Amazing - even for you.
Anymouse showed how you were distorting things in your post and provided his reasoning.
I affirmed it.
You accused me of posting without any reasoning.
I explained that the reasoning was in Anonymouse's post and referred you to go there if you want to refute the arguments.
You state that I didn't find anything wrong with your post.
You're really confused. Or dishonest. Or both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Amazing - even for you.
Anymouse showed how you were distorting things in your post and provided his reasoning.
I affirmed it.
You accused me of posting without any reasoning.
I explained that the reasoning was in Anonymouse's post and referred you to go there if you want to refute the arguments.
You state that I didn't find anything wrong with your post.
You're really confused. Or dishonest. Or both.
Maybe he needs one of your car analogies to understand you better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Maybe he needs one of your car analogies to understand you better.
Oh, tekstud, do you miss your ZZZ alias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Amazing - even for you.
Anymouse showed how you were distorting things in your post and provided his reasoning.
I affirmed it.
You accused me of posting without any reasoning.
I explained that the reasoning was in Anonymouse's post and referred you to go there if you want to refute the arguments.
You state that I didn't find anything wrong with your post.
You're really confused. Or dishonest. Or both.
Then just point out the parts of my posts that were incorrect. Apparently you can't, and perhaps because there isn't any? You done a lot of dodging and weaving to avoid answers the past day or so. From what parts of Judge Posner's ruling do you claim he'll be overturned, to what did Mueller write to convince you that Apple will win their touch event patents claims to now this. Perhaps when you get a few minutes. . .
ConradJoe, Zither Zather Zuzz, Hyram Gestan, and JerrySwitched26 are the same person. Fairly certain fred's not among him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
ConradJoe, Zither Zather Zuzz, Hyram Gestan, and JerrySwitched26 are the same person. Fairly certain fred's not among him.
Oh didnt see that post since anonymouse is on my block list, no idea why it thinks I'm tekstud or someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Oh didnt see that post since anonymouse is on my block list, no idea why it thinks I'm tekstud or someone else.
Writing style, types of comments, brand of snark, which also matches the aliases that TS mentions.
If I'd wanted Google to spy on me, I would have purchased an Android phone. Stay off my iPhone!
Another in an endless succession of examples of Government Inc.©
$22M is the equivalent of taking Google's lunch money. Such a small fine amounts to tacit permission to go on committing similar intrusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
If still concerned a firewall may also be used, the following is recommended:
Little Snitch
Little Snitch is great. It essentially made my decision not to use Chrome easy. Out of all the browsers I have tried, Safari, Firefox, Opera, iCab, and Omniweb, none of these called home unless to check for an update. The exception is Google's Chrome, which called home often every session.
I like Safari (with the except of the tabs on the bottom), but if I didn't, I would go with Firefox as it is greatly improved from a couple of years ago.