Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Google / Android's open market place
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
May 25, 2013, 12:54:36 AM5/25/13
to
<http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
-----
Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
it didn't display any ads.
Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
application has now been pulled.
-----
What ever happened to Android being so open? Ah, it is open - as long as
Google gets their cut.
Google's business model is to monetize personal data. The more data they get
and the more ads they toss at you the better they do. At least MS and Apple,
primarily, use business models where they make stuff and *sell* it. They
collect much less personal info.
--
"This doesn't mean our work is over; most GNU/Linux distros today contain
nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do."
-- Richard Stallman
-----
Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
it didn't display any ads.
Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
application has now been pulled.
-----
What ever happened to Android being so open? Ah, it is open - as long as
Google gets their cut.
Google's business model is to monetize personal data. The more data they get
and the more ads they toss at you the better they do. At least MS and Apple,
primarily, use business models where they make stuff and *sell* it. They
collect much less personal info.
--
"This doesn't mean our work is over; most GNU/Linux distros today contain
nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do."
-- Richard Stallman
Lusotec
May 25, 2013, 7:20:32 AM5/25/13
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Snit wrote:
> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
> -----
> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
> it didn't display any ads.
>
> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
> application has now been pulled.
> -----
>
> What ever happened to Android being so open? Ah, it is open - as long as
> Google gets their cut.
>
> Google's business model is to monetize personal data. The more data they
> get and the more ads they toss at you the better they do. At least MS and
> Apple, primarily, use business models where they make stuff and *sell* it.
> They collect much less personal info.
That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
*nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlGgnoAACgkQGQjO2ccW76ozpwD+NHtQ9qSsPtxoQ7ZSBuPF3kgm
hbIIPGbVefL7A+mLyOAA/AiDJooO3+Q+fZaQ4QJa6gjfeaDlzOy7GGDPYKued5LK
=nUC+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA256
Snit wrote:
> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
> -----
> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
> it didn't display any ads.
>
> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
> application has now been pulled.
> -----
>
> What ever happened to Android being so open? Ah, it is open - as long as
> Google gets their cut.
>
> Google's business model is to monetize personal data. The more data they
> get and the more ads they toss at you the better they do. At least MS and
> Apple, primarily, use business models where they make stuff and *sell* it.
> They collect much less personal info.
*nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlGgnoAACgkQGQjO2ccW76ozpwD+NHtQ9qSsPtxoQ7ZSBuPF3kgm
hbIIPGbVefL7A+mLyOAA/AiDJooO3+Q+fZaQ4QJa6gjfeaDlzOy7GGDPYKued5LK
=nUC+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Poaster
May 25, 2013, 7:57:23 AM5/25/13
to
Lusotec wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
>> -----
>> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
>> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
>> it didn't display any ads.
>>
>> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
>> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
>> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
>> application has now been pulled.
>> -----
<snip drivel>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
>> -----
>> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
>> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
>> it didn't display any ads.
>>
>> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
>> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
>> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
>> application has now been pulled.
>> -----
>
> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
Indeed, it's got Sweet FA to do with Android apps.
> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
in English.
--
Windows isn't a virus, viruses actually *do* something!
Linux is the scientific communityοΏ½s operating system of choice.
CERNοΏ½s Large Hadron Collider is controlled by Linux.
NASA and SpaceX ground stations use Linux.
DNA-sequencing lab technicians use Linux.
Really, for applications that require absolute stability,
which most scientific experiments are, Linux is the obvious choice.
http://tinyurl.com/d9ta82o
flatfish+++
May 25, 2013, 8:34:54 AM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
content of the article.
You would have been very busy.
Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
--
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Tattoo Vampire
May 25, 2013, 9:15:14 AM5/25/13
to
Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>
> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
Glue fumes cause brain damage.
> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>
> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
flatfish+++
May 25, 2013, 9:23:49 AM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Glue fumes cause brain damage.
Stop making excuses for yourself Tattoo Vampire.
> Glue fumes cause brain damage.
Snit
May 25, 2013, 3:18:12 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 4:20 AM, in article knq6i6$6a2$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with my
claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I goofed
here. Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick kid...
whatever, still a goof.
Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
corporations. Go figure!
claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I goofed
here. Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick kid...
whatever, still a goof.
Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
corporations. Go figure!
Snit
May 25, 2013, 3:18:44 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 4:57 AM, in article
3il67a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds
3il67a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
>>> -----
>>> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
>>> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
>>> it didn't display any ads.
>>>
>>> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
>>> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
>>> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
>>> application has now been pulled.
>>> -----
>
> <snip drivel>
>>
>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>
> Indeed, it's got Sweet FA to do with Android apps.
>
>> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
>> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
>
> He needs to get back on his meds, or get some glasses, or take courses
> in English.
Ah, yes, the herd attacks. Funny to watch.
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
>>> -----
>>> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
>>> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
>>> it didn't display any ads.
>>>
>>> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
>>> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
>>> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
>>> application has now been pulled.
>>> -----
>
> <snip drivel>
>>
>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>
> Indeed, it's got Sweet FA to do with Android apps.
>
>> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
>> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
>
> He needs to get back on his meds, or get some glasses, or take courses
> in English.
--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds
Snit
May 25, 2013, 3:19:49 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 5:34 AM, in article gt7fuqpavq4w$.14osiue7...@40tude.net,
make a mistake. I commend him for finally catching me in one after months of
trying and failing and making a complete fool of himself.
He finally was at least largely right about something. Excellent to see!
--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec
"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>
>
>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>
> Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
> many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
> content of the article.
>
> You would have been very busy.
>
> Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
Hey, while he stated his comments in an offensive and trollish way, I did
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>
>
>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>
> Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
> many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
> content of the article.
>
> You would have been very busy.
>
> Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
make a mistake. I commend him for finally catching me in one after months of
trying and failing and making a complete fool of himself.
He finally was at least largely right about something. Excellent to see!
--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec
Snit
May 25, 2013, 3:20:08 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 6:15 AM, in article XnsA1CB5E214D9...@178.63.61.145,
--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Glue fumes cause brain damage.
Carroll has been proving that for years... he talks of glue sniffing often.
> Glue fumes cause brain damage.
--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds
Snit
May 25, 2013, 3:20:36 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 6:23 AM, in article cc2gsm38oxuc.e...@40tude.net,
more... just spews silly insults.
--
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds
"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>
>> Glue fumes cause brain damage.
>
> Stop making excuses for yourself Tattoo Vampire.
He just trolls for attention. Does not even try to make any points any
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>
>> Glue fumes cause brain damage.
>
> Stop making excuses for yourself Tattoo Vampire.
more... just spews silly insults.
--
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds
flatfish+++
May 25, 2013, 3:41:47 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:19:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
> On 5/25/13 5:34 AM, in article gt7fuqpavq4w$.14osiue7...@40tude.net,
> "flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>>
>> Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
>> many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
>> content of the article.
>>
>> You would have been very busy.
>>
>> Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
>
> Hey, while he stated his comments in an offensive and trollish way, I did
> make a mistake. I commend him for finally catching me in one after months of
> trying and failing and making a complete fool of himself.
>
> He finally was at least largely right about something. Excellent to see!
Sure you made a mistake.
> On 5/25/13 5:34 AM, in article gt7fuqpavq4w$.14osiue7...@40tude.net,
> "flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>>
>> Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
>> many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
>> content of the article.
>>
>> You would have been very busy.
>>
>> Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
>
> Hey, while he stated his comments in an offensive and trollish way, I did
> make a mistake. I commend him for finally catching me in one after months of
> trying and failing and making a complete fool of himself.
>
> He finally was at least largely right about something. Excellent to see!
Compare that to SPAM BOY Roy Schestowitz doing the same thing only on
purpose.
That's why I made the comment.
Snit
May 25, 2013, 3:53:34 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 12:41 PM, in article cjbmfgxm5pvv.1jtxcvadc2f7d$.d...@40tude.net,
far more than even I do. :)
--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds
"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:19:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/13 5:34 AM, in article gt7fuqpavq4w$.14osiue7...@40tude.net,
>> "flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>>>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>>>
>>> Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
>>> many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
>>> content of the article.
>>>
>>> You would have been very busy.
>>>
>>> Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
>>
>> Hey, while he stated his comments in an offensive and trollish way, I did
>> make a mistake. I commend him for finally catching me in one after months of
>> trying and failing and making a complete fool of himself.
>>
>> He finally was at least largely right about something. Excellent to see!
>
> Sure you made a mistake.
> Compare that to SPAM BOY Roy Schestowitz doing the same thing only on
> purpose.
>
> That's why I made the comment.
Fair enough. And Roy used to post the same things over and over and over -
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:19:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/13 5:34 AM, in article gt7fuqpavq4w$.14osiue7...@40tude.net,
>> "flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:20:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>>>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>>>
>>> Too bad you weren't around when Spam Boy Roy Schestowitz was posting
>>> many articles per day where the subject had nothing to do with the
>>> content of the article.
>>>
>>> You would have been very busy.
>>>
>>> Then again, maybe you *were* around back then.
>>
>> Hey, while he stated his comments in an offensive and trollish way, I did
>> make a mistake. I commend him for finally catching me in one after months of
>> trying and failing and making a complete fool of himself.
>>
>> He finally was at least largely right about something. Excellent to see!
>
> Sure you made a mistake.
> Compare that to SPAM BOY Roy Schestowitz doing the same thing only on
> purpose.
>
> That's why I made the comment.
far more than even I do. :)
--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds
Lusotec
May 25, 2013, 7:04:27 PM5/25/13
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Snit wrote:
Hash: SHA256
Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
>>> -----
>>> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
>>> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
>>> it didn't display any ads.
>>>
>>> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
>>> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
>>> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
>>> application has now been pulled.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> What ever happened to Android being so open? Ah, it is open - as long as
>>> Google gets their cut.
>>>
>>> Google's business model is to monetize personal data. The more data they
>>> get and the more ads they toss at you the better they do. At least MS
>>> and Apple, primarily, use business models where they make stuff and
>>> *sell* it. They collect much less personal info.
>>
>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>>
>> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
>> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> <http://ars.to/10YPFSM>
>>> -----
>>> Google had two significant problems with Microsoft's app: it allowed
>>> videos to be downloaded so that they could be watched offline, and
>>> it didn't display any ads.
>>>
>>> Microsoft updated the app a few days ago to remove the contentious
>>> download ability, but the shortage of ads remained. That's
>>> apparently not enough to keep Google happy, so even that updated
>>> application has now been pulled.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> What ever happened to Android being so open? Ah, it is open - as long as
>>> Google gets their cut.
>>>
>>> Google's business model is to monetize personal data. The more data they
>>> get and the more ads they toss at you the better they do. At least MS
>>> and Apple, primarily, use business models where they make stuff and
>>> *sell* it. They collect much less personal info.
>>
>> That article is about Microsoft's Windows Phone youtube app and has
>> *nothing* to do with Android or its app market.
>>
>> Snit, isn't english your native language? Do you really have such a bad
>> reading comprehension? Or is it just your usual dishonesty?
>
> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with my
> claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
> goofed here.
Remember these dumb claims?
> claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
> goofed here.
"Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing OSs."
"Apple owns WebKit"
"a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the results"
> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
> kid... whatever, still a goof.
> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
> their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
> corporations. Go figure!
invent next?!
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
vrmpWQlsXn+3yf0gKk0A/2/4tMuKgoWAb+6dntaOodRWk0WE9Iwo1nyrgxZe9BZ3
=G25l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Poaster
May 25, 2013, 7:08:55 PM5/25/13
to
*still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
The guy's sick, in the head.
--
The Mac user really puts the 'stupid' in 'Keep It Simple, Stupid
Snit
May 25, 2013, 7:48:13 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 4:08 PM, in article
7ts77a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
letting your sick kid get and being readily available for her, keep her
awake and do not let her sleep or rest or do anything to get better.
Your cult-like group has sick ideas about parenting!
--
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 ‹ it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman
7ts77a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
> The guy's sick, in the head.
Ah, the best parenting advice the herd can give: instead of wasting time
> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
> The guy's sick, in the head.
letting your sick kid get and being readily available for her, keep her
awake and do not let her sleep or rest or do anything to get better.
Your cult-like group has sick ideas about parenting!
--
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 ‹ it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman
Snit
May 25, 2013, 7:52:48 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 4:04 PM, in article knrfpv$2cb$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
...
and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the ones you list is when you
said I was "lying" about the ownership rights Apple has on WebKit but could
not find a single one I listed where I was wrong. You still never did. It
was great fun.
But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught me
making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal of yours
and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>
> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
Thank you. Sincerely.
>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
>> their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>> corporations. Go figure!
>
> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will they
> invent next?!
Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly, but that is
what many of the herd seem to believe.
--
"All of these acts [prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality,
possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia] should be
legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of
prejudice and narrowmindedness." -- Richard Stallman
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
...
>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with my
>> claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
>> goofed here.
>
> Remember these dumb claims?
> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing OSs."
> "Apple owns WebKit"
> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the results"
I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound knowledgeable...
>> claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
>> goofed here.
>
> Remember these dumb claims?
> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing OSs."
> "Apple owns WebKit"
> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the results"
and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the ones you list is when you
said I was "lying" about the ownership rights Apple has on WebKit but could
not find a single one I listed where I was wrong. You still never did. It
was great fun.
But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught me
making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal of yours
and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>
> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
>> their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>> corporations. Go figure!
>
> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will they
> invent next?!
what many of the herd seem to believe.
--
"All of these acts [prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality,
possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia] should be
legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of
prejudice and narrowmindedness." -- Richard Stallman
Tattoo Vampire
May 25, 2013, 8:17:28 PM5/25/13
to
Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
I'm surprised his spouse was able to tear him away from his computer. :-D
> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
Tattoo Vampire
May 25, 2013, 8:17:58 PM5/25/13
to
William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
> The guy's sick, in the head.
+1
> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
> The guy's sick, in the head.
flatfish+++
May 25, 2013, 8:25:40 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
> On 5/25/13 4:08 PM, in article
> 7ts77a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
> <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
>
>> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
>> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
>> The guy's sick, in the head.
>
> Ah, the best parenting advice the herd can give: instead of wasting time
> letting your sick kid get and being readily available for her, keep her
> awake and do not let her sleep or rest or do anything to get better.
>
> Your cult-like group has sick ideas about parenting!
Seeing as the Linux FOSSie cult has Richard Stallman as their leader,
> On 5/25/13 4:08 PM, in article
> 7ts77a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
> <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
>
>> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
>> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
>> The guy's sick, in the head.
>
> Ah, the best parenting advice the herd can give: instead of wasting time
> letting your sick kid get and being readily available for her, keep her
> awake and do not let her sleep or rest or do anything to get better.
>
> Your cult-like group has sick ideas about parenting!
I wouldn't let any of them within 100 yards of a child.
You know what they say about birds of a feather......
The apples not falling far from the tree....
...and so forth.
Snit
May 25, 2013, 8:29:36 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 5:25 PM, in article 1to2xih30vigq.1s3w2bhqy0h4m$.d...@40tude.net,
Well stated.
--
"It is often hard to persuade the developers of one component to do what
improves the system as a whole rather than what will make their own
component more useful and successful." -- Richard Stallman
--
"It is often hard to persuade the developers of one component to do what
improves the system as a whole rather than what will make their own
component more useful and successful." -- Richard Stallman
Lusotec
May 26, 2013, 4:05:37 AM5/26/13
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Snit wrote:
Hash: SHA256
Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
> ...
>>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with
>>> my claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
>>> goofed here.
>>
>> Remember these dumb claims?
>> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing
>> OSs." "Apple owns WebKit"
>> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the
>> results"
>
> I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound knowledgeable...
> and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the ones you list is when you
> said I was "lying" about the ownership rights Apple has on WebKit but
> could not find a single one I listed where I was wrong. You still never
> did. It was great fun.
Ah, Snit and is incredibly stupid lies that anyone can see through.
> ...
>>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with
>>> my claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
>>> goofed here.
>>
>> Remember these dumb claims?
>> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing
>> OSs." "Apple owns WebKit"
>> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the
>> results"
>
> I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound knowledgeable...
> and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the ones you list is when you
> said I was "lying" about the ownership rights Apple has on WebKit but
> could not find a single one I listed where I was wrong. You still never
> did. It was great fun.
Snit: "Apple owns WebKit"
Lusotec: "Apples does not own WebKit"
> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal of
> yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>
>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>
> Thank you. Sincerely.
>
>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
>>> their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>
>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will they
>> invent next?!
>
> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
NuEs0VBMLOlkUbc7z4QA/AjCPEXvzZUKsrcUsjK3OYiWHLbYvPlMNutOWjL8NS3A
=uLgn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Poaster
May 26, 2013, 4:57:12 AM5/26/13
to
replying to him.
Michael Snit Glasser is obsessed with posting, like it's a disease with
him.
--
Windows supports real multitasking - it can boot and crash
simultaneously.
Cola Zealot
May 26, 2013, 5:24:40 AM5/26/13
to
Lusotec wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws
>>>> with my claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to
>>>> it, yup, I goofed here.
>>>
>>> Remember these dumb claims?
>>> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with
>>> competing OSs." "Apple owns WebKit"
>>> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the
>>> results"
>>
>> I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound
>> knowledgeable... and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the
>> ones you list is when you said I was "lying" about the ownership
>> rights Apple has on WebKit but could not find a single one I listed
>> where I was wrong. You still never did. It was great fun.
>
> Ah, Snit and is incredibly stupid lies that anyone can see through.
>
> Snit: "Apple owns WebKit"
> Lusotec: "Apples does not own WebKit"
Please don't lie you fool!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws
>>>> with my claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to
>>>> it, yup, I goofed here.
>>>
>>> Remember these dumb claims?
>>> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with
>>> competing OSs." "Apple owns WebKit"
>>> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the
>>> results"
>>
>> I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound
>> knowledgeable... and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the
>> ones you list is when you said I was "lying" about the ownership
>> rights Apple has on WebKit but could not find a single one I listed
>> where I was wrong. You still never did. It was great fun.
>
> Ah, Snit and is incredibly stupid lies that anyone can see through.
>
> Snit: "Apple owns WebKit"
> Lusotec: "Apples does not own WebKit"
Apple *OWNS* WebKit.
They bought out the KHTML project years ago when they started developing
Safari and open sourced it as WebKit.
Lusotec
May 26, 2013, 6:27:34 AM5/26/13
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Cola Zealot wrote:
Hash: SHA256
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlGh45YACgkQGQjO2ccW76p6nAD7B28iMA7Cw6UnF0987IXRSH+n
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Q6s5uoT/NPa+oTQJfaoA/RwfGoE4w1ltECulGir6TcbnDFk3JHie+luHMHBN5Hsd
=tmoC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Poaster
May 26, 2013, 6:58:26 AM5/26/13
to
<rhetorical question>
--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Linux is the scientific community’s operating system of choice.
CERN’s Large Hadron Collider is controlled by Linux.
Cola Zealot
May 26, 2013, 7:22:26 AM5/26/13
to
Many large corporations own open source projects. Apple *owns* Webkit, CUPS
etc. Oracle owns VirtualBox.
Snit
May 26, 2013, 1:02:58 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 1:57 AM, in article
7cv87a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might be,
censorship is more disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
7cv87a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>
>> I'm surprised his spouse was able to tear him away from his computer. :-D
>
> She obviously couldn't, & probably still can't as I see 'Lusotec' has been
> replying to him.
> Michael Snit Glasser is obsessed with posting, like it's a disease with
> him.
--
"When making pornography involves real abuse of real children ... that does
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>
>> I'm surprised his spouse was able to tear him away from his computer. :-D
>
> She obviously couldn't, & probably still can't as I see 'Lusotec' has been
> replying to him.
> Michael Snit Glasser is obsessed with posting, like it's a disease with
> him.
--
not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might be,
censorship is more disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
Snit
May 26, 2013, 1:19:17 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 1:05 AM, in article knsfgl$oh2$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
incorrect about, no less "lying" about as you accused.
As I said, you have been *desperate* to catch me making a mistake. In this
thread you did. You made a big deal out of it and it has, clearly, brought
you great pleasure to have finally, after so many failed attempts, found me
making a mistake.
It is now proved: Snit is not perfect. I make mistakes. Wow. Good for you
for showing this.
Of course, you have also given me a chance (again) to show that, unlike you,
when I am shown to be wrong I admit to it.
Come on - why can't you just admit I am right about every one of the
ownership rights I speak of Apple having in terms of WebKit:
Apple does own the name "WebKit".
Apple does own the WebKit logo.
Apple does not the webkit.org website.
Apple does get to decide what is added to WebKit.
Apple does not get to decide what is left out of WekKit.
Now the third one is kinda tangential... but the others are key. Still, if
you can show I am wrong even about the third one that would be a "win" for
you... and, keep in mind, it has now been shown I commend you when you
actually show me to be wrong. I do not mind being shown to be wrong - unlike
you it is not about ego but about knowledge.
So show me which of those I am wrong about. But you need to do two things to
back your claim:
1) State which one (or ones) you think I am wrong about
2) Back your position
Still this would not show I "lied", as you accused, but it would show I was
in error. That would be a great day for you (twice you would have shown Snit
to be wrong... *WOW*) and it would educate me (I would learn I was wrong
about one of those).
Win - Win. So why not do it?
Oh, because for you it is not about knowledge - it is about ego. And now
that you have declared me a "liar" for noting Apple has those ownership
rights in terms of WebKit, it is psychologically very painful for you to
admit I am right.
That is OK. I understand. You are not mature enough to admit to your errors.
Maybe someday you will be there. When you do I shall congratulate you and
speak highly of you. I might toss in a good natured "dig" and say "finally"
or something like that, but I sincerely will be happy to see you mature to
that level.
>> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
>> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal of
>> yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>
> LOL!
>
> Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
Here is what I educated Brad cc Wiggins, you, and others in COLA about:
<http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc>.
You are embarrassed you did not know. A shame. But it is the norm of the
COLA "advocates" of COLA... only information they will accept in COLA is
from their own herd... does not matter how accurate or well supported the
information is. And here you are backing my claims. So, I suppose, I owe you
a thank you for, again, showing me to be right about your herd (though, I
admit, you have made some statements that go against the list of
herd-accepted BS).
>>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>>
>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>
>> Thank you. Sincerely.
>>
>>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
>>>> their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>>
>>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will they
>>> invent next?!
>>
>> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
>
> "Linux 'Free' company", what does that even mean?!
Who knows? It is another herd BS claim that somehow Google is a Linux
company and embraces the "Free" BS of Stallman. Utter gibberish... but that
is what you herd pushes.
>> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
>
> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
What insult? Really?
--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with
>>>> my claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
>>>> goofed here.
>>>
>>> Remember these dumb claims?
>>> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing
>>> OSs." "Apple owns WebKit"
>>> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the
>>> results"
>>
>> I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound knowledgeable...
>> and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the ones you list is when you
>> said I was "lying" about the ownership rights Apple has on WebKit but
>> could not find a single one I listed where I was wrong. You still never
>> did. It was great fun.
>
> Ah, Snit and is incredibly stupid lies that anyone can see through.
>
> Snit: "Apple owns WebKit"
> Lusotec: "Apples does not own WebKit"
And I listed their ownership rights. You never found a single one I was
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I commend you. After months of nit-picking and searching for flaws with
>>>> my claims ... and *failing* horribly and refusing to admit to it, yup, I
>>>> goofed here.
>>>
>>> Remember these dumb claims?
>>> "Google prevents their partners from offering hardware with competing
>>> OSs." "Apple owns WebKit"
>>> "a $1000 purchase and a $500 purchase... enough to grossly skew the
>>> results"
>>
>> I remember your twisting and game playing to try to sound knowledgeable...
>> and your failing. It was fun. My favorite of the ones you list is when you
>> said I was "lying" about the ownership rights Apple has on WebKit but
>> could not find a single one I listed where I was wrong. You still never
>> did. It was great fun.
>
> Ah, Snit and is incredibly stupid lies that anyone can see through.
>
> Snit: "Apple owns WebKit"
> Lusotec: "Apples does not own WebKit"
incorrect about, no less "lying" about as you accused.
As I said, you have been *desperate* to catch me making a mistake. In this
thread you did. You made a big deal out of it and it has, clearly, brought
you great pleasure to have finally, after so many failed attempts, found me
making a mistake.
It is now proved: Snit is not perfect. I make mistakes. Wow. Good for you
for showing this.
Of course, you have also given me a chance (again) to show that, unlike you,
when I am shown to be wrong I admit to it.
Come on - why can't you just admit I am right about every one of the
ownership rights I speak of Apple having in terms of WebKit:
Apple does own the name "WebKit".
Apple does own the WebKit logo.
Apple does not the webkit.org website.
Apple does get to decide what is added to WebKit.
Apple does not get to decide what is left out of WekKit.
Now the third one is kinda tangential... but the others are key. Still, if
you can show I am wrong even about the third one that would be a "win" for
you... and, keep in mind, it has now been shown I commend you when you
actually show me to be wrong. I do not mind being shown to be wrong - unlike
you it is not about ego but about knowledge.
So show me which of those I am wrong about. But you need to do two things to
back your claim:
1) State which one (or ones) you think I am wrong about
2) Back your position
Still this would not show I "lied", as you accused, but it would show I was
in error. That would be a great day for you (twice you would have shown Snit
to be wrong... *WOW*) and it would educate me (I would learn I was wrong
about one of those).
Win - Win. So why not do it?
Oh, because for you it is not about knowledge - it is about ego. And now
that you have declared me a "liar" for noting Apple has those ownership
rights in terms of WebKit, it is psychologically very painful for you to
admit I am right.
That is OK. I understand. You are not mature enough to admit to your errors.
Maybe someday you will be there. When you do I shall congratulate you and
speak highly of you. I might toss in a good natured "dig" and say "finally"
or something like that, but I sincerely will be happy to see you mature to
that level.
>> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
>> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal of
>> yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>
> LOL!
>
> Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
<http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc>.
You are embarrassed you did not know. A shame. But it is the norm of the
COLA "advocates" of COLA... only information they will accept in COLA is
from their own herd... does not matter how accurate or well supported the
information is. And here you are backing my claims. So, I suppose, I owe you
a thank you for, again, showing me to be right about your herd (though, I
admit, you have made some statements that go against the list of
herd-accepted BS).
>>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>>
>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>
>> Thank you. Sincerely.
>>
>>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can use
>>>> their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>>
>>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will they
>>> invent next?!
>>
>> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
>
> "Linux 'Free' company", what does that even mean?!
company and embraces the "Free" BS of Stallman. Utter gibberish... but that
is what you herd pushes.
>> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
>
> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds
Snit
May 26, 2013, 1:20:39 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 3:27 AM, in article knsnqo$r55$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
...
You just say the overall concept they show is wrong. How does that work?
Every *example* in the set is correct but the claim the set exists is
wrong... bizarre and shows you do not really get what is being said.
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
...
>> Please don't lie you fool!
>> Apple *OWNS* WebKit.
>> They bought out the KHTML project years ago when they started developing
>> Safari and open sourced it as WebKit.
>
> And another stupid troll crawls from under the bridge!
>> Apple *OWNS* WebKit.
>> They bought out the KHTML project years ago when they started developing
>> Safari and open sourced it as WebKit.
>
> And another stupid troll crawls from under the bridge!
Apple does own the name "WebKit".
Apple does own the WebKit logo.
Apple does not the webkit.org website.
Apple does get to decide what is added to WebKit.
Apple does not get to decide what is left out of WekKit.
You never did say which you thought I was wrong about.
Apple does own the WebKit logo.
Apple does not the webkit.org website.
Apple does get to decide what is added to WebKit.
Apple does not get to decide what is left out of WekKit.
You just say the overall concept they show is wrong. How does that work?
Every *example* in the set is correct but the claim the set exists is
wrong... bizarre and shows you do not really get what is being said.
Snit
May 26, 2013, 1:21:03 PM5/26/13
to
Snit
May 26, 2013, 1:30:31 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 4:22 AM, in article knsr6i$24r$1...@news.albasani.net, "Cola Zealot"
ownership rights he thinks I am wrong about:
Apple does own the name "WebKit".
Apple does own the WebKit logo.
Apple does not the webkit.org website.
Apple does get to decide what is added to WebKit.
Apple does not get to decide what is left out of WekKit.
So far his response has just been to run away crying I am wrong and lying
and blah blah blah.
This is even *after* Google proved me right by creating Blink. If they could
just control what was added and removed from WebKit they could have just
done that. But they *cannot* do that. Apple has those ownership rights.
Period.
Lusotec has no leg to stand on. None at all.
--
"Maybe there is someone who considers it disgusting for a parrot to have sex
with a human. Or for a dolphin or tiger to have sex with a human. So what?
Others feel that all sex is disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
<Cola_...@fuckoff.com> wrote:
>>> Please don't lie you fool!
>>> Apple *OWNS* WebKit.
>>> They bought out the KHTML project years ago when they started
>>> developing Safari and open sourced it as WebKit.
>>
>> And another stupid troll crawls from under the bridge!
>
> Really, you utterly fuckwitted Lusertec?
> Many large corporations own open source projects. Apple *owns* Webkit, CUPS
> etc. Oracle owns VirtualBox.
I have given Lusotec many, many chance to say which of the specific
>>> Please don't lie you fool!
>>> Apple *OWNS* WebKit.
>>> They bought out the KHTML project years ago when they started
>>> developing Safari and open sourced it as WebKit.
>>
>> And another stupid troll crawls from under the bridge!
>
> Really, you utterly fuckwitted Lusertec?
> Many large corporations own open source projects. Apple *owns* Webkit, CUPS
> etc. Oracle owns VirtualBox.
ownership rights he thinks I am wrong about:
Apple does own the name "WebKit".
Apple does own the WebKit logo.
Apple does not the webkit.org website.
Apple does get to decide what is added to WebKit.
Apple does not get to decide what is left out of WekKit.
and blah blah blah.
This is even *after* Google proved me right by creating Blink. If they could
just control what was added and removed from WebKit they could have just
done that. But they *cannot* do that. Apple has those ownership rights.
Period.
Lusotec has no leg to stand on. None at all.
--
"Maybe there is someone who considers it disgusting for a parrot to have sex
with a human. Or for a dolphin or tiger to have sex with a human. So what?
Others feel that all sex is disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
Sinister Midget
May 26, 2013, 1:56:06 PM5/26/13
to
On 2013-05-25, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> claimed:
> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
> The guy's sick, in the head.
That "sick kid" is one of his socks. And he "cares for it" by posting
more crap, making it get better.
--
I'm out of bed and dressed. What more do you want?
> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
> The guy's sick, in the head.
more crap, making it get better.
--
I'm out of bed and dressed. What more do you want?
Tattoo Vampire
May 26, 2013, 5:13:43 PM5/26/13
to
Sinister Midget <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That "sick kid" is one of his socks. And he "cares for it" by posting
> more crap, making it get better.
LOL... ain't that the truth
> That "sick kid" is one of his socks. And he "cares for it" by posting
> more crap, making it get better.
Snit
May 26, 2013, 5:22:35 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 10:56 AM, in article muu97a-...@renuzit.harry.net, "Sinister
Really, is that the best way you can present yourself in a public forum?
--
"On desktops, Linux has had a hard time cracking the 1 per cent mark,
although some of the web analytics companies now put it at around 1.5 per
cent." -- Linus Torvalds
Midget" <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-25, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> claimed:
>
>> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
>> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
>> The guy's sick, in the head.
>
> That "sick kid" is one of his socks. And he "cares for it" by posting
> more crap, making it get better.
Ah, now *that* is a mature post by you.
> On 2013-05-25, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> claimed:
>
>> Amazing! Supposedly taking care of a 'sick kid', yet Michael Snit Glasser
>> *still* had to post to COLA & attempt to denigrate Android. What a luser.
>> The guy's sick, in the head.
>
> That "sick kid" is one of his socks. And he "cares for it" by posting
> more crap, making it get better.
Really, is that the best way you can present yourself in a public forum?
--
"On desktops, Linux has had a hard time cracking the 1 per cent mark,
although some of the web analytics companies now put it at around 1.5 per
cent." -- Linus Torvalds
Lusotec
May 27, 2013, 5:47:11 AM5/27/13
to
> 2) Back your position
Apple does *not* have the copyright to WebKit (only to part of it) thus
Apple does not own WebKit. Trademarks, domain registrations and anything
else you bring up is irrelevant. It is that simple.
> Still this would not show I "lied", as you accused, but it would show I
> was in error. That would be a great day for you (twice you would have
> shown Snit to be wrong... *WOW*) and it would educate me (I would learn I
> was wrong about one of those).
>
> Win - Win. So why not do it?
>
> Oh, because for you it is not about knowledge - it is about ego. And now
> that you have declared me a "liar" for noting Apple has those ownership
> rights in terms of WebKit, it is psychologically very painful for you to
> admit I am right.
>
> That is OK. I understand. You are not mature enough to admit to your
> errors. Maybe someday you will be there. When you do I shall congratulate
> you and speak highly of you. I might toss in a good natured "dig" and say
> "finally" or something like that, but I sincerely will be happy to see you
> mature to that level.
>
>>> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
>>> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal
>>> of yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
>
> Here is what I educated Brad cc Wiggins, you, and others in COLA about:
> <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc>.
That video is *proof* you didn't (still don't?) know what a bell curve is.
To educate others you have to educate yourself first. To educate yourself,
you have to be willing and able to do so. Your insistence on so many dumb
claims even after being shown clear proof they are wrong leads me to believe
you are either unwilling or unable to do so.
More importantly, the fact that you still have not corrected or removed that
video after you were informed by me of its problems is very regrettable,
especially for someone that claims to be a teacher.
> You are embarrassed you did not know. A shame. But it is the norm of the
> COLA "advocates" of COLA... only information they will accept in COLA is
> from their own herd... does not matter how accurate or well supported the
> information is. And here you are backing my claims. So, I suppose, I owe
> you a thank you for, again, showing me to be right about your herd
> (though, I admit, you have made some statements that go against the list
> of herd-accepted BS).
>
>>>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>>>
>>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>>
>>> Thank you. Sincerely.
>>>
>>>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can
>>>>> use their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will
>>>> they invent next?!
>>>
>>> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
>>
>> "Linux 'Free' company", what does that even mean?!
>
> Who knows? It is another herd BS claim that somehow Google is a Linux
> company
servers. Google's ChromeOS and Android OSs are Linux based. Google is very
much a Linux company.
> and embraces the "Free" BS of Stallman. Utter gibberish... but
> that is what you herd pushes.
My bet is that you are just lying as usual.
>>> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
>>
>> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
>
> What insult? Really?
though.
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
p51XFeLZok+fB6kIm20A/3QHn9ASxImssvih4uUw9ZS/yQFOTU+HeKK+dOQ4Ujbg
=zYgk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lusotec
May 27, 2013, 5:59:25 AM5/27/13
to
Your original claim that "Apple owns WebKit".
> 2) Back your position
Apple does *not* have the copyright to WebKit (only to part of it) thus
Apple does not own WebKit. Trademarks, domain name registrations, and
> 2) Back your position
Apple does *not* have the copyright to WebKit (only to part of it) thus
anything else you bring up is irrelevant to your claim. It is that simple!
> Still this would not show I "lied", as you accused, but it would show I
> was in error. That would be a great day for you (twice you would have
> shown Snit to be wrong... *WOW*) and it would educate me (I would learn I
> was wrong about one of those).
>
> Win - Win. So why not do it?
>
> Oh, because for you it is not about knowledge - it is about ego. And now
> that you have declared me a "liar" for noting Apple has those ownership
> rights in terms of WebKit, it is psychologically very painful for you to
> admit I am right.
>
> That is OK. I understand. You are not mature enough to admit to your
> errors. Maybe someday you will be there. When you do I shall congratulate
> you and speak highly of you. I might toss in a good natured "dig" and say
> "finally" or something like that, but I sincerely will be happy to see you
> mature to that level.
>
>>> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
>>> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal
>>> of yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
>
> Here is what I educated Brad cc Wiggins, you, and others in COLA about:
> <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc>.
That video is *proof* that you didn't (still don't?) know what a bell curve
is. To educate others you have to educate yourself first. To do that you
have to be both willing and able. Your insistence on dumb claim, even after
being presented with clear evidence to the contrary, leads me to believe you
are either unwilling or unable to do so.
More importantly, you have yet to correct or remove that video and that is
regrettable, especially for someone how claims to be a teacher.
> You are embarrassed you did not know. A shame. But it is the norm of the
> COLA "advocates" of COLA... only information they will accept in COLA is
> from their own herd... does not matter how accurate or well supported the
> information is. And here you are backing my claims. So, I suppose, I owe
> you a thank you for, again, showing me to be right about your herd
> (though, I admit, you have made some statements that go against the list
> of herd-accepted BS).
>
>>>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>>>
>>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>>
>>> Thank you. Sincerely.
>>>
>>>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can
>>>>> use their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will
>>>> they invent next?!
>>>
>>> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
>>
>> "Linux 'Free' company", what does that even mean?!
>
> Who knows? It is another herd BS claim that somehow Google is a Linux
> company and embraces the "Free" BS of Stallman. Utter gibberish... but
> that is what you herd pushes.
My bet is that you are just lying as usual.
>>> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
>>
>> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
>
> What insult? Really?
If you really need me to answer that question then you are even dumber than
>>
>> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
>
> What insult? Really?
I though.
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
di5uVFPHqtktQpSkLUgA/AhOcadOHTO6z+7F6IhqK+k8I314lI0VExO4vlVIgP/O
=6asW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
May 27, 2013, 12:00:23 PM5/27/13
to
On 5/27/13 2:47 AM, in article knv9r1$ads$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
...
But you do not think I am wrong about any of the ownership rights I
specified when you showed your disagreement with me. In other words, you
claimed I was wrong, I gave specifics for my claim, and you showed *no*
disagreement but still insisted I was not just wrong but "lying". And you
have never backed off of this position. You have *no* stated disagreement
with me about the ownership rights Apple has in regards to WebKit, but for
you it is all about ego - you made a claim and will not budge one inch. You
have been desperately trying for months to find me make a mistake... and in
this thread you did. And your joy was so strong you even re-named the thread
to highlight this fact. Excellent! You found me making an error and soothed
your wounded ego and did me no harm. Excellent for all.
But now let us not pretend you showed any of the ownership rights I spoke of
in terms of Apple's ownership of WebKit to be wrong. You never did. You just
are not ready to admit to this - and likely never will be. You have backed
yourself into a corner where you have to pretend you were right, even though
you cannot find any example of where I was wrong about the ownership rights
I spoke of.
>> 2) Back your position
>
> Apple does *not* have the copyright to WebKit (only to part of it) thus
> Apple does not own WebKit. Trademarks, domain registrations and anything
> else you bring up is irrelevant. It is that simple.
The ownership rights I speak of are the *only* rights I attributed to Apple.
You claim that I am not just wrong to attribute those right to Apple but
that it is dishonest to do so. You are simply wrong. But for you this is not
about information or knowledge but about ego.
>> Still this would not show I "lied", as you accused, but it would show I
>> was in error. That would be a great day for you (twice you would have
>> shown Snit to be wrong... *WOW*) and it would educate me (I would learn I
>> was wrong about one of those).
>>
>> Win - Win. So why not do it?
>>
>> Oh, because for you it is not about knowledge - it is about ego. And now
>> that you have declared me a "liar" for noting Apple has those ownership
>> rights in terms of WebKit, it is psychologically very painful for you to
>> admit I am right.
>>
>> That is OK. I understand. You are not mature enough to admit to your
>> errors. Maybe someday you will be there. When you do I shall congratulate
>> you and speak highly of you. I might toss in a good natured "dig" and say
>> "finally" or something like that, but I sincerely will be happy to see you
>> mature to that level.
>>
>>>> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
>>>> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal
>>>> of yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
>>
>> Here is what I educated Brad cc Wiggins, you, and others in COLA about:
>> <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc>.
>
> You educated me? LOL!
You can claim otherwise, but certainly neither you nor Brad cc Wiggins or
anyone else in the conversation showed any understanding of what I show in
that video until after I produced it and showed it to you. But if it makes
you feel better to say you knew the first standard deviations were at the
inflection points even before I told you then that is fine by me. Again, I
am much more concerned about information and knowledge than ego. You feel
better claiming you already knew. OK. Whatever. Does not really matter to
me. It is good you know *now*. Fair enough?
> That video is *proof* you didn't (still don't?) know what a bell curve is.
Oh, I get your nit-picking distinction between a normal distribution and a
bell curve, but I *also* get that a normal distribution is commonly referred
to as a bell curve, something you have *again* shown ignorance of. Doing
just moments of Googling, though, I find this:
<http://bit.ly/16kFhwN>
-----
Bell Curve, Normal Distribution Defined
The term bell curve is used to describe the mathematical concept
called normal distribution, sometimes referred to as Gaussian
distribution. �Bell curve� refers to the shape that is created when
a line is plotted using the data points for an item that meets the
criteria of �normal distribution�.
-----
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution>
-----
Normal distribution: The Gaussian distribution is sometimes
informally called the bell curve.
-----
<http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-normal-distribution.html>
-----
A Normal Distribution
The "Bell Curve" is a Normal Distribution.
-----
<http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/discussions/TheNormalDistribution>
------
Student: What is the Bell Curve?
Mentor: The bell curve is another name for the normal distribution.
The normal distribution is a common type of graph that has more or
less the shape of a bell.
------
<http://www.netmba.com/statistics/distribution/normal/>
------
The shape of the normal distribution resembles that of a bell, so it
sometimes is referred to as the "bell curve"
------
<http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bell-curve.asp>
------
The bell curve is also known as a normal distribution. The bell
curve is less commonly referred to as a Gaussian distribution
------
And more. So there we go - another piece of knowledge for you. If you wish
to claim you already knew this, even though you have repeatedly demonstrated
you did not, I am OK with that. Just show *now* and in the future you
understand. You can save your clearly delicate ego *and* learn. And more
than that, perhaps you will stop trolling me with your claims about this.
Again, a win-win for everyone... if only you are able to learn from the
evidence provided. Are you?
And below you lash out with insults and accusations but never actually get
around to showing anywhere I am actually wrong.
> To educate others you have to educate yourself first. To educate yourself,
> you have to be willing and able to do so. Your insistence on so many dumb
> claims even after being shown clear proof they are wrong leads me to believe
> you are either unwilling or unable to do so.
This very thread is proof against your claims (another chance for you to
learn!) In this thread you *finally* caught me in an error - and my
response was to not just acknowledge it but to openly congratulate you on
doing so. In response such behavior you claim you believe I am "unwilling or
unable" to acknowledge when I have been shown to be wrong.
What a bizarre claim of yours! Do you see, now, how irrational it is?
> More importantly, the fact that you still have not corrected or removed that
> video after you were informed by me of its problems is very regrettable,
> especially for someone that claims to be a teacher.
I have no obligation to sooth your ego, which is really what you are asking
me to do.
>> You are embarrassed you did not know. A shame. But it is the norm of the
>> COLA "advocates" of COLA... only information they will accept in COLA is
>> from their own herd... does not matter how accurate or well supported the
>> information is. And here you are backing my claims. So, I suppose, I owe
>> you a thank you for, again, showing me to be right about your herd
>> (though, I admit, you have made some statements that go against the list
>> of herd-accepted BS).
>>
>>>>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>>>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. Sincerely.
>>>>
>>>>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can
>>>>>> use their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>>>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will
>>>>> they invent next?!
>>>>
>>>> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
>>>
>>> "Linux 'Free' company", what does that even mean?!
>>
>> Who knows? It is another herd BS claim that somehow Google is a Linux
>> company
>
> Google critically depends on Linux. All Google's services run on GNU/Linux
> servers. Google's ChromeOS and Android OSs are Linux based. Google is very
> much a Linux company.
No, they are not a "Linux company" - they are a company that uses Linux in
many ways (though they also use other OSs and software).
>> and embraces the "Free" BS of Stallman. Utter gibberish... but
>> that is what you herd pushes.
>
> Who claimed that Google "embraces the 'Free' BS of Stallman"?
> My bet is that you are just lying as usual.
This is the belief repeatedly shown by the herd as Google is defended. They
are the "good" company to balance the non-Linux companies of Apple and
Microsoft. It is a herd delusion.
>>>> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
>>>
>>> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
>>
>> What insult? Really?
>
> If you really need me to answer that question you are even dumber than I
> though.
You think it is an "insult" to use the term herd, but I have repeatedly ask
you and others to offer an alternative but *honest* term for the group that
dishonestly calls itself the "advocates" (even though they are false
"advocates"). You have not done so.
But I am open to another term... just has to be honest and concise. And keep
in mind I have been quite clear about the baseless, inaccurate, and even
contradictory claims pushed by the herd (or, at best, rarely if ever
questioned).
Why don't you chime in on that thread and state which of those beliefs you
back? You have been willing to stand up against the herd BS and state you
disagree with Stallman's in terms of his decency and hygiene. I commend you
for that.
--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
...
specified when you showed your disagreement with me. In other words, you
claimed I was wrong, I gave specifics for my claim, and you showed *no*
disagreement but still insisted I was not just wrong but "lying". And you
have never backed off of this position. You have *no* stated disagreement
with me about the ownership rights Apple has in regards to WebKit, but for
you it is all about ego - you made a claim and will not budge one inch. You
have been desperately trying for months to find me make a mistake... and in
this thread you did. And your joy was so strong you even re-named the thread
to highlight this fact. Excellent! You found me making an error and soothed
your wounded ego and did me no harm. Excellent for all.
But now let us not pretend you showed any of the ownership rights I spoke of
in terms of Apple's ownership of WebKit to be wrong. You never did. You just
are not ready to admit to this - and likely never will be. You have backed
yourself into a corner where you have to pretend you were right, even though
you cannot find any example of where I was wrong about the ownership rights
I spoke of.
>> 2) Back your position
>
> Apple does *not* have the copyright to WebKit (only to part of it) thus
> Apple does not own WebKit. Trademarks, domain registrations and anything
> else you bring up is irrelevant. It is that simple.
You claim that I am not just wrong to attribute those right to Apple but
that it is dishonest to do so. You are simply wrong. But for you this is not
about information or knowledge but about ego.
>> Still this would not show I "lied", as you accused, but it would show I
>> was in error. That would be a great day for you (twice you would have
>> shown Snit to be wrong... *WOW*) and it would educate me (I would learn I
>> was wrong about one of those).
>>
>> Win - Win. So why not do it?
>>
>> Oh, because for you it is not about knowledge - it is about ego. And now
>> that you have declared me a "liar" for noting Apple has those ownership
>> rights in terms of WebKit, it is psychologically very painful for you to
>> admit I am right.
>>
>> That is OK. I understand. You are not mature enough to admit to your
>> errors. Maybe someday you will be there. When you do I shall congratulate
>> you and speak highly of you. I might toss in a good natured "dig" and say
>> "finally" or something like that, but I sincerely will be happy to see you
>> mature to that level.
>>
>>>> But that is not the focus here. Really, in this case you actually caught
>>>> me making a mistake... I commend you for that. It has been a huge goal
>>>> of yours and you finally succeeded. Excellent work!
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Remember your false claims about bell curves? Remember who corrected you?
>>
>> Here is what I educated Brad cc Wiggins, you, and others in COLA about:
>> <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc>.
>
> You educated me? LOL!
anyone else in the conversation showed any understanding of what I show in
that video until after I produced it and showed it to you. But if it makes
you feel better to say you knew the first standard deviations were at the
inflection points even before I told you then that is fine by me. Again, I
am much more concerned about information and knowledge than ego. You feel
better claiming you already knew. OK. Whatever. Does not really matter to
me. It is good you know *now*. Fair enough?
> That video is *proof* you didn't (still don't?) know what a bell curve is.
bell curve, but I *also* get that a normal distribution is commonly referred
to as a bell curve, something you have *again* shown ignorance of. Doing
just moments of Googling, though, I find this:
<http://bit.ly/16kFhwN>
-----
Bell Curve, Normal Distribution Defined
The term bell curve is used to describe the mathematical concept
called normal distribution, sometimes referred to as Gaussian
distribution. �Bell curve� refers to the shape that is created when
a line is plotted using the data points for an item that meets the
criteria of �normal distribution�.
-----
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution>
-----
Normal distribution: The Gaussian distribution is sometimes
informally called the bell curve.
-----
<http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-normal-distribution.html>
-----
A Normal Distribution
The "Bell Curve" is a Normal Distribution.
-----
<http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/discussions/TheNormalDistribution>
------
Student: What is the Bell Curve?
Mentor: The bell curve is another name for the normal distribution.
The normal distribution is a common type of graph that has more or
less the shape of a bell.
------
<http://www.netmba.com/statistics/distribution/normal/>
------
The shape of the normal distribution resembles that of a bell, so it
sometimes is referred to as the "bell curve"
------
<http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bell-curve.asp>
------
The bell curve is also known as a normal distribution. The bell
curve is less commonly referred to as a Gaussian distribution
------
And more. So there we go - another piece of knowledge for you. If you wish
to claim you already knew this, even though you have repeatedly demonstrated
you did not, I am OK with that. Just show *now* and in the future you
understand. You can save your clearly delicate ego *and* learn. And more
than that, perhaps you will stop trolling me with your claims about this.
Again, a win-win for everyone... if only you are able to learn from the
evidence provided. Are you?
And below you lash out with insults and accusations but never actually get
around to showing anywhere I am actually wrong.
> To educate others you have to educate yourself first. To educate yourself,
> you have to be willing and able to do so. Your insistence on so many dumb
> claims even after being shown clear proof they are wrong leads me to believe
> you are either unwilling or unable to do so.
learn!) In this thread you *finally* caught me in an error - and my
response was to not just acknowledge it but to openly congratulate you on
doing so. In response such behavior you claim you believe I am "unwilling or
unable" to acknowledge when I have been shown to be wrong.
What a bizarre claim of yours! Do you see, now, how irrational it is?
> More importantly, the fact that you still have not corrected or removed that
> video after you were informed by me of its problems is very regrettable,
> especially for someone that claims to be a teacher.
me to do.
>> You are embarrassed you did not know. A shame. But it is the norm of the
>> COLA "advocates" of COLA... only information they will accept in COLA is
>> from their own herd... does not matter how accurate or well supported the
>> information is. And here you are backing my claims. So, I suppose, I owe
>> you a thank you for, again, showing me to be right about your herd
>> (though, I admit, you have made some statements that go against the list
>> of herd-accepted BS).
>>
>>>>>> Chalk it up to posting this as I was taking care of a sick
>>>>>> kid... whatever, still a goof.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. Sincerely.
>>>>
>>>>>> Still: kills the idea of any openness on the part of Google. You can
>>>>>> use their services only if they get their cut. No different from other
>>>>>> corporations. Go figure!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, imagine that, a company providing services for money. What will
>>>>> they invent next?!
>>>>
>>>> Still, the idea that they are a Linux "Free" company is silly,
>>>
>>> "Linux 'Free' company", what does that even mean?!
>>
>> Who knows? It is another herd BS claim that somehow Google is a Linux
>> company
>
> Google critically depends on Linux. All Google's services run on GNU/Linux
> servers. Google's ChromeOS and Android OSs are Linux based. Google is very
> much a Linux company.
many ways (though they also use other OSs and software).
>> and embraces the "Free" BS of Stallman. Utter gibberish... but
>> that is what you herd pushes.
>
> Who claimed that Google "embraces the 'Free' BS of Stallman"?
> My bet is that you are just lying as usual.
are the "good" company to balance the non-Linux companies of Apple and
Microsoft. It is a herd delusion.
>>>> but that is what many of the herd seem to believe.
>>>
>>> And yet another Snit lie and with an insult as usual.
>>
>> What insult? Really?
>
> If you really need me to answer that question you are even dumber than I
> though.
you and others to offer an alternative but *honest* term for the group that
dishonestly calls itself the "advocates" (even though they are false
"advocates"). You have not done so.
But I am open to another term... just has to be honest and concise. And keep
in mind I have been quite clear about the baseless, inaccurate, and even
contradictory claims pushed by the herd (or, at best, rarely if ever
questioned).
Why don't you chime in on that thread and state which of those beliefs you
back? You have been willing to stand up against the herd BS and state you
disagree with Stallman's in terms of his decency and hygiene. I commend you
for that.
--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec
Snit
May 27, 2013, 12:01:19 PM5/27/13
to
On 5/27/13 2:59 AM, in article knvahu$dq7$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
post I responded to.
--
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>> 1) State which one (or ones) you think I am wrong about
>
> Your original claim that "Apple owns WebKit".
See the response to the exact same thing you posted 12 minutes prior to the
>> 1) State which one (or ones) you think I am wrong about
>
> Your original claim that "Apple owns WebKit".
post I responded to.
--
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds
Snit
May 27, 2013, 4:20:19 PM5/27/13
to
On 5/26/13 1:57 AM, in article
7cv87a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
7cv87a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>
>> I'm surprised his spouse was able to tear him away from his computer. :-D
>
> She obviously couldn't, & probably still can't as I see 'Lusotec' has been
> replying to him.
> Michael Snit Glasser is obsessed with posting, like it's a disease with
> him.
--
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children."
>
>> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish your kid a quick recovery.
>>
>> I'm surprised his spouse was able to tear him away from his computer. :-D
>
> She obviously couldn't, & probably still can't as I see 'Lusotec' has been
> replying to him.
> Michael Snit Glasser is obsessed with posting, like it's a disease with
> him.
--
-- Richard Stallman
0 new messages