Slashdot Mirror

People who insist on fashion aren't even in the market

There has actually so much publicity around this all I can assume is that you are a liar.

Didn't even read the rest of your post, nor will I read a response as I find it pointless to discuss anything with people who simply lie outright to try and "win".

Straighten up buddy.

Here's some news reports on ford dealerships and BMW dealerships within the last 6 months.

Looks like mostly local newspaper/TV sites, though.

Here's some news reports on ford dealerships and BMW dealerships within the last 6 months.

Looks like mostly local newspaper/TV sites, though.

There is no evidence of any other ill effects of CO2 emission than increased greenhouse effect.

That you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Russell's teapot? https://www.google.com/search?...

The effects of increase of CO2 are also not uniform. That doesn't make removing CO2 any less important,

No kidding. Read it again: I said "counter". The point is that it is much better to not emit in the first place, than to try cooling by other means to offset.

Before making your claim, you probably should have checked on China's CO2 emissions recently. 'Cause they're flat: https://www.google.com/search?...

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Because the research I've seen says it's worthless. And like just about everywhere else Toronto's crime rate is going down. 2005 seemed to be the peak.

Stop and Frisk in the States is mostly used to keep undesirables (read: the poor) out of your neighborhood. It's also used as a segregation technique in large parts of the South. That's why we shot it down. Not sure about Canada though.

Majority of accusations against Huawei or China are falsified, exaggerated, outdated, or hypocritical.

Whether China has done that or not, they has not launched a major PR campaign over the issue against US in the many years PRISM, which revealed direct attacks against Chinese network, has been exposed. The US government and policticians, on the other hand, keep using the same things from IP theft to industry espionage that the US had committed to attack China and never mention its own dirty history (so that they can use the issues to rally the support of populism and nationalism.) That's called hypocrisy.

I know a lot of atmospheric scientists, and I don't believe I've ever heard one suggest that the current increases in CO2 levels were going to lead to "runaway warming"

Maybe check Google before you post?

Results include such notables as Steven Hawkins:

""We are close to the tipping point, where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus," - SH

MIT Technology review chimes in with another climatologist saying it could happen.

How dare you try to whitewash the shameful history of climate alarmism by acclaimed scientists and celebrities.

It's down the block, not across the street.

Here's the settlement letter he signed along with the SEC and submitted to the court: https://drive.google.com/file/...

Note how it says he won't tweet anything about Tesla without having it put through the review process first.

Since Tesla failed to implement the review process, he shouldn't be tweeting abut Tesla at all, even if it is 100% true and accurate.

Doesn't matter if it influenced anyone, or if it was public information or not. He agreed not to do it and settled for only $40 million. He broke the terms of the settlement, there in black and white.

Here's the joint statement that he and the SEC submitted to the court: https://drive.google.com/file/...

Note how it requires him to submit his Tesla related tweets to the agreed review process before publication. Note how he didn't.

Tesla appointed someone to review his tweets, and they quit after one day. So none of his Tesla related tweets have been reviewed. Musk shouldn't even have been tweeting about anything Tesla related according to that settlement, until Tesla put the review process in place.

The range of coding that can be done with an Android device, unrooted, right now, is in pretty rough shape.

Did rootless GNU environments, such as Termux and GNURoot, stop working in recent versions of Android? Some Slashdot users seem to swear by GNURoot combined with XSDL.

But, it's rare that I don't have connectivity. I'm happy to pay for the "unlimited" data plan. Between my wife and I, we blow through 60+ GB of traffic a month on two phones alone (we both have laptops, but both use a smartphone as a primary device). And frequently, the phone *is* the WiFi for my laptop.

Last I checked, carriers limited "unlimited" data plans' hotspot use (what you call "the phone *is* the WiFi for my laptop") to 10 GB per month. This means that for people who cancel home Internet in order to afford a cellular data plan, semiannual feature updates in Ubuntu or Windows might have to happen at a public library.

The range of coding that can be done with an Android device, unrooted, right now, is in pretty rough shape.

Did rootless GNU environments, such as Termux and GNURoot, stop working in recent versions of Android? Some Slashdot users seem to swear by GNURoot combined with XSDL.

But, it's rare that I don't have connectivity. I'm happy to pay for the "unlimited" data plan. Between my wife and I, we blow through 60+ GB of traffic a month on two phones alone (we both have laptops, but both use a smartphone as a primary device). And frequently, the phone *is* the WiFi for my laptop.

Last I checked, carriers limited "unlimited" data plans' hotspot use (what you call "the phone *is* the WiFi for my laptop") to 10 GB per month. This means that for people who cancel home Internet in order to afford a cellular data plan, semiannual feature updates in Ubuntu or Windows might have to happen at a public library.

The range of coding that can be done with an Android device, unrooted, right now, is in pretty rough shape.

Did rootless GNU environments, such as Termux and GNURoot, stop working in recent versions of Android? Some Slashdot users seem to swear by GNURoot combined with XSDL.

But, it's rare that I don't have connectivity. I'm happy to pay for the "unlimited" data plan. Between my wife and I, we blow through 60+ GB of traffic a month on two phones alone (we both have laptops, but both use a smartphone as a primary device). And frequently, the phone *is* the WiFi for my laptop.

Last I checked, carriers limited "unlimited" data plans' hotspot use (what you call "the phone *is* the WiFi for my laptop") to 10 GB per month. This means that for people who cancel home Internet in order to afford a cellular data plan, semiannual feature updates in Ubuntu or Windows might have to happen at a public library.

or the dog gets it.

Also, while I'll admit I don't know if Huawei really is a problem or not, I find it hard to believe they couldn't just buy from the same companies the US is getting it's equipment from.

Then again, it's all made in China anyway, so does it matter?

A report called Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities explored vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants.

From that the issue of spent fuel pool vulnerabilities warranted further study in the now declassified report Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report by the Committee on the Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage within the National Research Council which details variation of the above scenario from a terrorist attack, as opposed to a disaster.

You can find information about plutonium oxidization Evaluation of source-term data for plutonium aerosolization which starts at around 500 centigrade.

Actions to reduce the possibility of these kinds of scenarios are simple and cost effective. Mainly by dry cask storing fuel that has cooled for 5 years and separating and dispersing spent fuel recently removed from the reactor throughout the pool. All very practical, affordable actions for reducing this risk.

Information about the fuel removal process and the damage to the Unit 3 spent fuel pool in Tepco's Fukushima spent fuel removal plan.

There is very little point arguing with people who look at Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. For them Nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident is how it occurred.

Again I would like to express my gratitude to the workers and engineers attempting to get the Fukushima disaster under control.

Neither Peterson nor anyone else claims to have been first to the words "open" and "source". It is generally believed they *named* something "open source".

You're trying to draw a distinction where none exists. Source == Source Code. And those of us who were actually there rapidly dropped the word "code" off of the end of that, before the OSIers think they named something "Open Source". They were late to the party, and they're either being disingenuous, or they were just totally oblivious to what was actually happening years earlier. This 1993 USENET post (which I linked before) proves conclusively that the words "Open Source" were clearly being used to refer to source code access by actual programmers on the ground long before Peterson claims to have coined the phrase.

Lets hear it for releasing source with NT programs, or at least making the source available for FTP. If a developer wants money for shareware, paying the fee should automatically grant the user a copy of the source code for their personal use. Restrictions could prohibit modifying and redistributing binaries, but should allow distribution of "deltas" for bug fixes, etc.

Anyone else into "Source Code for NT"? The tools and stuff I'm writing for NT will be released with source. If there are "proprietary" tricks that MS wants to hide, the only way to subvert their hoarding is to post source that illuminates (and I don't mean disclosing stuff obtained by a non-disclosure agreement). Open Source is best for everyone in the long run.

At the time, it was common for shareware programs to come with the sources. Though there was also plenty of shareware which didn't, most of the shareware I downloaded (for DOS and for AmigaOS) offered sources to those who paid the shareware fee. Even some fair bit (though less) of the MacOS shareware offered sources to purchasers, but of course less users of that platform had a compiler, so there was less point in providing them. It was trivial to get a copy of Turbo whatever for PC, not much harder to get Aztec for your Ami, but it was much harder to get your hands on MPW C for the Mac.

You are simply shifting from one excuse to the other. First you don't like what you think I said about Bruce, now you don't like the word Code after Source. What bullshit evasion will you hide behind now that I've handed you an example of "Open Source" without being followed by "Code" which predates the OSI claim by five years?

Thanks for the link and your research.

You're welcome.

You have, however, misrepresented the statement Bruce Perens made. This unfortunate fact turns your work from useful to bullshit.

No, no it does not. Frankly, it wasn't clear at the time what Bruce was talking about. Lots of people were making lots of claims at the time — remember, this was a dozen years ago, before Christine Peterson claimed to have coined the term. But even if it was, that doesn't change the content or quality of the citations I and others located even slightly.

Neither Perens, nor ESR, not Stallman, nor any other person claims to have originated the term,

Christine Peterson outright claims to have "coined" the phrase. My recollection is that before that, ESR claimed to have done so, but he has since supported her story. I agree with you that Perens didn't claim to have coined the term; what he did do was claim to have established its meaning authoritatively by writing a document — which sought to retcon history by redefining a term already in common use before the OSI was even imagined.

Trying to portray it as an argument between the people who were present is disingenuous.

I portrayed it as a series of mutually contradictory claims, but I never asserted that they "argued" about it, at least not that I can recall. If you can find a place where I made such a claim, I'll happily retract it.

It would also be more interesting had they used the combined term "open source" as a noun. They used the noun phrase "source code" with the adjective "open", which may seem like a subtle difference.

That is an outright falsehood. Surely, you can do better. The Caldera press release for OpenDOS authored by Lyle Ball clearly puts all three words together, in the order which you expect, right in the headline: "CALDERA® ANNOUNCES OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS". If you had actually read my citations, instead of only looking for arguments against them, you'd have known that. This post to comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 from 1993 also uses the phrase in the sense in which you describe. (To be fair, that citation was linked from my later article on this same subject, which I didn't link in the subthread to which you're replying; however, I did link it in a sibling subthread in this same conversation before you wrote the above comment — you might have taken the time to read the rest of the discussion before writing such an emphatic reply.) However, the Caldera press release was linked from my original article, which you really should have read before leaving your highly inaccurate comment here.

What a waste of your time and ours.

You can make excuses all day, or mischaracterise my efforts repeatedly, but it doesn't change the facts at all — And the most basic fact is that the phrase was being used by the community at least five years before Christine Peterson claims to have "coined" it (her word, not mine), and was used by at least one corporation two years earlier.

Further, because I was there, I personally remember the term being in broad use in conversation around the Santa Cruz geek community in the early nineties, in its current sense. That's what set me off in the first place when I read

Also the hull number of Captain Kirk's starship. NCC-1701 ring a bell?

Nope it doesn't...

NCC-1919 would have although since it is pretty groovy!

https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

Stupid bleeping...I'm not sure how I wrote "probably". A specific person, ESR, definitely used it first.

First, ESR doesn't actually claim (any more) to have invented it, he claims Christine Petersen invented it. He changed his story.

Second:
1993: Jerome Schneider
1996: Caldera (Written by Lyle Ball, whom I queried on the subject)
1998: Christine Peterson (Writing in 2006, mind, and providing zero citations)

So you tell me, who you gonna believe? The citations which prove that its use predates OSI claims by five years, provided by a person (me) who has nothing to gain by continuing this argument except the credibility which naturally comes from supporting the facts, or someone with something to gain economically from making such claims, like Christine Peterson or Bruce Perens? The only dog I've got in this fight is the truth.

Sustaining this argument over the years (literally over more than a decade) has cost me substantial credibility, but only among people who value prejudice over fact. I'm okay with that. Better to suffer for the truth than promote a pack of lies. Buying into bullshit is why we can't have nice things.

Really slashdot. A link to a google search intended to be biased is +5 informative. Would the opposite search also be +5 infomrative? Lets find out together.

Trump thinks real competition means everyone wins.

Nope, he thinks it means borrowing a whole lot of money to try and crush the competition then declaring bankruptcy and not paying the contractors what you owe when you finally figure out that it's not sustainable because you're not "competing", you're "subsidizing".

Leave other people to pay the bills and pick up the pieces.

Just google it (cdreimer) to enjoy yourself with his high quality content. He is everywhere.

Here is a google search link if you are experiencing problems:

https://www.google.com/search?...

"Beresheet" = Genesis. Yes, literally it means "in the beginning" but, it is _never_ used that way in common usage. It is the name of the 1st book in the bible (and also the 1st word in it). Even Google translate knows this https://translate.google.com/#... [google.com] But obviously spending a few seconds looking a word up is too much for the modern reporter.

To people who didn't know better, they'd think that you actually have a Model 3. You don't - you're a consistent Tesla foe on this forum. You're just repeating FUD that you heard.

Going down the list:

1) There were two cases (out of hundreds of thousands of cars) of the bumper coming off. It wasn't due to being "in the rain", but rather driving quickly through standing water (the bumper was acting like a parachute, and Model 3 has crazy amounts of torque). These cases were half a year ago. No new cases have been reported since.

2) According to the Model 3 Owners Survey, conducted last August (when autowipers were brand new; they've gotten better since then), the ratings for autowipers were:

57,0%: They do their job just fine
25,5%: Very rarely don't wipe, or wipe too often - but it's not a problem
9,7%: Minor issues that probably should be fixed.
7,8%: Moderate to major issues

These are similar numbers to what you'd find for a review of any autowiper system - and this was the very first release.

3) You can make the water go into the trunk by applying RainX to your rear windshield, which makes the water slide off faster and over the rear gutter. But there is a rear gutter (it was enlarged last year regardless).

4) According to the Model 3 Owners Survey (again, last August, involving a lot of early vehicles) 76,5% were "very satisfied" with their exterior fit and finish, and 16,9% "mostly satisfied" (93,4% total). For interior fit and finish, the numbers were 80,2% and 17,0%, respectively (97,2%). Infotainment system satisfaction ("the screen") were 58,2% and 31,3%, respectively (89,5%). These are exceedingly high numbers.

And these exceedingly high numbers show. Since we're talking about Consumer Reports, wouldn't it be great if they had polled what people thought of their cars? Why, they did! And of all of the different models from all of the different manufacturers, Model 3 owners loved their cars the most. 92% satisfaction. Specifically, the question they were asked about was whether, after having owned the car, they would make the same purchase decision again. So IMHO it's rather odd for Consumer Reports to recommend against a car that their own survey found brought their owners the most joy, and ALSO got the lowest VSS (combined probability of injury score) in NHTSA history.

I do have two issues with CR's methodology, which I'll mention here.,

1) They're giving the impression that we're talking about recent Model 3s here. This is not true. This data was collected on Model 3s from early last year to the middle of last year. These are early-run vehicles that they're talking about. For example, they mentioned the "phantom click" issue. That only existed on some vehicles delivered from February to April 2018 in the 4000-15000 VIN range, due to a bad batch of displays from a supplier. The problem has not existed at all in any form for nearly a year. Yet it's something that CR cites. Note how low those VINs are; Tesla's VINs are now nearly 300k.

2) Specifically because of all of the anti-Tesla FUD, most Model 3 buyers went over their vehicles with a fine-toothed comb, in a way that buyers of other vehicles do not. There were even long "checklists" circulating around that many people used to make sure that their vehicles were flawless at delivery. Who does that for any other vehicle? Now, there's nothing wrong at all with doing this - diligence is great when buying a car. But it messes with self-reporting surveys like CR's. The more a person searches for any little issue

Until you learn that they all have a cam... Honestly, privacy is an illusion no matter where you go. A sufficiently resourced actor will always be able to get footage of you picking your nose, scratching yourself, or fondling your seatmate. Even if you didn't actually do any of those things, there's always deepfakes. It might offend your sensibilities, but it's a reality that you're probably going to want to get comfortable with lest you be driven mad by it.

If you really need privacy for something while flying, you can use the lavatory for that.

Are you 100% sure about that?

https://www.google.com/search?...

Bullshit. "Security fixes" aren't the only solution to security problems that crop up. Ring fencing, firewalling, byte patching, and many other mitigation strategies exist for security issues. One of which is simply "don't use the thing that's vulnerable." Another would be "replace the software with an open source alternative." Coward, you are very narrow minded if you think waiting like sheeple for "The Almighty Vendor" to come to your rescue for money, you might be sorely disappointed. They don't have the best history of giving a fuck. But yeah, for hyper-conformists who want to run the absolute most mainstream spyware garbage (read: Android && iOS) they can find then you are pretty much depending on the paternal vendor to come save you. How's that shit been working out so far bruh? Also you are dumber than most cowards if you think sealing the fucking battery or otherwise making the hardware difficult to service doesn't destroy the lifespan of the device for most people. Sadly, you aren't alone, though. A lot of other 12 year olds feel the same way.

they're Big on Parties (ducks).

devalue their currency to steal our jobs and manufacturing,

Anyone actually living in China can tell you that the country has been trying hard, really hard, to pop UP their currency, e.g. by restricting the annual maximum of foreign currency an individual can *send out* of China. Otherwise, Yuan would be worth as much as Yen. so you should thank them for popping up their currency, else made in China products would be much cheaper.

use that advantage to steal our manufacturing technology,

Joint venture requirement is allowed under WTO treaty which they and the US have both signed up to. And requiring tech transfer is not "steal". In practice, companies only transferred enough peripheral tech so to allow manufacturing to happen. If a manufacturer doesn't know how to make the product, how can it start manufacturing for you? the core tech such as source code and semiconductor design are still been done in the Silicon Valley and never transferred. In accordance with WTO commitments, China has gradually narrow down the catalogs of industries requiring JVs over time. Bottom line: walk away and give up the market or lower labor cost if you don't like the deal, China did not put a gun at your head, blame your own (or the top 1% Americans') greediness

hack our infrastructure/businesses,

Read the TFA

international business,

Maybe you learned your English writing in the fake US education system?

steal our ICBM technology, industrial and tech IP, and siphon our wealth.

So did the US

Of and hire a sockpuppet using the nick "ShanghaiBill"

Personal attack is a sign of paranoia

I don't know,

You are absolutely right on this! You don't know anything but keep spitting out BS.

a lot of room for follow-on studies:
1. compare incidence per capita of lion attacks on zebras vs horses
2. dress horses up with tiger stripes
3. dress horses up with cheetah spots
4. dress horses up a penguins
5. dress zebras up as horses
6. dress lions up as zebras
7. dress scientists up like horses
8. dress horses up as scientists - compare efficacy of acquiring grants
9. dress monkeys as cowboys and train them to ride dogs like horses

You sit around all day posting your lies but are too lazy to just highlight 3 words from the post and click search for?
What an entitled asshole you seem like.
https://google.com/search?q=Lo...
First result https://betanews.com/2016/09/1...

With TRR, it goes to a provider of Mozilla's choosing that I have no control over and have no reason to trust.

As mentioned in both Mozilla links I included, you can specify the DoH server with "network.trr.uri" :

Link 1: 4. Set "network.trr.uri" to your DoH server. Cloudflare’s is https://mozilla.cloudflare-dns... but you can use any DoH compliant endpoint.

Link 2: Set "network.trr.uri". Ones that you may use: https://mozilla.cloudflare-dns..., https://dns.google.com/experim...

I believe I read that Google is considering a GUI implementation for the DoH configuration for Chrome.

i have not seen a good way to do it on android

You just need to run a firewall app, which blocks all network access attempts by an app. I use AFWall+ but it requires root. NoRoot Firewall seems to be popular among non-rooted people. It sets up a fake VPN on your phone that it controls. Since all network traffic is redirected through the VPN, the firewall can block whichever apps you choose to block.

You have to re-enable access if the app needs network access to use (like the FB app). But that's actually less work with a firewall than modifying the /etc/hosts file every time you run a certain app. I don't use the FB app so haven't had this problem.

i have not seen a good way to do it on android

You just need to run a firewall app, which blocks all network access attempts by an app. I use AFWall+ but it requires root. NoRoot Firewall seems to be popular among non-rooted people. It sets up a fake VPN on your phone that it controls. Since all network traffic is redirected through the VPN, the firewall can block whichever apps you choose to block.

You have to re-enable access if the app needs network access to use (like the FB app). But that's actually less work with a firewall than modifying the /etc/hosts file every time you run a certain app. I don't use the FB app so haven't had this problem.