Your argument completely fell apart when I called you out for defending Google while criticizing Apple, applying a typical double-standard that Google fanbois employ. The only thing you could come up with was to use lame insults.
In the submitter's blind emotion, they ignored the actual facts of the situation. Expect a bunch of Microsoft-bashing posts to follow, with most of them not reading the article or seeing your post. Nope, it's more important to have biased garbage like what we got in the article summary.
The problem with the article is that they label apps as "suspicious" when they work as intended.
The article shows that apps are sending personal data to advertising networks, so again, I ask--you think sending personal data to advertising server networks is "working as intended?"
Sorry, but you've got caught with your own words. Next.
Once again, you completely miss the point. You criticized people for trusting Apple's "security screening" (a phrase you used). Yet, you defend Google for remotely removing applications, meaning that you trust Google's security screening. Your bias is completely obvious. How much is Google paying you to post here?
I love how you bash people for trusting Apple security screening "for no reason whatsoever," but then you cite Google's remote uninstallation of apps. Who's the fanboy again?
What the hell are you talking about? You're free to jailbreak your phone or simply choose to use a non-iPhone. You obviously don't have any argument here, just blind Apple hatred.
Democrats in Congress had time to vote on TV commercial volume but not to approve a goddamn budget for the country. They had much more important things to do, like campaign to save their jobs from an angry public.
If you've heard of the inverted pyramid in journalism, you'd know that basic facts are stated in the first paragraph, and less relevant details follow in subsequent paragraphs. The first paragraphs of every news story are a summarization.
Good summaries do not offer commentary. Save the commentary for the comments.
Not implying something in a submission increases the likelihood it will get rejected. When I learned to start implying things, my acceptance rate went up.
Don't worry guys, I'm sure giving the government the power to regulate internet traffic will never backfire! Governments are incorruptible and infallible! Let's hear it for "net neutrality!"
I voted for Obama based on my belief that he would make better decisions than McCain.
Which were based on vague promises and TV speeches. Unlike Obama, McCain had a public promise to shrink the government and a record showing his history of reaching across the political aisle to work with Democrats. He even bashed the Republican Party at the Republican convention. But people got caught up in the culture of personality around Obama, acting on their emotions and the glowing media coverage where he made tons of promises that critics knew he would never keep.
You bought into another smooth-talking politican.
As for being worse than the old boss, your memory must be failing. Bush was the most corporate-friendly President we've seen. Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the environment alone will take years.
What a stupid comment. Being corporate-friendly doesn't mean your civil liberties are damaged, and the environment claim is laughable. Perhaps the worst part, though, is that you voted for Obama knowing he was left-of-center and pro-government, as if governments and corporations are different in their damage. The important difference is that corporations can be punished or replaced easily. Have fun with your government-restricted internet.
What's the point of your comment? That nobody is supposed to criticize Obama for making bad decisions because other presidents in the past have made bad decisions?
It's cute how, when you don't like a hard source that discredits your argument, you dismiss it as "wrong." It's 100% correct and is in the New Oxford American Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary goes further and says atheism is a denial of the existence of a god, which is a belief that a god does not exist.
You're just flat-out wrong, sorry. I've never understand why atheists freak out so much when told that they have a belief in something, obsessing over "weak" and "strong" definitions that nobody can agree on. It's never bothered me to say I don't believe.
Take the latest political opponent, Liu Xiaobo, as an example. From western media it looked like he was sent to jail for nothing serious.
Oh, so he did do something serious? I can't wait for you to tell me!
It turned out he was circulating a letter for signatures, calling for the establishment of a new country with a new name. That is a crime by Chinese law. Now I am not defending Chinese law here but I just wanted to point out things are more complicated than you think, including the "cheap crap" you love to hate.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument completely fell apart when I called you out for defending Google while criticizing Apple, applying a typical double-standard that Google fanbois employ. The only thing you could come up with was to use lame insults.
You got destroyed. Next.
In the submitter's blind emotion, they ignored the actual facts of the situation. Expect a bunch of Microsoft-bashing posts to follow, with most of them not reading the article or seeing your post. Nope, it's more important to have biased garbage like what we got in the article summary.
It's interesting how you ignored the other points raised, such as retraining staff and converting documents between formats.
Nice dodge, but you wrote this:
The article shows that apps are sending personal data to advertising networks, so again, I ask--you think sending personal data to advertising server networks is "working as intended?"
Sorry, but you've got caught with your own words. Next.
Once again, you completely miss the point. You criticized people for trusting Apple's "security screening" (a phrase you used). Yet, you defend Google for remotely removing applications, meaning that you trust Google's security screening. Your bias is completely obvious. How much is Google paying you to post here?
You're falling apart at the seams here. Next.
You think sending personal data to advertising server networks is "working as intended?" What the fuck?
I love how you bash people for trusting Apple security screening "for no reason whatsoever," but then you cite Google's remote uninstallation of apps. Who's the fanboy again?
What the hell are you talking about? You're free to jailbreak your phone or simply choose to use a non-iPhone. You obviously don't have any argument here, just blind Apple hatred.
Next.
Uh, you "destroyed" absolutely nothing.
Democrats in Congress had time to vote on TV commercial volume but not to approve a goddamn budget for the country. They had much more important things to do, like campaign to save their jobs from an angry public.
You're trusting them because if they fuck up, it's on their hands, and they potentially lose you as a customer.
If you've heard of the inverted pyramid in journalism, you'd know that basic facts are stated in the first paragraph, and less relevant details follow in subsequent paragraphs. The first paragraphs of every news story are a summarization.
Not implying something in a submission increases the likelihood it will get rejected. When I learned to start implying things, my acceptance rate went up.
Well, hey, a boot loader and some Bash scripts sure sound like a valid reason to prefix everything with "GNU."
Don't worry guys, I'm sure giving the government the power to regulate internet traffic will never backfire! Governments are incorruptible and infallible! Let's hear it for "net neutrality!"
Hey, voting for the big-government guy to protect civil liberties sure makes sense to me!
It looks like Americans are finally realizing that big government is damaging to civil liberty and that lawmakers are above the law.
Which were based on vague promises and TV speeches. Unlike Obama, McCain had a public promise to shrink the government and a record showing his history of reaching across the political aisle to work with Democrats. He even bashed the Republican Party at the Republican convention. But people got caught up in the culture of personality around Obama, acting on their emotions and the glowing media coverage where he made tons of promises that critics knew he would never keep.
You bought into another smooth-talking politican.
What a stupid comment. Being corporate-friendly doesn't mean your civil liberties are damaged, and the environment claim is laughable. Perhaps the worst part, though, is that you voted for Obama knowing he was left-of-center and pro-government, as if governments and corporations are different in their damage. The important difference is that corporations can be punished or replaced easily. Have fun with your government-restricted internet.
The Obama Administration plans to increase the amount of Hope and Change budgeted for federal agencies in the hope that it will spur IPv6 adoption.
What's the point of your comment? That nobody is supposed to criticize Obama for making bad decisions because other presidents in the past have made bad decisions?
Way to fit in a completely irrelevant Fox News bash.
It's cute how, when you don't like a hard source that discredits your argument, you dismiss it as "wrong." It's 100% correct and is in the New Oxford American Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary goes further and says atheism is a denial of the existence of a god, which is a belief that a god does not exist.
You're just flat-out wrong, sorry. I've never understand why atheists freak out so much when told that they have a belief in something, obsessing over "weak" and "strong" definitions that nobody can agree on. It's never bothered me to say I don't believe.
"Denial of the existence of a god" is a belief in no god. Next.
It's from the New Oxford American Dictionary. The OED definition says:
A denial of the existence of something is a belief that it doesn't exist.
Next.
My definition is from the New Oxford American Dictionary, which is also the dictionary included in OS X.
Uh, it says right there that it means "a denial of the existence of a god." That's a belief in no god.
Oh, so he did do something serious? I can't wait for you to tell me!
Uh, I'm still waiting for the serious part.