Google tracked his bike ride past a burglarized home. That made him a suspect.

"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| And who's idea was it to fund in the beginning of Google?
| One of the three letter agencies. What a better way to spy on the public.
| Hook n' Crook.
|

In the beginning they were great. Two brilliant young
men with a great search engine, paid for by putting
plain text ads along the right. Contextual ads,
not spyware ads. You saw an ad for golf clubs because
you searched for "buy golf clubs", not because your
wife looked at golf clubs in a sporting goods store
last week while her phone talked to a bluetooth sensor,
and while your location data showed you speninding time
on a golf course.

On 3/9/20 1:40 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| And who's idea was it to fund in the beginning of Google?
| One of the three letter agencies. What a better way to spy on the public.
| Hook n' Crook.
|

In the beginning they were great. Two brilliant young
men with a great search engine, paid for by putting
plain text ads along the right. Contextual ads,
not spyware ads. You saw an ad for golf clubs because
you searched for "buy golf clubs", not because your
wife looked at golf clubs in a sporting goods store
last week while her phone talked to a bluetooth sensor,
and while your location data showed you speninding time
on a golf course.



Oh, I know what the narrative looked like. But who funded such a large
server farm so quickly?

On 09/03/2020 23.21, anonlinuxuser wrote:
On 3/9/20 1:40 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| And who's idea was it to fund in the beginning of Google?
| One of the three letter agencies.Â* What a better way to spy on the
public.
| Hook n' Crook.
|

Â*Â*Â* In the beginning they were great. Two brilliant young
men with a great search engine, paid for by putting
plain text ads along the right. Contextual ads,
not spyware ads. You saw an ad for golf clubs because
you searched for "buy golf clubs", not because your
wife looked at golf clubs in a sporting goods store
last week while her phone talked to a bluetooth sensor,
and while your location data showed you speninding time
on a golf course.



Oh, I know what the narrative looked like.Â* But who funded such a large
server farm so quickly?

The e-boom and the success.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 3/9/20 5:14 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 09/03/2020 23.21, anonlinuxuser wrote:
On 3/9/20 1:40 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| And who's idea was it to fund in the beginning of Google?
| One of the three letter agencies.Â* What a better way to spy on the
public.
| Hook n' Crook.
|

Â*Â*Â* In the beginning they were great. Two brilliant young
men with a great search engine, paid for by putting
plain text ads along the right. Contextual ads,
not spyware ads. You saw an ad for golf clubs because
you searched for "buy golf clubs", not because your
wife looked at golf clubs in a sporting goods store
last week while her phone talked to a bluetooth sensor,
and while your location data showed you speninding time
on a golf course.



Oh, I know what the narrative looked like.Â* But who funded such a large
server farm so quickly?

The e-boom and the success.


Yahoo was there too, but they are having a tough time of it.
I've heard rumors that the CIA fronted the money. But then no one here
is an accountant that can look back to follow the money.

"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| Yahoo was there too, but they are having a tough time of it.

Weren't they basically a portal? That was my impression.
Like AOL but with a stupid name. I could never figure out
why anyone would do business with a company named
Yahoo.

Remember portals? For a time they were thought to be
the next big thing. Just after the "thin client" craze that
never happened.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 16:21:36 -0600, anonlinuxuser
wrote:

Oh, I know what the narrative looked like. But who funded such a large
server farm so quickly?

Perhaps actually using Google search might provide a useful answer?
BTW, nice of you to scatter your conspiratorial rubbish into 5
unrelated newsgroups. The surest sign of success is oversubscription
and pollution and judging by your contribution, Usenet is certainly
successful.


Who invested in Google early on?
https://www.quora.com/Who-invested-in-Google-early-on

The four angel investors during 1998 were Andreas von Bechtolsheim,
Kavitark Ram Shriram, David R. Cheriton, and Jeffrey Bezos.

As PhD students at Stanford, Larry and Sergey were introduced to Andy
Bechtolsheim by Prof. Cheriton (Andy and David had co-founded Granite
Systems in 1995 and had sold it a year and a half later to Cisco for
$220 million). Andy (who also co-founded Sun Microsystems) invested
$100,000 in August 1998 to Google Inc. before the company was
incorporated.

Larry and Sergey were introduced to Ram Shriram by Prof. Jeffrey
Ullman at Stanford. Shriram was an early Netscape executive and angel
investor; he invested $250,000 on the day Google was incorporated,
Sept 7, 1998.

Cheriton was the third angel investor, contributing $200,000.

Shriram had sold his online shopping company, Junglee, to Amazon in
August 1998 to Amazon, where he worked with Bezos. Shriram referred
Bezos to Larry and Sergey, and Bezos ultimately providing the fourth
angel investment of $250,000 in November 1998.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 10/03/2020 03.37, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| Yahoo was there too, but they are having a tough time of it.

Weren't they basically a portal? That was my impression.
Like AOL but with a stupid name. I could never figure out
why anyone would do business with a company named
Yahoo.

Remember portals? For a time they were thought to be
the next big thing. Just after the "thin client" craze that
never happened.

Yes, there were several. In Spain there was one called "Ole" (which is
the word used to cheer on the bull fight ring). Very local word. For a
time it was successful. It was bought and joined or renamed with
"Terra". It bought or joined with Lycos. They had modem banks as
internet provider and mail accounts under the name Teleline.

Investors invested tons of money, even my father via bank "fund". We
lost all that money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_(company)


Google simply did the right choices.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 09/03/2020 16.02, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:28:45 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

What Mayayana said is basically true.

Hi Carlos,

You have to be intelligent and realize what Mayayana actually said:
"On the other hand, the man is using an Android phone
and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't care about privacy. "

Which is true.

What on earth do you _think_ Mayayana was implying as the alternative?
o A Windows phone?

Why would he be thinking of a defined alternative? The only one is a
dumb phone. I am writing on the Android group, I don't know where he
wrote, but the Windows group is a certain possibility as he writes
there. He also writes on the Android group. /I/ have no reason to think
he was proposing to use iphones.

Me, I simply consider his phrase is correct: an android phone is not the
correct choice if one values privacy. And I'm absolutely not saying
anything about any alternatives - I'd probably go for the one Ms Merkel
uses, if I could afford it.


It's clear Mayayana fell for the MARKETING bull****...
o People who think iOS is more private fall for MARKETING bull****, Carlos.

Bull****, Carlos.
o I'm allergic to bull**** - particularly parroted MARKETING bull****.


You are paranoid. :-P


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." wrote

| You have to be intelligent and realize what Mayayana actually said:
| "On the other hand, the man is using an Android phone
| and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't care about privacy. "
|
| Which is true.
|

I enjoy your calm intellect. And since you usually
agree with me, I can see that you're also highly
intelligent.

| It's clear Mayayana fell for the MARKETING bull****...
| o People who think iOS is more private fall for MARKETING bull****,
Carlos.

I've been filtering Arlen. He makes so many posts
and insists on being the discussion leader in them.
I started to find it a distraction. (Though he doesn't
make it easy. He changes his ID frequently to stop
people filtering him.)

I didn't know Arlen was so anti-Mac. But I also find
it interesting that people, increasingly, assume everyone
must have either an Android or iPhone and that it must
always be turned on, acting as a tracking collar and social
hub, if one wants to survive in the modern world. I'm
becoming famous among acquaintances as "the guy who
doesn't text". But I think of those people as having fallen
for BULL**** MARKETING!!! Of course, I can't tell them
that because they no longer speak or email, and I have
no capacity to text them.

I have been in the Android group off and on. The woman
I live with has an Android. She doesn't really know how to use
it and I don't want to know. Even with her limited usage
I see the beginnings of anti-social addiction, such as standing
in the middle of the kitchen, texting. Once the phone gets
established as a constant companion, one's actual environs,
one's senses, and other people, all become merely interruptions...

But if there's a problem with the Android then it falls to me
to figure it out. So I sometimes keep an eye on that group.

On 10/03/2020 13.35, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E. R." wrote

| You have to be intelligent and realize what Mayayana actually said:
| "On the other hand, the man is using an Android phone
| and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't care about privacy. "
|
| Which is true.
|

I enjoy your calm intellect. And since you usually
agree with me, I can see that you're also highly
intelligent.

| It's clear Mayayana fell for the MARKETING bull****...
| o People who think iOS is more private fall for MARKETING bull****,
Carlos.

I've been filtering Arlen. He makes so many posts
and insists on being the discussion leader in them.
I started to find it a distraction. (Though he doesn't
make it easy. He changes his ID frequently to stop
people filtering him.)

I know, I have a bunch of his aliases stored, and his posts flagged ;-)

He has been using this one for longer than usual, though.


I didn't know Arlen was so anti-Mac. But I also find
it interesting that people, increasingly, assume everyone
must have either an Android or iPhone and that it must
always be turned on, acting as a tracking collar and social
hub, if one wants to survive in the modern world. I'm
becoming famous among acquaintances as "the guy who
doesn't text". But I think of those people as having fallen
for BULL**** MARKETING!!! Of course, I can't tell them
that because they no longer speak or email, and I have
no capacity to text them.

Well, most people have either one or the other, statistically speaking :-p

(yes, I know people with no mobile phone)

But you can text with a dumb phone, at least on the NA continent.
Although the authorities have no problem to track them, either, if they
so wish.

Me, I don't care much that I'm location tracked.


I have been in the Android group off and on. The woman
I live with has an Android. She doesn't really know how to use
it and I don't want to know. Even with her limited usage
I see the beginnings of anti-social addiction, such as standing
in the middle of the kitchen, texting. Once the phone gets
established as a constant companion, one's actual environs,
one's senses, and other people, all become merely interruptions...

But if there's a problem with the Android then it falls to me
to figure it out. So I sometimes keep an eye on that group.

:-)

But the thing is, he figured you out wrong, you did not fell for Apple
marketing :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E. R." wrote
|
| Which is true.
|

I enjoy your calm intellect. And since you usually
agree with me, I can see that you're also highly
intelligent.

That sounds a lot like a certain personality that many have relegated to
the bitbucket. Coincidence?

Should I get out the tinfoil?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl5nnn YACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFFQgf/Wd/67GaYp/s/5FtSCJl83OCTllraWmP6piWqk4qRe9NQnHswlNs8jWch
CtGPGLndzYGyR27n/mCiHcINNFPgLqfOtryU8Hgm7MAh9M9sEwFZpvFnOaM3k/IF
zaAWrJAV631vHFpWiLrM93EzCBHakHJvFyjtqv3fBH+rfjaCok Go8y65lmYSIqCD
s5gNd7lBjnMQ33jX6aH5W6b4mJbX4BHmw8KKwg5M6kbYrSrDIh rN1r368Wcu711X
qnKAiKD/RP0IHRMV7b/HUGBgoXt1Lo+y8+lknW41gau3JAKNPCz/UFGGyIt+qDXO
Qr1Bxgc82+hRTTrOlzkZbN27ftn3LA==
=dibe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 19:46:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

BTW, nice of you to scatter your conspiratorial rubbish into 5
unrelated newsgroups. The surest sign of success is oversubscription
and pollution and judging by your contribution, Usenet is certainly
successful.

Hi Jeff,

Most of the posts in this thread are from people who, as you've noted, seem
to own a conspiracy theory; but I'm shocked that _technical_ people like
Carlos & Mayayana also spouted sheer utter bull**** about Android users not
caring about privacy (given iOS is not any better on privacy nor security).

Those are just well-cited well-proven well-known facts.

The huge problem I have with people like Carlos & Mayana are that...
o Adults are supposed to form their belief system _based_ on facts (IMHO).

Yet, these (& many) here proved their entire belief system imaginary.
o They can't name even a _single_ fact which underlies their belief system!

For other adults on this newsgroup, we covered the _facts_ in detail he
o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on innocent people
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA
Which _only_ went to the Android newsgroup:
o http://comp.mobile.android

These factual on-topic posts were _not_ to these newsgroups of this thread:
o http://alt.privacy.anon-server.narkive.com
o http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com
o http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com
o http://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com
--
Usenet is so much more valuable, and pleasant, when people act like adults.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:04:40 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

Should I get out the tinfoil?

FACTS:
Adults who are allergic to the child-like taunts from Dan Purgert note:
o Adult factual proof Dan Purgert posts are the product of a child's brain
https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/jBmxPlFH/adult-factual-proof-dan-purgert-posts-are-the-product-of-a-child-s-brain

FACTS:
Which proves, with cites, the facts, that:
o Dan Purgert is incapable of posting anything of _adult_ value.

FACTS:
Just like he did, just now.
o And (apparently) always will...
--
Usenet is so much more valuable, and pleasant, when people act like adults.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:35:46 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

I have been in the Android group off and on.

Mayayana,

I'm allergic to bull**** (which most adults should be).
o I post facts.

*You posted bull*****.
o I easily showed your post was filled with bull****.

You fail the _simplest_ possible test of an imaginary belief system:
o Name just one.

Neither you nor Carlos can cite a _single_ fact that formed the basis of
your entire belief system about Android owners not caring about privacy.

Your entire belief system is wholly imaginary.
o The proof is easily shown with the simple 3-word bull**** test.
--
People like Mayayana who incessantly bull**** fail a simple 3-word test.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:18:11 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

You are paranoid

Here's the simple three-word bull**** test of your belief system, Carlos:
o Name just one fact that underlies your belief system that
"Android owners don't care about privacy"

Name just one, Carlos.
o Name just one.

I'm allergic to bull****, Carlos.
o Your bull****.
o Mayayana's bull****.
o nospam's bull****.
etc.

I'm allergic to anyone who claims Android owners don't care about privacy.

That's just bull**** which both you and Mayayana _believe_, but you don't
have even a _single_ fact that forms the basis of your belief system.

Your _entire_ belief system is easily proven to be _imaginary_, Carlos.
o You don't have even _one_ fact that you formed your belief system upon!

There's a simple test of bull**** Carlos - and it's just 3 words.
o Can you even _pass_ that simple three-word bull**** test Carlos?

Here's the simple three-word bull**** test of your belief system, Carlos:
o Name just one.

Yup. Name just one.

Name just one _fact_ that underlies your belief system, Carlos.
o Name just one.
--
People who bull**** always fail this simple 3-word adult test.