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

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:18:58 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

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

URL Correction:

The adult factual discussion based on facts went to this ng only:
o http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com

Adults will note the proven fact that freeware privacy-aware apps abound on
Android, e.g., for those on r.b.t who care about their privacy, please see:
o https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.mobile.android/privacy$20tracking
--
Adults are supposed to be able to form their belief systems based on facts!

On 3/9/20 8:37 PM, 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.


I may have been too young then to remember portals.
Thin clients???

Oh well.

On 3/9/20 8:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

To be precise, I only subscribe to linux advocacy. Looking for some
useful information regarding linux.


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.



But I used to work for the NSA for a short while... so what you would
consider conspiracy, which was something that the CIA invented, was
actually true. IIRC, the NSA approached Bill Gates on putting back
doors in Windows so that they could spy. What a convenient way.
Otherwise, Judge Pennington would have ripped Microsoft to shreds if he
didn't.

Also to say that the whole world at that time was predominantly windows.
Making it a whole lot easier to spy. OTW, you don't need boots on the
ground to do so.

Does that make it easier for you to grok the situation now?

"Carlos E. R." wrote

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

No. In fact I never pass up an opportunity to list
the evils of Apple and Lord Jobs. I wouldn't touch their
products.... even if they were reasonably priced.

"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| Remember portals? For a time they were thought to be
| the next big thing. Just after the "thin client" craze that
| never happened.
|
|
| I may have been too young then to remember portals.
| Thin clients???
|

It's an interesting history. People have been attempting
to impose services ever since Microsoft came up with
Active Desktop in 1998 and claimed Bill Gates's genius
foresaw the importance of the Internet. Folder windows
were actually webpages. Gates tried to get people to host
corporate ads on their Desktop. He provided a sample with
the Channel Bar, which was an advertising billboard on
the Desktop. There were "Internet keyboards" with programmable
buttons to get email or browse. No one really noticed.
And speeds were too slow for that crap, anyway. But
everyone was talking about the Internet. So Bill was on
the job.

Next was thin clients. The PC magazines dutifully reported
that no one would want a real PC anymore. We'd be buying
little things, the size of a book, because all the
functionality would be online. Again, it was a scam to make
more money without actually looking at the market. No one
wanted services. No one had the speed. And finally, software
was becoming affordable. So why by a crappy little,
non-upgradeable, overpriced, metal box with bottom-
level-quality parts in it?

Portals was a weird interlude in there. I never really followed
it, but I think the general idea was that companies would
clean up by creating interactive websites with news, email,
chat, etc. They called that a portal. Again, speeds were too
slow and the public no longer needed training wheels to go
online.

But Bill Gates really does deserve credit for his amazing genius.
He was dreaming of online ad scams, and even trying to make
them happen, 20 years before it was feasible. His SPOT
watch... Hailstorm services... .Net framework for web apps...
They were all brilliant scams, just too early and lacking
Internet speeds to make them work.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

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

No. In fact I never pass up an opportunity to list
the evils of Apple and Lord Jobs. I wouldn't touch their
products.... even if they were reasonably priced.

except that just about everything you claim apple does is demonstrably
false, including the above, since their products are price competitive
with similar products from other companies.

On 3/10/20 1:07 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| Remember portals? For a time they were thought to be
| the next big thing. Just after the "thin client" craze that
| never happened.
|
|
| I may have been too young then to remember portals.
| Thin clients???
|

It's an interesting history. People have been attempting
to impose services ever since Microsoft came up with
Active Desktop in 1998 and claimed Bill Gates's genius
foresaw the importance of the Internet. Folder windows
were actually webpages. Gates tried to get people to host
corporate ads on their Desktop. He provided a sample with
the Channel Bar, which was an advertising billboard on
the Desktop. There were "Internet keyboards" with programmable
buttons to get email or browse. No one really noticed.
And speeds were too slow for that crap, anyway. But
everyone was talking about the Internet. So Bill was on
the job.

Next was thin clients. The PC magazines dutifully reported
that no one would want a real PC anymore. We'd be buying
little things, the size of a book, because all the
functionality would be online. Again, it was a scam to make
more money without actually looking at the market. No one
wanted services. No one had the speed. And finally, software
was becoming affordable. So why by a crappy little,
non-upgradeable, overpriced, metal box with bottom-
level-quality parts in it?

Portals was a weird interlude in there. I never really followed
it, but I think the general idea was that companies would
clean up by creating interactive websites with news, email,
chat, etc. They called that a portal. Again, speeds were too
slow and the public no longer needed training wheels to go
online.

But Bill Gates really does deserve credit for his amazing genius.
He was dreaming of online ad scams, and even trying to make
them happen, 20 years before it was feasible. His SPOT
watch... Hailstorm services... .Net framework for web apps...
They were all brilliant scams, just too early and lacking
Internet speeds to make them work.


Interesting history that I'll have to look into.
The .NET framework tho... not only for web apps but also for just
writing desktop apps or even console apps.
And then there is more like Azure, cloud services, R, F#, etc.
Those I don't dabble in.

On 10/03/2020 20.20, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

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

No. In fact I never pass up an opportunity to list
the evils of Apple and Lord Jobs. I wouldn't touch their
products.... even if they were reasonably priced.

except that just about everything you claim apple does is demonstrably
false, including the above, since their products are price competitive
with similar products from other companies.


LOL :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 10/03/2020 20.07, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| Remember portals? For a time they were thought to be
| the next big thing. Just after the "thin client" craze that
| never happened.
|
|
| I may have been too young then to remember portals.
| Thin clients???
|

It's an interesting history. People have been attempting
to impose services ever since Microsoft came up with
Active Desktop in 1998 and claimed Bill Gates's genius
foresaw the importance of the Internet. Folder windows
were actually webpages. Gates tried to get people to host
corporate ads on their Desktop. He provided a sample with
the Channel Bar, which was an advertising billboard on
the Desktop. There were "Internet keyboards" with programmable
buttons to get email or browse. No one really noticed.
And speeds were too slow for that crap, anyway. But
everyone was talking about the Internet. So Bill was on
the job.

Next was thin clients. The PC magazines dutifully reported
that no one would want a real PC anymore. We'd be buying
little things, the size of a book, because all the
functionality would be online. Again, it was a scam to make
more money without actually looking at the market. No one
wanted services. No one had the speed. And finally, software
was becoming affordable. So why by a crappy little,
non-upgradeable, overpriced, metal box with bottom-
level-quality parts in it?

Portals was a weird interlude in there. I never really followed
it, but I think the general idea was that companies would
clean up by creating interactive websites with news, email,
chat, etc. They called that a portal. Again, speeds were too
slow and the public no longer needed training wheels to go
online.

But Bill Gates really does deserve credit for his amazing genius.
He was dreaming of online ad scams, and even trying to make
them happen, 20 years before it was feasible. His SPOT
watch... Hailstorm services... .Net framework for web apps...
They were all brilliant scams, just too early and lacking
Internet speeds to make them work.

Oh, some smart people did a lot of money selling portals to investors
before they crashed. I never understood where was the money. They sold
it to my father at the bank, who invested some money (savings). I did
not know at the time if it was an error or a good thing. Too bad.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 10/03/2020 16.19, Arlen Holder wrote:
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.


LOL

Your entire belief system is wholly imaginary.
o The proof is easily shown with the simple 3-word bull**** test.



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 10/03/2020 16.19, Arlen Holder wrote:
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.

Why would I? It is obvious to anyone but you :-P

Because I know personally many Android users, and they simply don't.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article , Carlos E. R.
wrote:

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

No. In fact I never pass up an opportunity to list
the evils of Apple and Lord Jobs. I wouldn't touch their
products.... even if they were reasonably priced.

except that just about everything you claim apple does is demonstrably
false, including the above, since their products are price competitive
with similar products from other companies.


LOL :-D

it's true. the mere fact that he says 'lord jobs' shows his bias.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:34:22 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Why would I? It is obvious to anyone but you :-P

Because I know personally many Android users, and they simply don't.

Please stop incessantly trying to bull**** us, Carlos.
o Just stop.

You may as well claim you're a personal friend of Edward Snowden.

The fact is we proved your belief system is entirely imaginary.
o You based your entire belief system on exactly zero (0) facts.

You, Mayayana, and nospam are all classic bull****ters.
o Nothing you claim can you back up with even a _single_ fact.
--
The problem with Usenet is these bull****ters outnumber the adults.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:32:30 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

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.


LOL

Notice that "LOL" is an admission, by Carlos, his entire belief system is
based on exactly zero (0) facts (i.e., it's entirely imaginary).
--
The problem with Usenet is that bull****ters outnumber the adults.

On 10/03/2020 23.30, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:32:30 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

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.


LOL

Notice that "LOL" is an admission, by Carlos, his entire belief system is
based on exactly zero (0) facts (i.e., it's entirely imaginary).


No, I'm laughing at you :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.