If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
nospam wrote:
Mayayana wrote: ... By those standards I guess Apple does deserve the award. They're probably near the top in terms of offshoring profits to avoid taxes. they do no such thing. apple pays taxes they are required to pay. There is a legitimate point to be made about these legal tax 'evasion' strategies, but what's clearly disingenuous is to try to imply that only but one corporation who's employing them. Case in point: "Google's effective tax rate in the United States has fallen dramatically from 21 percent to 15.7 percent in recent years as the company has broadened its use of overseas tax benefits." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/ireland-to-phase-out-double-irish-tax-trickery-to-googles-chagrin/ "Ireland is the go-to place for Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook, not to mention big pharma." "Google and Microsoft cut their overseas tax rates to single digits with Dublin-registered subsidiaries designated as tax resident in Bermuda." http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/10/14/ireland-corks-double-irish-tax-deal-closing-time-for-apple-google-twitter-facebook/ And so on. where do people come up with this ****??? It is made up, because the underlying motivation actually has nothing to do with Apple ... the posts are merely an "Acting Out" by a socially marginalized individual with no self-worth, who is attempting to have anyone pay attention to them. FYI, you'll find that when they're ignored, their claims will become increasingly outrageous. Eventually, someone on the group gets fed up and flames them, but the problem with this is that ANY response is viewed as a positive reward, because what they want is attention, regardless of if it is good or bad attention. -hh |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
Andreas Skitsnack: What turns these exchanges negative is nospam's almost-religious fervor in defending Apple from any wrongdoing. The brown on his nose extends to his ankles when Apple is brought up. He makes you want to challenge him because of his "their **** doesn't stink" position. Sandman: That doesn't follow, especially not in this thread. This thread is based on an antagonizing post Eric made, This thread is a continuation of a condition that has permeated the newsgroup for quite a long time. It's part of a whole. Well, that I agree with. If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what he did in the first place. I.e. if Eric has no one to troll he wouldn't troll. Yes, that makes sense. This is not a newsgroup about laptop service problems, lawsuits, or Apple products. Again, I agree. I have no idea why someone would post about these things. But then again, it's not a group about sharing reading recommendations, thread displays or finding restaurants either. Sure, some off topic stuff is ok, but sometimes you wonder. If nospam wasn't here to take the hook, there may not have been any replies or notice of the post. He wasn't the only one who replied though. But I fail to see your reasoning here - somehow it's nospam's fault that he's here so that Eric has a motive for posting antagonizing threads? Andreas Skitsnack: If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts would wither away and die. No one would really care that much. Sandman: So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link just to antagonize nospam? Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam. Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and you will see that he only posts to start arguments. This is of course incorrect, and most certainly fits you a lot better than him. There is a difference between posting to correct misinformation and posting to start an argument. Case in point; when Android posted about replacing the D400, nospam posted to correct that misinformation along with some thoughts on what the successor to the D300s might be. You, on the other hand, posted only to start an argument regarding semantics. You snipped the ongoing camera-related content and only posted about your incorrect conclusions and links. That's posting only to start an argument, and you're being constantly called on it. Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some positive aspect of photography? I have a hard time remembering any such from you. Nospam doesn't start threads. I can't tell you why. I can't tell you why he is here or what he wants to talk about. I can't talk for nospam, but even though I have seen him argue for no obvious reason many times, this applies to you far more than him. Imagine if you and the other trolls left the group, then there wouldn't be any off topic arguments at all. -- Sandman |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:20:58 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote: On 23 Feb 2015 07:25:44 GMT, Sandman wrote: In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote: Davoud: Davoud: Here's something to cause heartburn for the Apple enviers who are whining in that other thread! http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/apple-1 Astro and natu http://www.primordial-light.com. Miscellany and nature macrophotography: http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval. Eric Stevens: Eric Stevens: What on earth has any of this to do with an Apple repair program undertaken under the pressure of a class action? Davoud: It partially explains Apple-envy, which is the reason for this lengthy off-topic thread. It really isn't Apple-envy at all. Most people - including the ones who post critical comments about Apple here - understand that Apple makes quality products and are at the forefront of innovation. It's rather expected that any company that sells as many products as Apple does will have a few problems. I'm one of those that does post most of the negative comments about Apple in this group, and I've been a Mac user since 1984. What turns these exchanges negative is nospam's almost-religious fervor in defending Apple from any wrongdoing. The brown on his nose extends to his ankles when Apple is brought up. He makes you want to challenge him because of his "their **** doesn't stink" position. That doesn't follow, especially not in this thread. This thread is based on an antagonizing post Eric made, This thread is a continuation of a condition that has permeated the newsgroup for quite a long time. It's part of a whole. If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what he did in the first place. Yes I would. I would post a link to any source which announced a widespread repair/replacement program for hardware which is likely to be owned by subscribers to this news group. I knew what nospam's reaction would be even if I didn't realise quite how long this thread would grow as a result. This is not a newsgroup about laptop service problems, lawsuits, or Apple products. If nospam wasn't here to take the hook, there may not have been any replies or notice of the post. If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts would wither away and die. No one would really care that much. So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link just to antagonize nospam? Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam. Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and you will see that he only posts to start arguments. Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some positive aspect of photography? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote: Andreas Skitsnack: If nospam wasn't here to take the hook, there may not have been any replies or notice of the post. Sandman: He wasn't the only one who replied though. But I fail to see your reasoning here - somehow it's nospam's fault that he's here so that Eric has a motive for posting antagonizing threads? Yes...pretty much. Without nospam's presence, Eric would - as he has many times in the past - post links to his photographs. That's a "would" as in "I think he would". And... this is nospam's fault... That's some really crazy reasoning there. Andreas Skitsnack: If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts would wither away and die. No one would really care that much. Sandman: So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link just to antagonize nospam? I'm sure that factored in. Surely, you are not so dense that you don't immediately know, when a thread appears with a post that is at all critical of Apple, that nospam will jump in with an argument. Eric knows this. As I said, there is a difference between correcting misinformation and posting just to start an argument. The thing is, both nospam and me are Mac users, and we follow Mac news. We're both also technically competent, being developers and fairly savvy with computers. This means that in many computer and especially mac-related topics, we usually know what we're talking about and can easily spot incorrect information and of course correct it. Andreas Skitsnack: Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam. Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and you will see that he only posts to start arguments. Sandman: This is of course incorrect, You are prone to pull up old posts at the drop of a hat showing that something was said. Pull up a few that prove me wrong. Why of course, no problem. I do enjoy proving you incorrect! Here are a couple: He replies to the OP with information about rotating images He replies to the OP with information and help about wireless networks He replies to the OP with a joke relating to an earlier thread He replies to the OP with some thoughts about camera model succession. He replies to a question about the need for a 50MP camera He answered a question and gave remodeling advice He shared his thoughts about B/W photos and post processing Gives an explanation to a users software issues And so on, these are pretty much his latest replies to threads in this group. No real digging, just look at his replies to threads - none were made with the intention to start an argument. Do you want me to do you now? :-D Find a few posts from nospam that were not argumentative. Pretty much all his OP-replies are non-argumentative. Some are, but most aren't. Find any new thread started by nospam that was neutral about anything. As I said, nospam doesn't start threads. That doesn't make it ok for Eric to troll him in his new threads. Find a post wherein he linked to one of his photographs. How is that even a parameter in this?? Sandman: and most certainly fits you a lot better than him. Do the same for me. Ok, you asked for it. I narrowed it down to posts you've made to a person that wasn't talking to you, so posts where you are "jumping in" to an ongoing discussion or talk. Also, I only picked posts from this year A new thread meant only to antagonize another poster Replying only to troll Joined the thread with nothing but ad hominem's and trolling Joined the thread with what I presume was supposed to be an insult. Joined the thread only to argue semantics and snipped all camera-related content Replied only to antagonize the poster Replied only with a grammar flame Enough? Sandman: There is a difference between posting to correct misinformation Anything critical in the slightest of Apple or Adobe is "misinformation" to nospam. What do you base this claim on? How do you determine whether nospam is correcting misinformation or posting just to argue? This is just an empty claim from you. Sandman: and posting to start an argument. Case in point; when Android posted about replacing the D400, nospam posted to correct that misinformation along with some thoughts on what the successor to the D300s might be. You, on the other hand, posted only to start an argument regarding semantics. You snipped the ongoing camera-related content and only posted about your incorrect conclusions and links. That's posting only to start an argument, and you're being constantly called on it. Who's calling me out on it? You? nospam? That's like being called out by Whiskey Dave for making typographical errors. I do argue with you, with nospam, and sometimes with Floyd when he gets on his high horse as the World's Foremost Authority on Everything. You, though, argue with and insult almost everyone else in the group. Another lie from Andreas, how predictable. Sandman: Imagine if you and the other trolls left the group, then there wouldn't be any off topic arguments at all. Nor would you be here to read any posts. Of course I would, without you guys trolling the group constantly, it would contain only good information. It would be awesome. -- Sandman |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: What turns these exchanges negative is nospam's almost-religious fervor in defending Apple from any wrongdoing. The brown on his nose extends to his ankles when Apple is brought up. He makes you want to challenge him because of his "their **** doesn't stink" position. That doesn't follow, especially not in this thread. This thread is based on an antagonizing post Eric made, This thread is a continuation of a condition that has permeated the newsgroup for quite a long time. It's part of a whole. If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what he did in the first place. This is not a newsgroup about laptop service problems, lawsuits, or Apple products. If nospam wasn't here to take the hook, there may not have been any replies or notice of the post. in other words, he was trolling and you're giving him a free pass and blaming it on me. disgusting. If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts would wither away and die. No one would really care that much. So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link just to antagonize nospam? Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam. Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and you will see that he only posts to start arguments. bull****. if it wasn't for the likes of you, there would be no arguments. if you would stfu, things could get back to photography. Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some positive aspect of photography? there have been quite a few but they're lost in the idiotic arguments fueled by you and others. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article , -hh
wrote: By those standards I guess Apple does deserve the award. They're probably near the top in terms of offshoring profits to avoid taxes. they do no such thing. apple pays taxes they are required to pay. There is a legitimate point to be made about these legal tax 'evasion' strategies, but what's clearly disingenuous is to try to imply that only but one corporation who's employing them. Case in point: "Google's effective tax rate in the United States has fallen dramatically from 21 percent to 15.7 percent in recent years as the company has broadened its use of overseas tax benefits." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-double-irish- tax-trickery-to-googles-chagrin/ "Ireland is the go-to place for Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook, not to mention big pharma." "Google and Microsoft cut their overseas tax rates to single digits with Dublin-registered subsidiaries designated as tax resident in Bermuda." http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwo...-double-irish- tax-deal-closing-time-for-apple-google-twitter-facebook/ And so on. yep. everyone tries to reduce their tax burden, both corporations and individuals. only apple gets bashed for it. nothing they're doing is illegal. where do people come up with this ****??? It is made up, because the underlying motivation actually has nothing to do with Apple ... the posts are merely an "Acting Out" by a socially marginalized individual with no self-worth, who is attempting to have anyone pay attention to them. FYI, you'll find that when they're ignored, their claims will become increasingly outrageous. Eventually, someone on the group gets fed up and flames them, but the problem with this is that ANY response is viewed as a positive reward, because what they want is attention, regardless of if it is good or bad attention. true, but unfortunately, some people may be misled by their bull****. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some positive aspect of photography? I have a hard time remembering any such from you. Nospam doesn't start threads. I can't tell you why. I can't tell you why he is here or what he wants to talk about. I can't talk for nospam, but even though I have seen him argue for no obvious reason many times, this applies to you far more than him. i have started threads a few times, but definitely not recently. Imagine if you and the other trolls left the group, then there wouldn't be any off topic arguments at all. yep. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: There is a difference between posting to correct misinformation Anything critical in the slightest of Apple or Adobe is "misinformation" to nospam. bull****. there's plenty about apple to criticize, it's just not the crap you and others claim, such as higher prices. apple mice are horrible (and always have been), the macbook air is not (yet) retina, the iphone was too small until this past year and the ipad mini is too big, just to name a few. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article ,
Sandman wrote: I'm sure that factored in. Surely, you are not so dense that you don't immediately know, when a thread appears with a post that is at all critical of Apple, that nospam will jump in with an argument. Eric knows this. As I said, there is a difference between correcting misinformation and posting just to start an argument. The thing is, both nospam and me are Mac users, and we follow Mac news. We're both also technically competent, being developers and fairly savvy with computers. This means that in many computer and especially mac-related topics, we usually know what we're talking about and can easily spot incorrect information and of course correct it. the bashers thrive on spewing misinformation (one person in particular comes to mind). sometimes they're just ignorant and don't know that what they spew is bogus and other times they know it's bull**** and spew it anyway. one thing is certain, they don't like actual facts. Find a few posts from nospam that were not argumentative. Pretty much all his OP-replies are non-argumentative. Some are, but most aren't. Find any new thread started by nospam that was neutral about anything. As I said, nospam doesn't start threads. That doesn't make it ok for Eric to troll him in his new threads. i have on occasion, but generally someone else has already started a thread on topics i might have otherwise started. Find a post wherein he linked to one of his photographs. How is that even a parameter in this?? it's not. they only want pics to be able to trash them. what i photograph and whether or not i'm any good at it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in what i say. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Nospam's Dead Body &c.
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what he did in the first place. Yes I would. I would post a link to any source which announced a widespread repair/replacement program for hardware which is likely to be owned by subscribers to this news group. I knew what nospam's reaction would be even if I didn't realise quite how long this thread would grow as a result. then why didn't you post about lenovo and superfish?? that's a helluva lot worse than anything apple ever did. not only does it allow lenovo to force ads onto users, but it does that on *encrypted* connections (i.e., to your *bank*) and leaves the doors wide open for any hacker to do anything they want. lenovo *now* says they screwed up but only after the **** hit the fan. http://www.cnet.com/news/superfish-t...-with-more-tha n-adware/ "Attackers are able to see all the communication that's supposed to be confidential -- banking transactions, passwords, emails, instant messages," said Timo Hirvonen, a senior researcher at security software maker F-Secure. That kind of threat, known as a man-in-the-middle attack because the hacker can spy on the users' Internet traffic and infiltrate their computer, poses a serious risk to consumers, he said. http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...lenovo_superfi sh_scandal_why_it_s_one_of_the_worst_consumer_comp uting_screw.html Security researcher Marc Rogers wrote that itıs ³quite possibly the single worst thing I have seen a manufacturer do to its customer base. I cannot overstate how evil this is.² Heıs right. The Lenovo Superfish security hole is really, really bad. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/law...enovo-superfis h,28605.html The class-action suit, with blogger Jessica Bennett as the plaintiff, was filed at the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California. Bennett claims that Lenovo invaded her privacy and made a profit by keeping track of her online browsing. .... Another law firm also opened up a class action lawsuit against Lenovo and is encouraging customers to reach out if they want to participate. Both cases are still in their early stages, so the process could take some time before Lenovo gets its day in court. But with Lenovo potentially fighting a legal battle on two fronts, the company seems to be taking a turn for the worse, with the trust of customers slowly fading away. http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...th-man-in-the- middle-adware-that-breaks-https-connections/ Lenovo is selling computers that come preinstalled with adware that hijacks encrypted Web sessions and may make users vulnerable to HTTPS man-in-the-middle attacks that are trivial for attackers to carry out, security researchers said. .... [Update: Rob Graham, CEO of security firm Errata Security, has cracked the cryptographic key encrypting the Superfish certificate. That means anyone can now use the private key to launch man-in-the-middle HTTPS attacks that won't be detected by machines that have the certificate installed. It took Graham just three hours to figure out that the password was "komodia" (minus the quotes). He told Ars the certificate works against Google even when an end-user is using Chrome. That confirms earlier statements that certificate pinning in the browser is not a defense against this attack (more about that below). Graham has a detailed explanation how he did it here.] Superfish, Komodia, PrivDog vulnerability test: https://filippo.io/Badfish/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Warning - iOS8 Upgrade problems - not for nospam | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 116 | October 1st 14 10:30 PM |
One for nospam | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 4 | August 15th 13 03:56 PM |
Nikon D80 - Buy Body Only or Body with Kit Lens? | Bill Gillespie | Digital SLR Cameras | 38 | December 8th 06 08:25 PM |
FA: Beginners, students and those who need a 2nd camera body need this Canon AE-1 body! | Hugh Lyon-Sach | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | August 12th 05 09:26 PM |