Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
JPJonesParticipant[quote=yamashi][quote=scaredyclassic]im very suspicious of youngsters. they believe strange things.[/quote]
Like what? I don’t remember us drinking poisonous punch, taking massive amounts of LSD and living in communes. Your answers are always obtuse and fail to explain much of anything. Please expand.[/quote]
Think Grampa Simpson. “I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what’s it seems weird and scary to me, and it’ll happen to you, too.”
That’s scaredy in a nutshell.
November 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM in reply to: OT: Robert Schiller endorsed Obama on Bloomberg on Tuesday morning #754121JPJonesParticipantYou’re a monster!
JPJonesParticipantHere’s a start:
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random can be entertaining.
JPJonesParticipantCocaine is a hell of drug.
JPJonesParticipant[quote=spdrun]Why should automakers need to include ANY connector in their cars, other than 12V and AUX IN? Standard across phones, rather than designing for a brand poisoned by the legacy of a sick old man.
Also, kudos to all automakers who still include a DIN form-factor stereo — this allows for replacement of electronics as the car ages.[/quote]
I would add a USB port to the list, but otherwise agree. Regardless of brand, adding proprietary wired phone connections to cars never sounded like a good idea to me.
JPJonesParticipant[quote=flu]http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/08/technology/smartphone-market-share/index.html?source=yahoo_quote
Android market share at 68%….
44% of than is due to Samsung….[/quote]This is as fun to watch as the browser market share race. Here’s the press release that article pulls numbers from:
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712
There’s a pretty graph at the bottom if you like that sort of thing.
August 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749640JPJonesParticipant[quote=ocrenter]…
Back to the top 1% tax rate, which was included in the article, that average rate fell from 35% down to less than 30%. So while the top 1% increased their share of the total income, their tax rate declined.
Is that right?
…[/quote]
That’s correct, but it definitely isn’t right.
JPJonesParticipant[quote=spdrun]And overly credulous idiots like the poster above deserve attention? Basically, Google gets all of your Internet habits, regardless whether you run a secure browser or install their turdware or not.
PS- bet you wouldn’t call me a monkey to my face, boy. You’re vewwy bwave in your daddy’s basement ;)[/quote]
I am amused at your opinion of me considering we’ve never met. Yes, I’d likely say that verbatim to you in the flesh and we’d share a laugh about it.Given your post in the browser thread a few weeks back (http://piggington.com/ot_which_browser_do_you_use_most_of_the_time) stating that you run Firefox without add-ons after preaching about how important it is to conceal your personal browsing habits from the internets, your credibility regarding all things IT-related took a pretty big hit.
It is clear that your opinions of our new Google overlords and their business practices will not change no matter how much technical data you are presented with, so what’s the point in even talking about them? The whole idea that Cox, Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, or any other corporate ISP can or should be trusted more than Google with your personal data is laughable.
Google’s entrance into the ISP pool will certainly make a huge splash that will likely be of great benefit to the consumer. The ISP market has become stagnant and desperately needs a new player so we can catch up to the rest of the 1st world nations with respect to average household internet speed and cost.
JPJonesParticipant[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]PS- bet you wouldn’t call me a monkey to my face, boy. You’re vewwy bwave in your daddy’s basement ;)[/quote]
Haha, pot meet kettle…[/quote]
For real!JPJonesParticipantYes, please! Pay no attention to the monkey with the tinfoil hat. Those things don’t really work, anyhow.
JPJonesParticipantBrilliant!
JPJonesParticipant[quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]He said he didn’t support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, “against his best judgement”. He will sign this thing I’ll bet anything.[/quote]
You don’t have a good track record here for honoring your wagers.
But you do realize that the NDAA is the bill that authorizes the entire defense budget?
Not so easy to just say “no” to that one.
CISPA is a little different, as it is not attached to any existing programs.
BTW, did Ron Paul vote to authorize the defense budget, or did he vote to let our troops in the field run out of ammo?[/quote]
Neither. Apparently, Ron Paul didn’t vote on the bill at all.
JPJonesParticipant[quote=markmax33][quote=JPJones][quote=pri_dk]So did Obama sign the bill?
Or are you just making stuff up again?[/quote]
He’s just making stuff up again.
Are you all seriously doubting he will sign this? He said he didn’t support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, “against his best judgement”. He will sign this thing I’ll bet anything.[/quote]
That is a poor example considering the version of NDAA that Obama signed, which included several consessions added because of his initial veto threat, passed through both houses of congress veto-proof. Here are a couple of articles if you are interested in learning more:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/confused-about-ndaa-and-detention-provision
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
The point is that even if the bill does get signed, it will likely not be in its current form.
EDIT: Also, Bush’s fault.
JPJonesParticipant[quote=pri_dk]So did Obama sign the bill?
Or are you just making stuff up again?[/quote]
He’s just making stuff up again.
-
AuthorPosts
