Nospam's Dead Body &c.

On 2/23/2015 4:18 PM, nospam wrote:
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****.


Which is why some of us respond to you.

--
PeterN

On 2/23/2015 4:18 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

Try posting some relevant facts, with support. The group would take a
diffeent difeccton. You mighr even become credible.


what i photograph and whether or not i'm any good at it makes
absolutely no difference whatsoever in what i say.


Nobody hee knows, or really cares, at this point.

--
PeterN

On 2/23/2015 7:35 PM, nospam wrote:
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 it¹s ³quite possibly the
single worst thing I have seen a manufacturer do to its customer
base. Å* I cannot overstate how evil this is.² He¹s 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.]

Once again, you are late to the party. I mentioned it a while ago.

But wht Lenovo does, or doesn;t do have nothing to do with the subject.
( Apple's ethics and shortcommings.)

Superfish, Komodia, PrivDog vulnerability test:
https://filippo.io/Badfish/




--
PeterN

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:35:48 -0500, nospam
wrote:

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.

Because I have only just learned of. Because it does not involve a
hardware repair. Because Lenovo has issued fixes. See
http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/prod...fish_uninstall

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_com puting_screw.html
Security researcher Marc Rogers wrote that it¹s ³quite possibly the
single worst thing I have seen a manufacturer do to its customer
base. Š I cannot overstate how evil this is.² He¹s 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/

Your defence against a criticism of Apple seems to be that other
people are worse.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens:
Your defence against a criticism of Apple seems to be that other
people are worse.

I wouldn't defend Apple against criticism because I'm not paid to do
so. I've been using Macs for nearly 30 years (along with
Windows--satisfied with Win 7 Pro for now) and I've been much happier
with my Macs. I find the hardware and the software to be better. In
recent years the fact that one computer comes out of the box running
the Mac OS and Unix and can easily be made to boot Windows or run
Windows alongside the Mac OS and Unix and be indistinguishable from a
Windows-only box makes for what I think is unbeatable versatility in
Apple hardware.

Still, I'm not an apologist for Apple. I can't help wonder, though,
with the number of companies in the world that are guilty of
wrongdoing, why Apple should be singled out, and why in this forum.

http://www.primordial-light.com

http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

snip

Andreas asked for support for my claim, I gave him ample support. His response?
Snip it all away and pretend it didn't exist.

This is what happens *every single time*. It's like he's allergic to facts.

Things I have proven in this thread:

1. nospam rarely responds to an OP to start an argument

2. Andreas often, but not always, joins a thread to antagonize one of its
participants.



--
Sandman

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:17:26 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Your defence against a criticism of Apple seems to be that other
people are worse.

I wouldn't defend Apple against criticism because I'm not paid to do
so. I've been using Macs for nearly 30 years (along with
Windows--satisfied with Win 7 Pro for now) and I've been much happier
with my Macs. I find the hardware and the software to be better. In
recent years the fact that one computer comes out of the box running
the Mac OS and Unix and can easily be made to boot Windows or run
Windows alongside the Mac OS and Unix and be indistinguishable from a
Windows-only box makes for what I think is unbeatable versatility in
Apple hardware.

Still, I'm not an apologist for Apple. I can't help wonder, though,
with the number of companies in the world that are guilty of
wrongdoing, why Apple should be singled out, and why in this forum.

I don't know that Apple is being particularly singled out in this
forum. I certainly don't try to single them out. I get my news from a
Register page which I follow primarily because of it's general science
reporting. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/

The Register also tracks many aspects of computing and I cite their
web pages when I think they may be relevant to followers of this news
group. Not everything I have posted has been about Apple. It's just
that nospams behaviour makes it seem that way.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015.02.23 21:15 , Eric Stevens wrote:


Your defence against a criticism of Apple seems to be that other
people are worse.

Almost like he's an Apple PR specialist casting some RDF tilting
attention to other companies.


--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin

On 2015.02.23 23:17 , Davoud wrote:

Still, I'm not an apologist for Apple. I can't help wonder, though,
with the number of companies in the world that are guilty of
wrongdoing, why Apple should be singled out, and why in this forum.

It wasn't. It was pointed out that Apple finally gave up their arrogant
refusal to address a latent defect in one of their products.

The most valuable public co. in the world will be singled out if it
doesn't behave like it deserves to to be the most valuable top public
co. in the world.

--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

I don't know that Apple is being particularly singled out in this
forum. I certainly don't try to single them out. I get my news from
a Register page which I follow primarily because of it's general
science reporting. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/

So why didn't you post about this one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/23/lenovo_superfish_class_action_lawsuit/

Or this one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05...trust_class_ac
tion/

The Register also tracks many aspects of computing and I cite their
web pages when I think they may be relevant to followers of this
news group. Not everything I have posted has been about Apple. It's
just that nospams behaviour makes it seem that way.

You haven't posted about any lawsuits against any other company than Apple from
The Register, which sure makes it seem you're "singling them out".

--
Sandman