|
Post by Ff2 on Jun 23, 2016 13:29:54 GMT -5
Trump doesn't have a billion? I doubt he does. His assets might be worth 10 billion like he says but I dont think he anywhere near liquid enough to be able to spend a billion of his own money. The Clintons however are pretty liquid. I hear all those checks she got from the big banks and governments in the ME were certified funds. Besides, you guys should be happy. Those evil Koch brothers who buy elections hate Trump. He wont be getting a dime from them. Maybe Sheldon Adelson can toss him a few sheckles?
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 23, 2016 13:40:55 GMT -5
I doubt he does. His assets might be worth 10 billion like he says but I dont think he anywhere near liquid enough to be able to spend a billion of his own money. The Clintons however are pretty liquid. I hear all those checks she got from the big banks and governments in the ME were certified funds. Besides, you guys should be happy. Those evil Koch brothers who buy elections hate Trump. He wont be getting a dime from them. Maybe Sheldon Adelson can toss him a few sheckles? I dont think we should worry about him being about to raise money. When that report came out the other day that his campaign had just a little over a million compared to Hillary's 40 million they were able to raise 11 million since then. Despite Google and Gmails best efforts, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jun 23, 2016 14:51:30 GMT -5
Gmail and Google arent free. You may not be directly paying for it but they are making money out of their relationship with you. They let you use their platforms and in return they monetize the information they learn from you. They also benefit greatly from the networking infrastructure our tax dollars and service plans pay for. Whether they profit off me is fairly moot. Sure they make money off me, but they are monetarily free to me. I don't pay a dime to use either. They make a profit, and provide me a service. Much like Facebook. They provide minimal support (case in point Gmail, if you ever tried to get real support for an issue). When I start having to pay, then I have justification to complain. Until then, and even then, they can present data however they want. If I dont like it, I can use Yahoo, Bing, or like Untouchable, Ask Jeeves. And I DON'T like that they do, and if it becomes a big enough issue, I'll use other search engines and email services. Both Google and Facebook have shown a left-leaning bias where I'd prefer they not.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 23, 2016 15:10:44 GMT -5
Gmail and Google arent free. You may not be directly paying for it but they are making money out of their relationship with you. They let you use their platforms and in return they monetize the information they learn from you. They also benefit greatly from the networking infrastructure our tax dollars and service plans pay for. Whether they profit off me is fairly moot. Sure they make money off me, but they are monetarily free to me. I don't pay a dime to use either. They make a profit, and provide me a service. Much like Facebook. They provide minimal support (case in point Gmail, if you ever tried to get real support for an issue). When I start having to pay, then I have justification to complain. Until then, and even then, they can present data however they want. If I dont like it, I can use Yahoo, Bing, or like Untouchable, Ask Jeeves. And I DON'T like that they do, and if it becomes a big enough issue, I'll use other search engines and email services. Both Google and Facebook have shown a left-leaning bias where I'd prefer they not. If you want to get cute then I can tell you that the cost is your privacy. You are viewing this in a vaccuum. And I agree with what you are saying but the world does not operate in a vaccuum. They have a monopoly on data and on our access information. When Microsoft got sued by the government for including Internet Explorer in Windows the government won even though we could have downloaded Netscape or Opera instead. Now we have devices that are defaulted to Google Search. And what is the alternative to Facebook or Twitter?
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jun 23, 2016 15:25:14 GMT -5
Whether they profit off me is fairly moot. Sure they make money off me, but they are monetarily free to me. I don't pay a dime to use either. They make a profit, and provide me a service. Much like Facebook. They provide minimal support (case in point Gmail, if you ever tried to get real support for an issue). When I start having to pay, then I have justification to complain. Until then, and even then, they can present data however they want. If I dont like it, I can use Yahoo, Bing, or like Untouchable, Ask Jeeves. And I DON'T like that they do, and if it becomes a big enough issue, I'll use other search engines and email services. Both Google and Facebook have shown a left-leaning bias where I'd prefer they not. If you want to get cute then I can tell you that the cost is your privacy. You are viewing this in a vaccuum. And I agree with what you are saying but the world does not operate in a vaccuum. They have a monopoly on data and on our access information. When Microsoft got sued by the government for including Internet Explorer in Windows the government won even though we could have downloaded Netscape or Opera instead. Now we have devices that are defaulted to Google Search. And what is the alternative to Facebook or Twitter? Look, I hate the liberal scum just as much as the next guy... But when you ask what's the alternative to Facebook or Twitter, the answer is, who cares?? They do NOT serve some type of overarching service that is essential to democracy. They aren't the mainstream media - they are social networking sites. You can EASILY create another Facebook or Twitter (ie, MySpace).. you just have to convince conservatives to use it. Frankly, if the country is this divided, I'm going to be a gillionaire opening up conservative anythings if only liberals ones exist, or vice versa - TV stores, pizza shops, shoe stores, etc. As for Google - they don't actually own the data, so there is no monopoly... it's not like they are blocking you from visiting conservative sites - if you put the web address in Chrome, you still get to "ilovedonaldtrump.com" or whatever. Now you can say they aid in information suppression.. by not showing results on a search... I kind of see that argument. And yes, if they are the only search engine allowable on certain devices, then I can see how that is a monopoly. Frankly, I don't see why the gov't won against Microsoft - I can see why they would win against the MS Operating systems, since there is no alternative (though I guess there is IOS...)... but the gov't won because they bundled IE with Windows?? Because the sheeple couldn't figure out how NOT to use IE and use something else? That's really protecting the stupid, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by 2milehighJet on Jun 23, 2016 15:58:20 GMT -5
When I read the thread title, I was like, welcome back jetsrule128!!!
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeakejet on Jun 23, 2016 16:04:45 GMT -5
Yeah, but he expects you to still be there come morning.... Were you? What do YOU think?
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeakejet on Jun 23, 2016 16:06:42 GMT -5
I use askjeeves So I'm safe That's what you think. Jeeves had to have some of the old penicillin shots.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jun 23, 2016 16:46:25 GMT -5
Whether they profit off me is fairly moot. Sure they make money off me, but they are monetarily free to me. I don't pay a dime to use either. They make a profit, and provide me a service. Much like Facebook. They provide minimal support (case in point Gmail, if you ever tried to get real support for an issue). When I start having to pay, then I have justification to complain. Until then, and even then, they can present data however they want. If I dont like it, I can use Yahoo, Bing, or like Untouchable, Ask Jeeves. And I DON'T like that they do, and if it becomes a big enough issue, I'll use other search engines and email services. Both Google and Facebook have shown a left-leaning bias where I'd prefer they not. what is the alternative to Facebook or Twitter? Peace and quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jun 23, 2016 16:46:55 GMT -5
Maybe Sheldon Adelson can toss him a few sheckles? I dont think we should worry about him being about to raise money. When that report came out the other day that his campaign had just a little over a million compared to Hillary's 40 million they were able to raise 11 million since then. Despite Google and Gmails best efforts, apparently. But...but...now he's beholden to those donors!
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Jun 24, 2016 15:38:26 GMT -5
If you want to get cute then I can tell you that the cost is your privacy. You are viewing this in a vaccuum. And I agree with what you are saying but the world does not operate in a vaccuum. They have a monopoly on data and on our access information. When Microsoft got sued by the government for including Internet Explorer in Windows the government won even though we could have downloaded Netscape or Opera instead. Now we have devices that are defaulted to Google Search. And what is the alternative to Facebook or Twitter? Look, I hate the liberal scum just as much as the next guy... But when you ask what's the alternative to Facebook or Twitter, the answer is, who cares?? They do NOT serve some type of overarching service that is essential to democracy. They aren't the mainstream media - they are social networking sites. You can EASILY create another Facebook or Twitter (ie, MySpace).. you just have to convince conservatives to use it. Frankly, if the country is this divided, I'm going to be a gillionaire opening up conservative anythings if only liberals ones exist, or vice versa - TV stores, pizza shops, shoe stores, etc. As for Google - they don't actually own the data, so there is no monopoly... it's not like they are blocking you from visiting conservative sites - if you put the web address in Chrome, you still get to "ilovedonaldtrump.com" or whatever. Now you can say they aid in information suppression.. by not showing results on a search... I kind of see that argument. And yes, if they are the only search engine allowable on certain devices, then I can see how that is a monopoly. Frankly, I don't see why the gov't won against Microsoft - I can see why they would win against the MS Operating systems, since there is no alternative (though I guess there is IOS...)... but the gov't won because they bundled IE with Windows?? Because the sheeple couldn't figure out how NOT to use IE and use something else? That's really protecting the stupid, I guess. actually it was worth than that: you couldn't remove IE without damaging the OS and breaking it. you could change the default application settings, but that wasn't always adhered to. So MS was doing something illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jun 24, 2016 15:52:56 GMT -5
Look, I hate the liberal scum just as much as the next guy... But when you ask what's the alternative to Facebook or Twitter, the answer is, who cares?? They do NOT serve some type of overarching service that is essential to democracy. They aren't the mainstream media - they are social networking sites. You can EASILY create another Facebook or Twitter (ie, MySpace).. you just have to convince conservatives to use it. Frankly, if the country is this divided, I'm going to be a gillionaire opening up conservative anythings if only liberals ones exist, or vice versa - TV stores, pizza shops, shoe stores, etc. As for Google - they don't actually own the data, so there is no monopoly... it's not like they are blocking you from visiting conservative sites - if you put the web address in Chrome, you still get to "ilovedonaldtrump.com" or whatever. Now you can say they aid in information suppression.. by not showing results on a search... I kind of see that argument. And yes, if they are the only search engine allowable on certain devices, then I can see how that is a monopoly. Frankly, I don't see why the gov't won against Microsoft - I can see why they would win against the MS Operating systems, since there is no alternative (though I guess there is IOS...)... but the gov't won because they bundled IE with Windows?? Because the sheeple couldn't figure out how NOT to use IE and use something else? That's really protecting the stupid, I guess. actually it was worth than that: you couldn't remove IE without damaging the OS and breaking it. you could change the default application settings, but that wasn't always adhered to. So MS was doing something illegal. Ah I see, said the blind man.
|
|
|
Post by Peebag on Jun 24, 2016 16:05:19 GMT -5
When I read the thread title, I was like, welcome back jetsrule128!!! I miss that lil' feller....
|
|
|
Post by thebigragu on Jul 4, 2016 13:44:53 GMT -5
Scumbags. It's why i always cheer on the bad guys in movies. Shit like this
|
|
|
Post by thebigragu on Jul 4, 2016 13:47:17 GMT -5
#7 talks about how people that used Adsense were fucked right before they were due to be paid. Gee, that sounds familiar. They said one dude was screwed out of 500K. Fuck Google. They will pay what they owe one way or the other. I'll find some fuck that works there one day. It will be a scary ride to his fucking atm that I'll tell you. I don't give a fuck if it's a mailroom prick
|
|