Offtopic: Assange on google
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
If you're using google's services, then you definitely should read this
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
(Apologies for offtopic, I just though this is too important to pass.)
For the people too busy or too lazy to read the whole thing: What's the statement of this text in a nutshell? ;-)
Well, it's that google is very much entangled with the US gov.
And you really should make the time to read it! ;)
Be careful, posting things like this on here, has been known to have people label you a "Conspiracy Theorist".
And yes, it appears that Google does work for them, alot of companies do anymore.
The more proper term is, in your case, conspiracy "hypothiosist," while OP is a conspiracy theorist. The difference is evidence, my dear friend. :)
Oh Jade, not agreeing with evidence provided does not make the evidence any less valid.
Also, conspiracies stop being a theory, when they become a fact. Was Snowden a Conspiracy Theorist, how about Assange.
A theory is a fact, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation.
'Tis why Snowden was a conspiracy theorist, and you are a conspiracy hypothiosist.
You just reminded me of a post on some Flat Earth Society forum where some guy went at length explaining how their conspiracy theory would become "conspiracy fact" given enough evidence. (Of course, being a conspiracy theorist talking about his own conspiracy theories, he probably didn't have a particularly high standard of evidence.)
Seriously, though, "theory" only means its scientific definition in science, so I don't see any problem with continuing the very prevalent use of the term "conspiracy theory" to describe such conjectures as "round Earth is faked", "9/11 was an inside job", and "the moon landing was a hoax". You can't rescue the term "conspiracy theory" at this point, anyway. We just have to live with the fact that to distance real conspiracies from conspiracy theories, we need to be a little more wordy.
Jade and Onpon,
A theory is not a fact, the very nature of a theory (scientific or otherwise) is a conjecture, that most likely points to the truth but is as yet unprovable, thereby it is not yet a fact. Reference the many "theories" that are accepted as fact even though they remain theories.
A hypothesis precedes a theory and begins the investigation.
Nice try though.
One could also presume onpon that the refusal to investigate what the kernel developers and others are upset about/concerned about, could make that person a (to use your term) a "flat earth" proponent. It is the refusal or unwillingness to investigate even accepted norms that leads one to folly.
Not quite. This is the basic run-down:
- A hypothesis is a reasonable, testable conjecture which explains some phenomenon in nature.
- A fact is a repeatable observation or measurement.
- A theory is a hypothesis which has been subject to a great amount of testing and consistently confirmed by it. In other words, a hypothesis which is consistently supported by facts.
Great video about the scientific method, by the way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
> could make that person a (to use your term) a "flat earth" proponent.
I wasn't making things up. There are real people who believe in a flat Earth. There's a group called the "Flat Earth Society"; search for that if you don't believe me.
I am a translator!
Saying that "google is very much entangled with the US gov" is neither a conspiracy nor a theory. It is rather a mere fact. We know that from the Snowden files.
LOL, great picture and excellent point! Did you make it?
Beginning to think that some people want to turn this forum into a "Carry on folks, nothing to see here" kind of forum.
Interesting, how it is ok to question Canonical on their spyware, but you cannot question sysytemd or SELinux or now Google either...that is strange.
Except that Google has been questioned (Prominately on this thread), systemd has been questioned and come up dry, and SELinux has been questioned and come up dry.
Not coming to desired conclusions doesn't mean that they haven't been questioned.
Show us the spyware in systemd and SELinux.
Your questions are useless, as they don't provide any real information, only speculations. Your question are spreading noise and inhibiting any real knowledge, facts and investigations. Also, most people here already agree that Google is bad, is spying on people and working with the government, so how did you came to the conclusion that people here are turning a blind eye or are supportive of Google?
And again, even when people here don't agree with you, nobody is censoring your in any way, just voicing their disapproval. Should people here not voice their disapproval towards your opinions and just let you say whatever you want, without ever challenging you? Is that less censorship?
Never said systemd or SELinux was spyware. That reference was to the Unity/Ubuntu search features, and the label was by Stallman, not me.
You are taking what I wrote too literally.
In your previous post above you are implying that the issue of the discovered and proven spyware feature made by Canonical should be treated the same as your speculations ("questions") about hypothetical vulnerabilities in SELinux and systemd. So, yes, people should care more about the facts rather than your speculations, because you can't compare those two cases at all. That was my point.
If you want people treat your concerns of SELinux and systemd vulnerabilities the same as the proven facts about the spyware made by Canonical then:
Show us the spyware in SELinux and systemd!
... or at least start answering the question made towards your claims in the other topics!
I am a translator!
If by "did you make it?" you are asking if I added the "cartoon cloud" (or whatever that is called in English language) and inserted the text "hypothiosist whaaa?" the answer is: yes! :P
That is what I meant. :)
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires