OT but useful

If you have not got the google toolbar for IE loaded then now may be the
time. It now has a popup blocker that works every time.
Just thought some of you may want to know!

 

Steve Parkes said:

You are joking aren't you. Aren't you?

 

Check http://www.google-watch.org

 

Who cares, really?

 

Sean Doherty said:

Obviously the fuckwitted don't care about giving bad advice.

 

Steve Parkes said:

Want to try that again in English?

Wouldn't you.

No it wasn't - you are a liar. You said:

--------------------- End Quote -----------------

It's nothing to do with consiracy (whatever that is) - it's to do with
loading as few trojans onto PC's as possible. The Google toolbar is a
trojan and is foolhardy to use.

 

Harvey said:

Careful - you'll have Parky throwing his ball on the ground and stamping
off in tears again.

 

Ehmmm..... Not been on the net long have you?

Spelling mistakes are part of usenet, you seem to be the only one to get
upset about it, funny that

ehhmmmm. When you are called a liar by a fool who does not offer the proof
he indicates he has, then

Yes, you are right, unless you think downloading a toolbar called the google
toolbar from somewhere like trojens.com is smarter, no don't answer that
one, it not worth explaining anything to you as you seem to have a problem
with grasping the point.

Google in this group, you will find that several others offer advice on
things that work when they come across it, yes even things that stop popups

Sorry, so now, without knowing a thing about me, or what I do for a living,
you presume that my firewall is crap and faulty. NICE reasoning
there....................... !

Well, for someone who accusess others of telling lies then offers no
explanation when questioned you really are good.! well it appears you are
also the first troll to sucker me in, well done and PLONK

 

Champ said:

Shhh....

 

Ace said:

Bless him...

Is Parky still whittling on? Bless him. Perhaps I should unkillfile
him for the fun value.

 

Sean Doherty said:

Dunno - I've slept snce then, and Parky was more fun to play with than
you.

 

"On average, the Google cookies we've seen have been using the unique ID
to track the Internet address and search terms of that user for 167
days.

The CIA had to stop using a comparatively innocent log-analysis cookie
that expired in 10 years, and their document search site isn't even used
by many people. Google handles 200 million searches per day, and their
cookie expires in 2038. One of Google's leading software engineers, Matt
Cutts, has a top-secret clearance and used to work for the National
Security Agency. Google doesn't even feel the need to defend their
cookie policy; they merely laugh off anyone who inquires about it."

Spot the non sequiteur?

 

You think Google publicly acknowledged that they had hired a spook?

You think they make anything publicly available on their site which they
don't want us to see?

Microsoft are a private company which have been slapped with an
antitrust ruling. Why shouldn't democracies hold companies to account
where there is a clear public interest case?

Oh, it's the machines that decide what to search for then?

But you just said you'd laugh off the idea that Google are profiling
people. You can't have it both ways.

Have you heard of the Office of Information Awareness?

So you delete the cookie and the next time you visit Google you get
another one and they match the ip address using the methods you
mentioned above and link the new cookie to the individual profile they
already hold.

Ta.

 

So we should all kow tow to the slippery corparate bastards then.

And no doubt the new top dog search engine will also profile it's users
and skew it's results according to commercial/political interests.

There are other social issues here apart from privacy too.

"Google does not simply reflect popularity; its near-monopoly creates
and perpetuates it."

Probably true, anyway, they have higher paid lawyers than me.

Andrew Orlowski of the Register wrote a good article about how the
phrase 'second superpower' was "Googlewashed"

I wish you were right, but I suspect they would supply information to
the gubmint if asked to.

;-) indeed.

What isn't quite as amusing is who it's headed up by.

Efficiency of effort.

 

Hijacked it more like. That was Orlowskis point.

And when did the internet intelligensia last get off their collective
arses to actually act in the real world to try to change anything?

ITYF that there are plenty of well informed individuals beyond the
portals of the internet. Sure, there will be internet users among the
ranks of the NGO's you sneer at, but so what. The 'internet
intelligensia' form only a subset of the second superpower. In fact I
think many would consider them the 'chattering classes' of the second
superpower, all talk forums and no action. The internet has it's uses
for the rapid spread of information though.

Lets just revisit the start of Orlowskis article:

On February 17 a front page news analysis in the New York Times bylined
by Patrick Tyler described the global anti-war protests as the emergence
of "the second superpower".

Tyler wrote: "...the huge anti-war demonstrations around the world this
weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the
planet: the United States and world public opinion."

This potent phrase spread rapidly.

Anti-war campaigners, peace groups and NGOs took to describing the
global popular protest as "the second superpower".


Now the worldwide anti war campaign mobilised *millions* of people out
onto the streets to register their opposition to the US led war on Iraq.
The march to Hyde Park was the biggest demo this country has ever seen
and at somewhere around a million and a half people = 2% of the uk
population.

Meanwhile the 'internet intelligensia' scratched their arses and
disagreed with each other in electronic forums.

I know which group looks more like the second superpower to me.

Orlowskis comment was that the phrase was devalued by Moores wishy washy
pseudo political analysis, and that because of the way Google favours
blogging circles in it's pagerank system, links to Moores essay so
swamped the search results that other viewpoints were drowned out.

Google tries to claim that pagerank makes the results ranking fair and
representative of the popularity of the content. This episode put the
lie to that.

Google has since bought blogger.com