On 1/18/2025 5:07 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Jan 18 00:51:20 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri Jan 17 12:32:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Frank has spent his entire life in a college and hasn't any idea of what >>> poverty is. Chinese are flocking across the borders for a reason.
Would seem that Youngstown would provide ample opportunity to see this even
if he lives in a fairly comfortable suburb of Youngstown.
I don't think so since Peoriaq is 97% white.
Not even close. Have you been to Peoria? Ever? https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Illinois/Peoria/Race-and-Ethnicity
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat Jan 18 00:51:20 2025 Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri Jan 17 12:32:04 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Frank has spent his entire life in a college and hasn't any idea of what >>> poverty is. Chinese are flocking across the borders for a reason.
Would seem that Youngstown would provide ample opportunity to see this even
if he lives in a fairly comfortable suburb of Youngstown.
I don't think so since Peoriaq is 97% white.
Where I?m from is even whiter I think into the 99% point, as it?s rural
Wales so hills and sheep.
Youngstown is looks to be more diverse, not unlikely that the Suburbs he lives in are more white but even so it?s likely he encounters folks other than white ones.
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies as a "feminist".
Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice columns Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies as a
"feminist".
Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place an entry into wikipedia. That's why he likes it. That way he gets stupid answers for stupid questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an
experienced and licensed engineer who had direct experience
in the subject area. Oh, and Mr Brandt was factually correct
in his criticism.
There's a little history on the "Talk" page regarding desmodromic
valves. Here's that "Talk" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Desmodromic_valve#Disputed_section:_Disadvantages
I don't see enough to make a confident judgment.
On 1/19/2025 6:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies as a
"feminist".
Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place an entry into wikipedia.
:-) Tom, give it a try. Go to this page on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
and post "The United States had very little real poverty before Obama
and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist movement."
Report back, please.
Gee sparky, care to point out where the articles are incorrect?
And no, your claim that it's wrong simply that you claim it's wrong
won't work. What's required is to show your research with verifiable references from historical reports and experts who have done research
into the field, much like the wikipedia article.
When you can somehow show that feminism wasn't an active political
movement which accomplished the passage of the the equal rights
amendment through both houses of congress and submission to the states
for ratification in the US constitution in 1963, maybe someone here will
give you some credibility with regards to historical accuracy.
Until then your simpleton claim that there was no poverty or feminism
before Obama has as much credibility as any other of your imaginative
claims.
What's next tommy? slavery was consensual?
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to "privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so
management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to
"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in, anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to Google.
On 1/21/2025 4:43 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:06:29 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact >>>>> people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them. >>>>> It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It >>>>> didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet >>>>> to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems. >>>> That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart >>>> as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of >>>> the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed. >>>> As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so >>>> management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their >>>> company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to >>>> "privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about >>>> someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and >>>> because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja >>>> News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered >>>> to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but >>>> the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in,
anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to
Google.
If there are no cellphones near you, or cameras/microphones on
the computer or on the street/in the library/cafe/wherever I suppose
that is possible.
Proximity to surveillance devices is a different matter entirely. In
those cases, google knows who I am and what I'm doing without ever
touching a computer. The point is, google knowing your identity is not a prerequisite to using google.
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
Am 21.01.2025 um 22:48 schrieb Zen Cycle:
On 1/21/2025 4:43 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:06:29 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them. >>>>>> It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the >>>>>> dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It >>>>>> didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many >>>>> systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems. >>>>> That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart >>>>> as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related >>>>> would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of >>>>> the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed. >>>>> As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult. >>>>> The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so >>>>> management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their >>>>> company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to >>>>> "privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about >>>>> someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were >>>>> attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly. >>>>>
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for >>>>> the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and >>>>> because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja >>>>> News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged >>>>> Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but >>>>> the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The >>>> amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep >>>> those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in, >>>> anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted >>>> with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible >>> to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to >>> Google.
If there are no cellphones near you, or cameras/microphones on >> the computer or on the street/in the library/cafe/wherever I suppose
that is possible.
Proximity to surveillance devices is a different matter entirely. In
those cases, google knows who I am and what I'm doing without ever
touching a computer. The point is, google knowing your identity is not a prerequisite to using google.
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
The point is: Google does not know my surfing habits.
To me, it seems parallel to a toll road. "You want to drive here? Then
pay to help defray the costs."
It's also parallel to a train ticket or an airline ticket. "Sorry, you
don't get to use the facility for free. We're not going to subsidize it
to that level."
Each car imposes external negatives on others. That's especially true in car-crowded cities. It seems to make sense to reduce those using market economics.
On 1/20/2025 7:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 13:17:00 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
There's a little history on the "Talk" page regarding desmodromic
valves. Here's that "Talk" page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Desmodromic_valve#Disputed_section:_Disadvantages
I don't see enough to make a confident judgment.
Jobst knew an awful lot about desmodromic valves which I suppose he got acquainted with at Porche trying to eliminate valve float. If you got him talking on the subject you couldn't shut him off. He believed they were the cure for everything,
I think you have that backwards. I suppose I could be wrong. Andrew can probably clarify.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 21:17:57 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,983 |