Oletros

54 ms·

541.
by Oletros 10y ago
> Because is largely exaggerated Exagerated what, the lie you wrote that only on Marxists regimes you can be persecuted? the problem is that you see Mrxists even in the extreme right. > All killing is immoral It seems that not for yo
542.
by Oletros 10y ago
Why would it work with USA zip codes? Zip codes are not universal...
543.
by Oletros 10y ago
>? And a giant backdoor with purposefully vague language in their privacy policy to let them sell data. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ "We provide personal information to our affiliates or other
544.
by Oletros 10y ago
Oh, yes, because Tim cook said anything it is the Bible. Time to stop reading your poor trollish attempts, have a nice day and when you really start to comprehend how advertisement work perhaps you won't be such wrong.
545.
by Oletros 10y ago
> One more thing Google open sourced their AI routine but didn't release the data. Now you must be joking or it is just that you don/'t know anything about what you talk about. > They don't give data away for free.
546.
by Oletros 10y ago
> User data is sold to target Google users with advertising. this is false, please, provide a link where it is confirmed > In order for you to be correct, Google would not sell the user data in any way to any advertiser or third party
547.
by Oletros 10y ago
I have read, there is nothing in the links that you have provided that says that Google sells your data. If you don't know the business model of Google and you can't read your own links it is not my problem. But don't let fac
548.
by Oletros 10y ago
> Whether you like it or not, people think differently. Yes, everybody can think what they want, they are free to be wrong against all the evidence > People that have actually worked in the field and have Phd's in climatology. Wh
549.
by Oletros 10y ago
No, still no word of Google or others selling your data. But if you think that I missed it, can you point in which line is said that Google sells the data?
550.
by Oletros 10y ago
So, curiously, no scientific test is adequate for homeopathy. How convenient. But reality is that it doesn't work, it is just a big fraud When you have any actual proof and no the same "Belieeeve!!!" call us
551.
by Oletros 10y ago
Please, I have read the TOS of the companies and the article you have linked and I can't find where is said that the data is sold. Can you point a source to your claim? Thanks
552.
by Oletros 10y ago
What data does Google sell and to whom?
553.
by Oletros 10y ago
Not this year's XPS
554.
by Oletros 10y ago
And, by the way, linking to an article where it is said that social democracy is the same as national socialism means that nor the author of the article nor you knows anything about communism, Nazism or social democracy
555.
by Oletros 10y ago
> So no, nobody is coming for you in a free society that is not marxist Then we can tell the people disappeared in militar dictatorships in the Latin countries in the 50s-70s than they were prosecuted by marxist governments. School of th
556.
by Oletros 10y ago
Do you have any source that can back your suspicion that Google breaks their own policies for Analytics?
557.
by Oletros 10y ago
I suppose that you can back your claims with sources, isn't?
558.
by Oletros 10y ago
Paywall? WSJ? I didn't knew it was an scientific publication were peer reviewed papers were sent. And the only thing that can be read had nothing to do with homeopathy.
559.
by Oletros 10y ago
> Also realize that the latest scientific research on food allergies involves homeopathic-like mithridatism, so even though the idea of a like-cures-like high dilutionist treatment isn't anywhere near a universal panacea, it does at
560.
by Oletros 10y ago
The sad irony is that they were dangerous because they were not homeopathic preparations, they had active ingredients
561.
by Oletros 10y ago
Your surrealistic analogies are not an argument
562.
by Oletros 10y ago
> Imagine you are told there is a 99% chance you have a fatal disease that will kill you on your 50th birthday, and that the only cure has a 100% chance of leaving you completely paralyzed, but must be done before you turn 25. You surely
563.
by Oletros 10y ago
> is that there is no scientific proof for global warming. > There are no such proven predictions made by modern politically funded climate science. > All they have are computer models which are constantly being disputed for being
564.
by Oletros 10y ago
> I had the impression that the laws of physics are seldom rewritten, more of a fix here, another one there. Newton laws and Noether's theorem has not been changed and they are fundamental > OTOH, one can hardly say that it viola
565.
by Oletros 10y ago
> The climate is always changing and we have a very short history of data. > These scientists are glorified weathermen > I don't see anything about what's going on with the sun or the moon which I find disturbing. Three o
566.
by Oletros 10y ago
Really? Even the scientists performing the experiment were asking to find errors in the experiments.
567.
by Oletros 10y ago
> If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age. No, it won't > And finally, how is it t
568.
by Oletros 10y ago
Sad day for the planet Earth if he abides at his promises about EPA, NOAA, Paris Agreement, etc
569.
by Oletros 10y ago
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and until now there is no single proof or theory. so yes, it is not hubris, it is science. > Another glaring example of the gap between education and intelligence. Pot kettle?
570.
by Oletros 10y ago
> So far the thrust results have been replicated more than the majority of economics and social science research (i.e. more than zero times). No, they haven't

More ›