Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username/Email:
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 151
» Latest member: Laurasolo
» Forum threads: 68
» Forum posts: 112

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 30 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 30 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
На нашем сайте вы можете ...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Laurasolo
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
what is index linking
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-16-2025, 03:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 68
fast indexing of linksys
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-16-2025, 04:17 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 93
Online store for all meds...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-15-2025, 05:41 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 99
Co vlastne jsou ty kapsle...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-15-2025, 04:10 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 81
Co vlastne jsou ty kapsle...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-15-2025, 06:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 96
I want to hear reviews: o...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-14-2025, 10:24 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 113
Where to buy Dapoxetine s...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-13-2025, 02:38 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 145
Полный список рабочих зер...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: AllysTelp
06-12-2025, 11:00 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 152
Online pharmacy with fast...
Forum: Conspiracy Forums
Last Post: Shraunchq
06-12-2025, 04:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 127

 
  Sandy Hook Total Bullshit?
Posted by: v3_exceed - 07-17-2018, 11:14 AM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - No Replies

This was a terrible time, a terrible incident. Using children for political gain is a pretty common action by slimy politicians. Using the death or the presumed death of children to push your political narritave is beyond low, sleazy and down right distasteful.
So if it happened, or if it didn't is entirely based on your perception of the events.
The following PDF provides some insight to the idea that this event might just be a very poorly constructed, poorly executed attempt at a political gun control grab.



Attached Files
.pdf   NobodyDiedAtSandyHook.pdf (Size: 6.58 MB / Downloads: 0)
Print this item

  Is God an abusive spouse?
Posted by: v3_exceed - 07-17-2018, 11:09 AM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - No Replies

God and Spousal Abuse:
It’s common for Christians to compare the relationship between humanity and God to that between husband and wife. God is the “man” of the house to whom humanity owes obedience, respect, and honor. Usually this relationship is portrayed as one of love, but in far too many ways, God is more like an abusive spouse who only knows how to love through intimidation and violence. A review of classic signs and symptoms of spousal abuse reveals how abusive the “relationship” people have with God is.

Victims are Afraid of the Abuser:
Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God. Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence. Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God. Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God’s wrath and eventual punishment.

Abusers Use of Threats and Intimidation to Force Compliance:
Violence is a primary means by which abusers communicate, even with their spouses whom they are supposed to love. Abusers aren’t just violent towards their spouses — they also use violence against objects, pets, and other things to instill more fear and to force compliance with their wishes. God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.

Abusers Withholds Resources from Victims:
In order to exercise greater control over a victim, abusers will withhold important resources in order to make the victim more dependent. Resources used like this include money, credit cards, access to transportation, medications, or even food. God is also depicted as exercising control over people by controlling their resources — if people are insufficiently obedient, for example, God may cause crops to fail or water to turn bad. The basic necessities of living are conditioned on obeying God.

Abusers Instill Feelings of Inadequacy in Victims:
A further means of exercising control over a victim is instilling feelings of inadequacy in them. By getting them to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.

Victims Feel they Deserve to be Punished by Abusers:
Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse they are suffering. If the abuser is justified in punishing the victim, then the victim can hardly complain, can she? God is also described as being justified in punishing humanity — all people are so sinful and depraved that they deserve an eternity in hell (created by God). Their only hope is that God will take pity on them and save them.

Victims are Not Trusted by Abusers:
Another part of the process of making the victim feel inadequate is ensuring that they know how little the abuser trusts them. The victim is not trusted to make her own decisions, dress herself, buy things on her own, or anything else. She is also isolated from her family so that she can’t find help. God, too, is depicted as treating people as if they were unable to do anything right or make their own decisions (like on moral issues, for example).

Emotional Dependency of the Abuser on the Victim:
Although abusers encourage victims to feel inadequate, it is the abuser who really has problems with self-confidence. Abusers encourage emotional dependency because they are emotionally dependent themselves — this produces extreme jealousy and controlling behavior. God, too, is depicted as dependent upon human worship and love. God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away. God is all-powerful, but unable to prevent the smallest problems.

Blaming the Victim for the Abuser’s Actions:
Victims are typically made to feel responsible for all of an abuser’s actions, not just deserving of the punishments inflicted. Thus victims are told that it’s their fault when an abuser gets angry, feels suicidal, or indeed when anything at all goes wrong. Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong — although God created humanity and can stop any unwanted actions, all responsibility for all evil in the world is laid entirely at the feet of human beings.
Why Do Abused People Stay With Their Abusers?:
Why do women stay with violent, abusive spouses? Why don’t they just pack up and leave, making a new life for themselves elsewhere and with people who actually respect and honor them as equal, independent human beings? The signs of abuse described above should help in answering these questions: women are so emotionally and psychologically beaten down that they lack the mental strength to do what is necessary. They don’t have enough confidence to believe that they can make it without the man who keeps telling them that only he could possibly love such an ugly and worthless person such as they.

Perhaps some insight on this can be gained by rephrasing the question and asking why people don’t abandon the emotionally and psychologically abusive relationship they are expected to develop with God? The existence of God isn’t relevant here — what matters is how people are taught to perceive themselves, their world, and what will happen to them if they make the mistake of trying to leave the relationship in order to make a better life for themselves elsewhere.

Women who are abused are told that they can’t make it on their own and if they try, their spouse will come after them to punish or even kill them. Believers are told that they can’t accomplish anything of value without God, that they are so worthless that only because God is infinitely loving does he love them at all; if they turn their backs on God, they will be punished for all eternity in hell. The sort of “love” which God has for humanity is the “love” of an abuser who threatens, attacks, and commits violence in order to get his own way.

Religions like Christianity are abusive insofar as they encourage people to feel inadequate, worthless, dependent, and deserving of harsh punishment. Such religions are abusive insofar as they teach people to accept the existence of a god which, if human, would have long ago been shut away in prison for all his immoral and violent behavior.
 
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/p/...busive.htm

Print this item

  Orwell vs. Huxley... who was right?
Posted by: v3_exceed - 07-17-2018, 11:05 AM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - No Replies

Orwell vs. Huxley... who was right?

[Image: 758e77a26c811ce5655f030dd7a80b26.jpg]

Print this item

  FROM THE EMINENT SOVIET JOURNAL: 'SPUTNIK' IS THE MOON THE CREATION OF INTELLIGENCE?
Posted by: v3_exceed - 07-17-2018, 11:02 AM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - No Replies

Although people long ago began to wonder whether the "canals" on Mars
were the creation of cosmic engineers, for some odd reason it has not
occurred to look with the same eyes upon the peculiarities of the lunar
landscape much closer at hand. And all the arguments about the
possibilities of intelligent life existing on other celestial bodies
have been confined to the idea that other civilisations must necessarily
live on the surface of a planet, and that the interior as a habitat is
out of the question.
Abandoning the traditional paths of "common sense", we have plunged into
what may at first sight seem to be unbridled and irresponsible fantasy.
But the more minutely we go into all the information gathered by man about
the Moon, the more we are convinced that there is not a single fact to
rule out our supposition. Not only that, but many things so far considered
to be lunar enigmas are explainable in the light of this new hypothesis.
AN ARTIFICIAL SPUTNIK OF THE EARTH?
The origin of the Moon is one of the most complicated problems of cosmogony.
So far there have been basically three hypotheses under discussion.
HYPOTHESIS I. The Moon was once a part of the Earth and broke away from it.
This has now been refuted by the evidence.
HYPOTHESIS II. The Moon was formed independently from the same cloud of
dust and gas as the Earth, and immediately became the Earth's natural
satellite.
But then why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of
the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimetre) and that of the Earth
(5.5 gr.)? Furthermore, according to the latest information (analysis of
samples brought back by the U.S. Apollo astronauts) lunar rock is not of the
same composition as the Earth's.
HYPOTHESIS III. The Moon came into being separately, and, moreover, far
from the Earth (perhaps even outside the Solar system).
This would mean that the moon would not have to be fashioned from the same
"clay" as our own planet. Sailing through the Universe, the Moon came into
Earth's proximity, and by a complex interplay of forces of gravity was
brought within a geocentric orbit, very close to circular. But a catch of
this kind is virtually impossible.
In fact, scientists studying the origin of the Universe today have no
acceptable theory to explain how the Earth-Moon system came into being.
OUR HYPOTHESIS: The Moon is an artificial Earth satellite put into orbit
around the Earth by some intelligent beings unknown to ourselves.
We refuse to engage in speculation about who exactly staged this unique
experiment, which only a highly developed civilisation was capable of.
A NOAH'S ARK?
If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to
make it hollow. At the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone
capable of such a tremendous space project would be satisfied simply with
some kind of giant empty trunk hurled into a near-Earth trajectory.
It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the
interior of which was filled with fuel for the engines, materials and
appliances for repair work, navigation, instruments, observation equipment
and all manner of machinery... in other words, everything necessary to
enable this "caravelle of the Universe" to serve as a kind of Noah's Ark
of intelligence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilisation envisaging
a prolonged (thousands of millions of years) existence and long wanderings
through space (thousands of millions of miles).
Naturally, the hull of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand
up to the blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and
extreme cold. Probably the shell is a double-layered affair--the basis a
dense armouring of about 20 miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of
more loosely packed covering (a thinner layer--averaging about three miles).
In certain areas--where the lunar "seas" and "craters" are, the upper layer
is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent.
Since the Moon's diameter is 2,162 miles, then looked at from our point of
view it is a thin-walled sphere. And, understandably, not an empty one.
There could be all kinds of materials and equipment on its inner surface.
But the greatest proportion of the lunar mass is concentrated in the central
part of the sphere, in its core, which has a diameter of 2,062 miles.
Thus the distance between the kernel and the shell of this nut is in the
region of 30 miles. This space was doubtless filled with gases required for
breathing, and for technological and other purposes.
With such an internal structure the Moon could have an average specific
gravity if 3.3 grammes per cubic centimetre, which differs considerably from
that of Earth (5.5 grammes per cubic centimetre).
A BATTLESHIP THEY COULDN'T TORPEDO?
The most numerous and interesting of the formations on the lunar surface are
the craters. In diameter they vary considerably. Some are less that a yard
across, while others are more than 120 miles (the biggest has a diameter of
148 miles). How does the Moon come to be so pockmarked?
There are two hypothesis--volcanic and meteoric. Most scientists vote for
the latter.
Kirill Stanyukovich, a Soviet physicist, has written a whole series of works
since 1937 in which he expounds the idea that the craters are the result of
bombardment of the Moon for millions of years. And he really means
bombardment, for even the smallest celestial body, when it is involved in one
of those fastest head-on collisions so common in the cosmos behaves itself
like a warhead charged with dynamite, or even an atomic warhead at times.
Instant combustion takes place on impact, turning it into a dense cloud of
incandescent gas, into plasma, and there is a very definite explosion.
According to Professor Stanykovich, a "missile" of a sizable character (say 6
miles in diameter) must, on collision with the Moon, penetrate to a depth
equal to 4 or 5 times its own diameter (24-30 miles).
The surprising thing is that however big the meteorites may have been which
have fallen on the Moon (some have been more than 60 miles in diameter), and
however fast they must have been travelling (in some cases the combined speed
was as much as 38 miles per second), the craters they have left behind are
for some odd reason all about the same depth, 1.2-2 miles, although they vary
tremendously in diameter.
Take that 148-mile diameter crater. In area it outdoes Hiroshima hundreds of
times over. What a powerful explosion it must have been to send millions of
tons of lunar rock fountaining over tens of miles! On the face of it, one
would expect to find a very deep crater here, but nothing of the sort: there
is three miles at the most between top and bottom levels, and one third of
that is accounted for by the wall of rock thrown up around the crater like
a toothed crown.
For such a big hole, it is too shallow. Furthermore, the bottom of the crater
is convex, following the curve of the lunar surface. If you were to stand in
the middle of the crater you would not even be able to see the soaring edge--
it would be beyond the horizon. A hollow that is more like a hill is a
rather strange affair, perhaps.
Not really, if one assumes that when the meteorite strikes the outer covering
of the moon, this plays the role of a buffer and the foreign body finds
itself up against an impenetrable spherical barrier. Only slightly denting
the 20-mile layer of armour plating, the explosion flings bits of its
"coating" far and wide.
Bearing in mind that the Moon's defence coating is, according to our
calculations, 2.5 miles thick, one sees that this is approximately the
maximum depth of the craters.
A SPACESHIP COME TO GRIEF?
Now let us consider the chemical peculiarities of the lunar rock. Upon
analysis, American scientists have found chromium, titanium and zirconium in
it. These are all metals with refractory, mechanically strong and
anti-corrosive properties. A combination of them all would have envitable
resistance to heat and the ability to stand up to means of aggression, and
could be used on Earth for linings for electrical furnaces.
If a material had to be devised to protect a giant artificial satellite from
the unfavourable effects of temperature, from cosmic radiation and meteorite
bombardment, the experts would probably have hit on precisely these metals. In
that case it is not clear why lunar rock is such an extraordinarily poor heat
conductor--a factor which so amazed the astronauts? Wasn't that what the
designers of the super-sputnik of the Earth were after?
From the engineers point of view, this spaceship of ages long past which we
call the Moon is superbly constructed. There may be a good reason for its
extreme longevity. It is even possible that it predates our own planet. At
any rate, some pieces of lunar rock have proved older than the oldest on
Earth, although it is true, this applies to the age of the materials and not
of the structure for which they were used. And from the number of craters on
its surface, the Moon itself is no chicken.
It is, of course, difficult to say when it began to shine in the sky above
the Earth, but on the basis of some preliminary estimates one might hazard a
guess that it was around two thousand million years ago.
We do not, of course, imagine that the moon is still inhabited, and probably
many of its automatic devices have stopped working, too. The stabilisers
have ceased functioning and the poles have shifted. Even though the moon
keeps that same side turned towards us, for some time it has been unsteady on
its own axis, on occasion showing us part of its reverse side which were
once invisible to observers on the Earth--for example, the Selenites
themselves if they made expeditions here.
Time has taken its toll. Both body and rigging have disintegrated to some
extent; some seams on the inner shell evidently diverged. We assume that
the long (up to 940 miles) chains of small craters formerly ascribed to
volcanic activity were brought about by eruptions of gas through cracks
appearing in the armour plating as a result of accidents.
No doubt one of the most splendid features of the lunarscape--a straight
"wall" nearly 500 yards high and over 60 miles long--formed as a result of
one of the armour plates bending under the impact of celestial torpedoes and
raising one of its straight, even edges.
The Moon's population presumeably took the necessary steps to remedy the
effects of meteorite bombardment, for example, patching up rents in the
outer shield covering the inner shell. For such purposes a substance from
the lunar core was probably used, a kind a cement being made from it. After
processing this would be piped to the surface sites where it was required.
Not long ago astronomers discovered variations in the gravitational fields
near the large "seas". We believe the reason to be this: the Moon's dry seas
are in fact areas from which the protective coating was torn from the armour
cladding. To make good the damage to these vast tracts, the installation
producing the repair substance would have had to be brought immediately
beneath the site so that it could flood the area with is "cement". The
resulting flat stretches are what look like seas to the terrestrial observer.
The stocks of materials and machinery for doing this are no doubt still where
they were, and are sufficiently massive to give rise to these gravitational
anomalies.
What is the Moon today? Is it a colossal necropolis, a "city of the dead,"
where some form of life became extinct? Is it a kind cosmic Flying Dutchman?
A craft abandoned by its crew and controlled automatically? We do not know
and we shall not try to guess.
WAITING FOR THE EVIDENCE
We have put forward in this article only a few of the reasons--unfortunately
the evidence is so far only circumstantial--for our hypothesis, which at
first glance may appear to be crazy.
A similar "crazy" idea was put forward in 1959 by Professor Iosif Shklovsky,
an eminent scientist, in relation to the "moons" circling around Mars.
After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both
hollow and therefore artificial satellites.
We feel that the questions we have raised in connection with our Moon provide
sufficient food for serious thought on the matter; the result may be the
illumination of our many lunar riddles.
Now, of course, we have to wait for direct evidence to support our idea. Or
refute it.
Probably there will not be long to wait.

Print this item

  America is NOT a Nation of Immigrants or a Melting Pot
Posted by: Cracker Jack - 06-30-2018, 09:13 PM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - Replies (1)





We are a nation founded by white European descent with a certain set of morals and ethics, those of which are not shared by the non-white people.

Print this item

  Why Steam doesnt always suck.
Posted by: v3_exceed - 06-20-2018, 05:13 PM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - No Replies

Steam is a game publisher/content delivery network. They publish games like Halflife (Valve).
Back in the long ago I was a member of Steam. I have a steam ID, and I had Steam games. This fathers day my 32 year old son bought me a copy of Fallout 4.

Now to get this game I have to install steam. No problem I did that. Then they ask me to login. But I can't login because I forgot my username. So I go the recovery process to get my username. I enter in my email address, confirm my email address with the little code..... then wait.

Hours later the support people email me and say they cannot help me if I don't provide them with a cd key for the game i used to create the account... In 2004.

Like i even remember the game i might have used in 2004 to create the account much less even have a cd for it. So I search around the old software library and in 2004 we were big on lan parties. People would come over and we would play for hours.. So at the time we had setup a very popular counter strike server. In that server was my steam ID.

So I sent this to the support people...and they close my support request.

At that point..I decided to keep at it, not that i'm one to give up easily... soooooo
This time I started of with my Steam ID, username and confirmed email address (that i've had for 20 years)

And in just a few minutes..I got a response sending me my user/pass .i'm still in shock.. I think the fellow actually went above and beyond to help me.... so where I was going to post how much they suck... they were actually helpful

Print this item

  Сумки на колесах оптом
Posted by: DanielEndup - 06-20-2018, 01:15 AM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - No Replies

Fucking spammer

Print this item

Exclamation Recent updates
Posted by: v3_exceed - 06-15-2018, 12:56 PM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - Replies (12)

Hi,

Sorry for any posts that got deleted.. the stupid forum software was showing errors where it shouldn't and the help community was saying it was my host. Since I am the host, I said they were full of shit..

I got the thing back up and running, added a couple smilies found on the internet at an undisclosed location if you find some you'd like to use..let me know and I'll add them..

gsbrnint

Print this item

  This Week on the Alt Right Tommy Robinson Imprisoned
Posted by: Cracker Jack - 06-12-2018, 02:37 PM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - Replies (3)

No free speech for Islam or Leftists. I guess I'm not aligned with Mark on this. - How has allowing the subversion of the west by these foreign and non-western ideas or destructive ideologies, how has that helped White people? Unrestricted Free Speech is not a moral good. If these colored ingrates from foreign lands want free speech for themselves then they shouldn't live in white nations. They wouldn't allow us to have such.




Print this item

  Got Chrome? Google Just Silently Downloaded This Onto Your Computer
Posted by: v3_exceed - 06-12-2018, 11:17 AM - Forum: Conspiracy Forums - Replies (3)

[Image: 64d44b2543bb24bda6fe7f7f53e62ee3.gif]
By Alec Cope


We Are Change
“Don’t Be Evil” – Google

On June 17th, Google did not announce (the news broke) that the DARPA affiliated corporation has been silently downloading audio listeners onto every computer that has Chrome.

This effectively means that Google sees your privacy as piddly-squat, which does not necessarily come off as a surprise, when one considers Google’s censorship of We Are Change – this very organization as nothing. The website Private Internet Access‘s Rick Falkvinge reported how he came to understand this new policy:

“It looked like just another bug report. “When I start Chromium, it downloads something.” Followed by strange status information that notably included the lines “Microphone: Yes” and “Audio Capture Allowed: Yes”.
Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.”

Without going into detail, Falkvinge describes the nature of open-sourced/free-software and how it relies on transparency and the innovation of many software programmers before being finished as a final product. The transparency allows the user to know that the open-sourced software truly does what it claims to do. Chromium, the open-source version of Google Chrome is supposed to operate the same way. Only Google abused the nature of open-sourced transparency, and by-passed the process that would have prevented this from happening.

Google rationalized that enabling the ability to be eavesdropped via your personal computer was well worth it, because now “Ok, Google” works! Now when you say certain words, Chrome begins searching preliminaries – is it truly worth losing the stability of your privacy though? Obviously, it is Google’s servers that respond to what is being said along with your computer. So a computer black-box was installed, hooked onto a private corporation’s server and now has the ability to eavesdrop on you and Google had no intention to let anyone know about it!

Eventually Google did respond to the accusation, in which Falkvinge “paraphrased”:
“1) Yes, we’re downloading and installing a wiretapping black-box to your computer. But we’re not actually activating it. We did take advantage of our position as trusted upstream to stealth-insert code into open-source software that installed this black box onto millions of computers, but we would never abuse the same trust in the same way to insert code that activates the eavesdropping-blackbox we already downloaded and installed onto your computer without your consent or knowledge. You can look at the code as it looks right now to see that the code doesn’t do this right now.

2) Yes, Chromium is bypassing the entire source code auditing process by downloading a pre-built black box onto people’s computers. But that’s not something we care about, really. We’re concerned with building Google Chrome, the product from Google. As part of that, we provide the source code for others to package if they like. Anybody who uses our code for their own purpose takes responsibility for it. When this happens in a Debian installation, it is not Google Chrome’s behavior, this is Debian Chromium’s behavior. It’s Debian’s responsibility entirely.

3) Yes, we deliberately hid this listening module from the users, but that’s because we consider this behavior to be part of the basic Google Chrome experience. We don’t want to show all modules that we install ourselves.”

The writer describes that “software switches” are no longer enough to protect against this type of eavesdropping, software switches are programs that turn off your webcam/mic etc,. Really, the author feels a physical switch that cuts electrical connection to the device is required to prevent this. It is an odd thing to observe for me, because many people were furious when news of the NSA’s technological trawler of private information became common knowledge. When Google silently attempts to install even more passage ways for your intimate information to be siphoned, not much is said about it.

In fact many have begun the repetitive nature of apathetic perception, one example being “It only eavesdrops when you say, “OK, Google” (Wouldn’t it need to listen to everything to know when you say, “OK, Google”?) and it goes on and on. Ultimately, there will always be a large portion of users who simply do not care whether or not a shadowy corporation is listening to them, or a maniacal government for that matter.

Yet in principle, the fact Google did this with the intention of users having no clue that they have had their privacy sliced even deeper; simply demonstrates the corporation’s lack of compassion and boundaries. However you choose to handle this story, deleting Chrome in exchange for more private-oriented software programs, not doing anything or learning more about it; one thing is clear: we also have a responsibility to ensure this type of usurpation is not treated with an accepting embrace. More people learn what is happening by the day, it is only a matter of time before there is a tipping point – I hope to see you there. Thanks for reading.
http://wearechange.org/got-chrome-google...-computer/






Print this item