Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #56038 > unrolled thread

The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-25 23:56 +0000
    Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 visiblink <visiblink@mail.invalid> - 2018-09-25 19:14 -0700
      Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-26 03:19 +0000
        Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-26 11:49 +0000
          Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 visiblink <visiblink@mail.invalid> - 2018-09-26 19:48 -0700
            Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-27 03:50 +0000
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-09-26 21:13 -0700
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-27 06:02 +0000
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-27 06:05 +0000
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-09-26 23:46 -0700
                    Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 16:18 +0000
                      Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-09-27 09:27 -0700
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-09-27 07:46 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-27 03:58 -0400
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 15:24 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 15:13 +0000
          Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-09-27 07:46 +0000
            Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-27 14:49 +0000
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-09-27 20:05 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 20:28 +0000
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-10-04 22:29 +0000
                    Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-05 11:07 +0000
    Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-09-27 07:46 +0000
      Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 15:43 +0000
        Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-09-27 20:05 +0000
          Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 20:23 +0000
            Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-10-04 22:29 +0000
        Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 20:40 +0000
          Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-27 20:52 +0000
            Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 08:39 +0000
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-28 09:52 -0400
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-28 15:53 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:44 +0000
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-28 18:01 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Krusty <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-29 15:57 +0800
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-29 23:13 +0000
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-28 15:34 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 17:44 +0000
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-28 17:57 +0000
                  Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-09-28 12:59 -0500
                    Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> - 2018-09-28 18:15 +0000
                      Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-09-28 13:46 -0500
                        Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-28 21:27 +0000
                    Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-09-29 00:00 +0100
                      Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2018-09-28 16:21 -0700
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-10-04 22:29 +0000
                Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:31 +0000
            Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2018-10-04 22:29 +0000
              Re: The fantastically brilliant YouYube privacy clones (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-10-04 16:21 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#56300

Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net>
news:pojei5$gn3$1@news.mixmin.net Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:28:54 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:05:55 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:
> 
>> LOL. I don't know many adults who refer to others as morons,
>> etc...Atleast not emotionally mature ones... 
> 
> Let's talk facts, Diesel:

Umm.. Ok.

> a. I mirror the intent of the post in threads I care about

I don't know what you mean by that...

> b. Those threads are almost always threads that I author

Okay.
 
> If you don't post moronic crap in those threads, you'll never hear
> a peep from me.
> 
> That's a fact.

You need to define what 'moronic crap' is supposed to mean to you. 
 
>>> If you really were as intelligent as you _think_ you are,
>>> Diesel, you'd test the tweaks and then post those tweaks, which
>>> is what I do all the time (by way of adult example).
>> 
>> I have tested the tweak, on the machine I got the app running on.
>> I haven't had time to test it on the other devices which aren't
>> working... 
> 
> You're exactly like nospam, Diesel, where you fabricate wholly
> imaginary functionality which never seems to exist when someone
> asks you for the proof of your wild claims.

Nospam and myself are nothing alike. They're more of an Apple person, 
and, I'm more of a PC person. We disagree far more often than we 
agree on a variety of subjects...

I didn't fabricate anything, but, unlike yourself, I prefer to test 
and re-test my results BEFORE I publish anything of a technical 
nature. That way, when it's tested by a third party (for example, 
perhaps yourself at some point in the future), I've covered all the 
bases and it *should* work as I wrote, if the instructions are 
followed to the letter.

As I've tried (and failed, no doubt) to explain to you, numerous 
times now, not all Android devices follow the 'rules' if you will, 
so, until I have the free time to test what is working on one device 
on the other two I have readily accessable, I'm not going to publish 
anything. After all, what good would it do you to know how I got it 
working on ONE android device? Do you think the fix is magically 
going to work and be identical for yours as well?

I have my doubts, hence my desire to check the 'fix' with two other 
Android devices that don't want to run the program and are giving the 
same (in my opinion, bogus) error message as you got.

> HINT: You claimed the method was "obvious", and yet, you didn't
> know the first thing about the method.

If you're writing about the 'sliding' files bit you wrote about 
previously, I've been exchanging files to various devices via usb 
long before it was a popular thing to do, and long before various 
later versions of windows had far better support for doing it out of 
the box without additional 3rd party software required.

To gain a little extra space, I even pulled the old larger floppy 
format trickery on some of my usb sticks. If you don't know what I'm 
writing about, or think i'm in any way bsing you, please feel free to 
respond and indicate as such. I'd greatly enjoy taking you on a 
computer history 101 lesson. :)

I've even written my own custom drivers to facilitate transfers with 
some very oddball devices. So, yea, I tend to get a chuckle when I 
read comments from you indicating how much of a moron I am, or that I 
don't understand this or that. I do, I assure you, I do. You've yet 
to lose me in any technical discussion. I'm not saying it's 
impossible, but, it's not very likely.

You posted to usenet about being able to exchange files between 
windows, android, and various apple products as if it was something 
you yourself had recently discovered and nobody else knew a damn 
thing about it. Arrogant, and yet, such a stupid comment to make.

You went a step further, without doing a single bit of fact checking 
beforehand when you stated that ALL versions of Windows, Android, 
apple, etc, would do this without additional 3rd party software. 

The linux distro you're using happens to have 3rd party software 
installed that facilitates the communications link for your apple 
products and your linux box. And contrary to your previous remarks 
about the level of access you actually have using it, it's limited. 
It doesn't give you full access to the ios device, as it cannot do 
so.

 
-- 
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Daddy's privates and a cat's springy cat toy are interchangeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56314

Diesel wrote:
> [...]
> To gain a little extra space, I even pulled the old larger floppy 
> format trickery on some of my usb sticks. If you don't know what I'm 
> writing about, or think i'm in any way bsing you, please feel free to 
> respond and indicate as such. I'd greatly enjoy taking you on a 
> computer history 101 lesson. :)


Computer history is always a bit fascinating.  I wouldn't mind
hearing it (although it might be better to take that to email, or at
least a different thread)

>
> I've even written my own custom drivers to facilitate transfers with 
> some very oddball devices. 

I'm hardly a programmer (and much less a hardware guy), how would one
get started with "drivers" these days?  I mean, so much of everything
seems to be locked behind "proprietary" or some other "corporate secret"
type nonsense.


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56059

"Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net>
news:poehuh$3uj$1@news.mixmin.net Tue, 25 Sep 2018 23:56:02 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> The fantastically brilliant free YouYube privacy clones
> (youtube-dl & New Pipe) have been updated to 0.14.1 on September
> 8th, but it took a while for the F-Droid and GitHub sites to catch
> up with the updated code: 
> <https://newpipe.schabi.org/blog/release/pinned/announcement/newpip
> e-0.14.1-released/> 

What do you mean by privacy clones exactly? Youtube-dl has nothing to 
do with protecting your privacy. It was created for the purpose of 
acquiring local copies of videos for various reasons. I've used a 
Windows port of it for years to keep this particular machine chugging 
along for me. It's been unable to stream youtube videos for several 
years now. That being said, I can use youtube-dl and download the 
very same video it can't stream and watch it commercial free, at my 
leisure without so much as a single frame drop.
 
> For Windows, Linux, & Mac users, here's the updated youtube-dl
> app: <https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/>

I'm on a mailing list, so...I already knew about the updated 
versions. As you can see below though, I've yet to update. I don't 
presently need to do so.
 
> As most of you are aware, this is a fantastically brilliant
> perfectly legal privacy on steroids version of the YouTube app (as
> always, it's not available on iOS) for Android (New Pipe), with a
> related, somewhat less functional app for Windows, Linux, and Mac
> (youtube-dl) which was updated very recently due to unilateral
> changes on the YouTube web site. 

I don't know what you mean by perfectly legal? If you think it's 
perfectly legal for you to use the program and download any/all 
videos you like, you'd be wrong. In some cases, you're actually 
committing copyright infringement when using the application. 

> Note that the features list is longer than I noted, and, please
> comprehend that all these features come without you ever needing
> to, or agreeing to any TOS by Google, and without any spying by
> Google on your activities. 

Partially right. Google knows the IP address and the video you 
pulled. And yes, they can tell if a browser pulled the video, or you 
used a program to download it instead. They may not have your actual 
IP address due to proxy/vpn/etc usage on your part, but to say they 
know *nothing* isn't accurate.
 
> * Download videos
> * Download audio only

Why not just download the entire thing in your container of choice 
with resolution you prefer, if it's available and extract the audio 
track(s) yourself to save in whatever container and codec you want?



-- 
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
Prune: A plum that has seen better days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56074

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:46:22 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

> What do you mean by privacy clones exactly?

I know New Pipe the best, so I'll speak for New Pipe.
It's _designed_ to protect your privacy.
SO that means whatever it means to those developers.
Which even you Diesel, can't be clueless about (can you?).

For example, you don't need to log in to subscribe.
And Google never knows who you are when you watch videos.

There's more, but that's just a start.
HINT: Please tell me you know this, Diesel, because if you don't know even
this, most basic of facts, then I'm truly dealing with a moron.

> Youtube-dl has nothing to 
> do with protecting your privacy.

I use youtube-dl on VPN where there is no "browser fingerprinting" or
"trackers" that Google can employ, where, I'm sure, unless you truly are a
moron, Diesel, you must know that there are _plenty_ of ways for Google to
track a browser session, particularly when the users aren't necessarily
aware of trackers and the plethora of "fingerprinting" possible with most
browsers.

HINT: Visit panopticlick and look up ad trackers for Christs' sake.

> It was created for the purpose of 
> acquiring local copies of videos for various reasons.

If you haven't figure it out yet, Diesel, the key privacy-related component
of the youtube-dl approach is that it eliminates the "web browser".

> I don't know what you mean by perfectly legal? If you think it's 
> perfectly legal for you to use the program and download any/all 
> videos you like, you'd be wrong. In some cases, you're actually 
> committing copyright infringement when using the application. 

We've had this discussion umpteen times, where, whenever the Apple
Apologists like nospam run into functionality that is on Android, for
example, that isn't on iOS, he pulls that idiotically childish trick (e.g.,
torrenting, phone recording, an officially sanctioned TOR browser, etc.).

Suffice to say that Google *knows* all about New Pipe, so you can rest
assured that Google has the source code to New Pipe so it knows _exactly_
what New Pipe does, where New Pipe has been around for *years*.

If Google wanted to have an injunction against distribution of the New Pipe
source code and compiled binaries, they have the money and power to do
that.

What they don't have is the legal means to do that.
Either that, or they don't care.

Any adult would reasonably conclude this since New Pipe is operating out in
the open very clearly.

So please, Diesel, act like an adult.

Here is an adult question for you, Diesel:
Q: If New Pipe was breaking any law, don't you think Google would have a
court case?

Where is that court case?

HINT: An injunction would be trivial for Google to get if it had any basis
in law for one, and there clearly is no injunction against New Pipe code
distribution.

Please Diesel - don't act like a child. 

If you have something of value to say about the legality of New Pipe (or
youtube-dl code) please use your adult comprehensive skills to say it.

> Partially right. Google knows the IP address and the video you 
> pulled. 

Um, anyone who is not on VPN 100% of the time, doesn't know much about
privacy.

HINT: I have never once posted to Usenet from my own IP address.

> And yes, they can tell if a browser pulled the video, or you 
> used a program to download it instead.

Duh. 

The whole point is to _not_ use a browser, Diesel.
Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

> They may not have your actual 
> IP address due to proxy/vpn/etc usage on your part, but to say they 
> know *nothing* isn't accurate.

Oh, finally you say something that an adult would say.
Thank God.

HINT: If you're doing _anything_ on the net, it's prudent to use a proxy or
VPN. 

For example:
  Pragmatic experience with Freegate, Ultrasurf, and Polarity privacy-related web-surfing tools 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/oHuik0iDqcA/7GJlVUiyCgAJ>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56085

"Arlen H. Holder" <arlenholder@no.spam.net>
news:poitr6$m8t$1@news.mixmin.net Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:43:35 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:46:22 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:
> 
>> What do you mean by privacy clones exactly?
> 
> I know New Pipe the best, so I'll speak for New Pipe.
> It's _designed_ to protect your privacy.
> SO that means whatever it means to those developers.

I didn't ask what it meant to the developers. I asked what you meant 
by the comment...

> For example, you don't need to log in to subscribe.
> And Google never knows who you are when you watch videos.

And this is specific to NewPipe, Youtube-dl, etc, how?
 
> There's more, but that's just a start.
> HINT: Please tell me you know this, Diesel, because if you don't
> know even this, most basic of facts, then I'm truly dealing with a
> moron. 

There's really no reason for the consistent and petty name calling...
Besides, I can easily find urls describing things I've done and 
written which clearly show I'm not a moron...I think I'll wait awhile 
longer though before I opt for that.
 
>> Youtube-dl has nothing to 
>> do with protecting your privacy.
> 
> I use youtube-dl on VPN where there is no "browser fingerprinting"
> or "trackers" that Google can employ, where, I'm sure, unless you
> truly are a moron, Diesel, you must know that there are _plenty_
> of ways for Google to track a browser session, particularly when
> the users aren't necessarily aware of trackers and the plethora of
> "fingerprinting" possible with most browsers.

Again with the moron comment..youtube-dl isn't doing the work of 
protecting your privacy, the VPN you're making use of is doing 
that...
 
> HINT: Visit panopticlick and look up ad trackers for Christs'
> sake. 

I'm good thanks. I'm well versed on malware and various methods of 
tracking...
 
>> It was created for the purpose of 
>> acquiring local copies of videos for various reasons.
> 
> If you haven't figure it out yet, Diesel, the key privacy-related
> component of the youtube-dl approach is that it eliminates the
> "web browser". 

That's a claim you're making. I'm asking you why you're making the 
claim is all.
 
>> I don't know what you mean by perfectly legal? If you think it's 
>> perfectly legal for you to use the program and download any/all 
>> videos you like, you'd be wrong. In some cases, you're actually 
>> committing copyright infringement when using the application. 
> 
> We've had this discussion umpteen times, where, whenever the Apple
> Apologists like nospam run into functionality that is on Android,
> for example, that isn't on iOS, he pulls that idiotically childish
> trick (e.g., torrenting, phone recording, an officially sanctioned
> TOR browser, etc.). 

You might want to re-read what I wrote...
 
> Suffice to say that Google *knows* all about New Pipe, so you can
> rest assured that Google has the source code to New Pipe so it
> knows _exactly_ what New Pipe does, where New Pipe has been around
> for *years*. 
> 
> If Google wanted to have an injunction against distribution of the
> New Pipe source code and compiled binaries, they have the money
> and power to do that.
> 
> What they don't have is the legal means to do that.
> Either that, or they don't care.
> 
> Any adult would reasonably conclude this since New Pipe is
> operating out in the open very clearly.
> 
> So please, Diesel, act like an adult.

Any adult with reasonable thinking capacity would quickly realize 
that I was writing about what YOU do with the program that makes it 
legal or not legal, not the act of downloading itself. In other 
words, if you use it to download a movie that's been uploaded to 
youtube against copyright owners consent, you're pirating it which 
is, illegal.
 
> Here is an adult question for you, Diesel:
> Q: If New Pipe was breaking any law, don't you think Google would
> have a court case?

Why would New Pipe itself be breaking any laws? It's effectively 
Blind to whatever you're asking it to download and store a local copy 
of. If you think that because it's on youtube that you have the right 
to download and do whatever you like with the video, you'd be 
mistaken.
 
> Where is that court case?

See above. read slower if you need to do so. I wrote nothing 
concerning newpipe legality from google perspective. I was writing 
specifically about what file(s) you elect to download with it.
 
> Please Diesel - don't act like a child. 

Please, Arlen, demonstrate some adult maturity with your replies...
 
> If you have something of value to say about the legality of New
> Pipe (or youtube-dl code) please use your adult comprehensive
> skills to say it. 

See above.
 
>> Partially right. Google knows the IP address and the video you 
>> pulled. 
> 
> Um, anyone who is not on VPN 100% of the time, doesn't know much
> about privacy.

That would be a large amount of people, Arlen...
 
> HINT: If you're doing _anything_ on the net, it's prudent to use a
> proxy or VPN. 

That depends on what you're doing....I've been around long before 
people confused the web with being the net, so...
 


-- 
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
The universe is laughing behind your back.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56090

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:05:54 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

> I didn't ask what it meant to the developers. I asked what you meant 
> by the comment...

And I gave you the answer. In spades. 
Even you should be able to comprehend the answer I provided.

> And this is specific to NewPipe, Youtube-dl, etc, how?
For you to ask that question merely indicates either
a. You're just playing silly games, or, 
b. You really did not comprehend the answer I provided already.

Since nobody is _that_ stupid, I assume you're just playing games.

> There's really no reason for the consistent and petty name calling...

This isn't my first rodeo with cowardly bullies like you Diesel.

If you act like an adult, Diesel, I treat you as an adult.
When you act like a child, Diesel, I treat you as a child.

There's a reason I do that.
It's to funnel you into acting like an adult.

You may never comprehend that tactic - but that's what it is.

When I last mentioned that to Rudy Wieser, Rene Lamantagne, Char Jackson,
and Wolf K., they took knowledge of my strategy and tactics upon themselves
as a challenge to *prove* they had the God-given right to troll.

It's as if I had drawn a "line of death" and they were determined to cross
it.

They proved long ago they have no remaining decency.
I assume you still have a shred of decency left.

The method of treating you as a mirror of your own posts only works on
people who still have a shred of decency left.

> Besides, I can easily find urls describing things I've done and 
> written which clearly show I'm not a moron...I think I'll wait awhile 
> longer though before I opt for that.

hehhehheh ... you prove what you are in every post.
All I need to do is point out what you write.

The fact is, you added _zero_ value to our overall technical knowledge.
All you did was waste everyone's time.

And I'm wasting everyone's time simply pointing that out to you.
My hope is that you'll regain any shred of moral decency you ever had.

And that you'll stop trolling - and you'll actually try to add a modicum of
value in your next post.

We'll see. 

> Again with the moron comment..youtube-dl isn't doing the work of 
> protecting your privacy, the VPN you're making use of is doing 
> that...

Why you fail to comprehend there is no browser involved is strange.
What part of "no web browser" do you fail to comprehend?

HINT: Google is good at scraping information from browser sessions.

> I'm good thanks. I'm well versed on malware and various methods of 
> tracking...

Then why do you repeatedly prove that you're not?
HINT:  New Pipe was designed for privacy, among other things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56301

Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net>
news:poje7e$g2t$1@news.mixmin.net Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:23:11 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:05:54 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:
> 
>> I didn't ask what it meant to the developers. I asked what you
>> meant by the comment...
> 
> And I gave you the answer. In spades. 
> Even you should be able to comprehend the answer I provided.

If you gave me a clear answer, I wouldn't be asking YOU specifically 
what you think it means.
 
>> And this is specific to NewPipe, Youtube-dl, etc, how?
> For you to ask that question merely indicates either
> a. You're just playing silly games, or, 
> b. You really did not comprehend the answer I provided already.

Try neither. Restoring what you snipped:
 
> For example, you don't need to log in to subscribe.
> And Google never knows who you are when you watch videos.

And this is specific to NewPipe, Youtube-dl, etc, how?

> Since nobody is _that_ stupid, I assume you're just playing games.

You know what they say about assumptions, right?
 
>> There's really no reason for the consistent and petty name
>> calling... 
> 
> This isn't my first rodeo with cowardly bullies like you Diesel.

I'm not a coward or a bully. if you feel that petty name calling will 
make some form of progress for you, I'm certainly not one to stand in 
your way.
 
> It's to funnel you into acting like an adult.

Your idea of an adult and what it means to act like one seems to 
differ considerably from how I was raised...Along with the majority 
of the people I work with, come to think of it...

So, either we've all had very fucked up upbringings.. or, the issue 
is with you? I'll leave it to the audience (if anyone gives a shit to 
read this long and boring thread) to decide...It's not my place to 
say...

> When I last mentioned that to Rudy Wieser, Rene Lamantagne, Char
> Jackson, and Wolf K., they took knowledge of my strategy and
> tactics upon themselves as a challenge to *prove* they had the
> God-given right to troll. 

I don't know all of the people you've name dropped ,but I've 
interacted with several of the ones you've listed and at no time did 
I find they were trolls or otherwise waste of usenet space or bytes.
 
> The method of treating you as a mirror of your own posts only
> works on people who still have a shred of decency left.

You might want to have the mirror serviced...It seems to be 
malfunctioning.
 
>> Besides, I can easily find urls describing things I've done and 
>> written which clearly show I'm not a moron...I think I'll wait
>> awhile longer though before I opt for that.
> 
> hehhehheh ... you prove what you are in every post.
> All I need to do is point out what you write.

Actually, I was being quite/dead serious. 
 
> The fact is, you added _zero_ value to our overall technical
> knowledge. All you did was waste everyone's time.

You may feel as if I've wasted your time, trying to correct some of 
your erroneous comments of a technical nature. I don't feel that I 
wasted my own time with the effort though - Pointing out that your 
method isn't universal, despite your claims to the contrary is imho, 
useful to some out there who weren't sure.

> And I'm wasting everyone's time simply pointing that out to you.
> My hope is that you'll regain any shred of moral decency you ever
> had. 

LOL, I'd almost hate to know what you'd think had you a clue who you 
were being such a condescending smartass towards.. You still, clearly 
(despite claiming to have been around for decades) don't have the 
foggiest fucking idea who I am....That actually cracks me up...

The way you talk down to me like i'm a fucking newbie or something. 
it's soo damn funny.

> Why you fail to comprehend there is no browser involved is
> strange. What part of "no web browser" do you fail to comprehend?

What the fuck, and I mean that in an amusing way, does a web browser 
have to do with youtube-dl? or the other clones? You don't *need* ANY 
of those 3rd party programs to download videos from youtube or any 
number of other sites, you CAN do it yourself, entirely manually 
without using a web browser, OR those particular tools.

We weren't discussing using a web browser to download youtube videos 
anyway. You specifically went on a rant about how private you were 
when using those as opposed to a web browser, or, heres a fucking 
thought, actually learning how the youtube-dl program works and DOING 
IT YOURSELF, by hand. Then, if you had the skills yourself (based on 
your tribal knowledge posts, I'm confident you don't) you could write 
your own damn clone to do the same thing those are already doing.

You incorrectly think and have posted as such that somehow, using 
those tools ensures your privacy is preserved. I don't know how you 
reach such a conclusion and that's why I asked you. 

> HINT: Google is good at scraping information from browser
> sessions. 

Indeed, especially for gullible users that use browsers in standard 
configurations. To assume that we all do this though, is a foolhearty 
assumption on your part. I'm sure google knows that I'm not really 
surfing them with netscape on windows 3.1 in japan :) But, as far as 
their scraping results are concerned, thats what i'm doing.

>> I'm good thanks. I'm well versed on malware and various methods
>> of tracking...
> 
> Then why do you repeatedly prove that you're not?

You've proven once again that you don't have a clue who I am. :) 

So, I'll make this easier, mostly for my own amusement and some 
chuckles from the audience. I used to write some serious malware, 
back in the day. Not the simple to remove stuff by deleting a file 
and some registry keys. No, mine was much more involved.. It really 
grabbed you by the balls and gave them a twist. And the serious 
malware i'm writing about isn't some unknown material that nobodies 
ever heard of. It's piss easy to pull antivirus write ups on several 
examples of my malware authoring work. One such diddy 0wned a 
particular car manufacturer for a short period of time. You might 
have heard of them... Toyota.

At some point, back in the day, I grew out of writing harmful code 
and went to the other side. Since then, I developed and supported my 
own antimalware utility, known as BugHunter. I've seen it provided on 
the hirens repair boot cd as well as getting the opportunity to see 
MY PROGRAM in action at best buy (yes, the geek squad guys) repairing 
a walk in customers computer. Needless to say, I was very proud of 
that. It wasn't some local branch, one time deal; no.. It was 
actually included on their geek repair tool kit discs, along with a 
small pile of other apps like it; written by the people I got to know 
in the antimalware community.

I also worked for two years for another antimalware outfit, a tiny 
company so you might not have heard of them; malwarebytes. My job 
description? :) Professional malware researcher. Do you know how I 
got the job? Marcin (the big chief himself) emailed me one day, out 
of the blue asking if I would like to come work for them. You get 
many job offers like that? :)

So, are we done with the 'I know more than you do' routine, or, do 
you want to dig a bigger hole for yourself?

> HINT:  New Pipe was designed for privacy, among other things.

HOW, specifically was it designed for privacy? I don't want the 
authors sales speech, I want you to explain, in laymens terms (for 
the general audience benefit); you can be as techie with me as you 
want, what designed for privacy actually means.


-- 
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit here:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
===================================================
No officer, I don't know why you pulled me over...I sure hope you do, 
though...My loads late, and, the medication is wearing off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56093

Arlen H. Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:46:22 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

I see your script has broken again. You're posting to a thread you created
with a different email. If you're going to nymshift at least get it right.
FFS!

>> I don't know what you mean by perfectly legal? If you think it's 
>> perfectly legal for you to use the program and download any/all 
>> videos you like, you'd be wrong. In some cases, you're actually 
>> committing copyright infringement when using the application. 
> 
> We've had this discussion umpteen times, where, whenever the Apple
> Apologists like nospam run into functionality that is on Android, for
> example, that isn't on iOS, he pulls that idiotically childish trick (e.g.,
> torrenting, phone recording, an officially sanctioned TOR browser, etc.).

You're getting pathological with hatred of iOS - Diesel didn't ever mention
it. 

> Suffice to say that Google *knows* all about New Pipe, so you can rest
> assured that Google has the source code to New Pipe so it knows _exactly_
> what New Pipe does, where New Pipe has been around for *years*.

It's immaterial to the discussion, but i doubt that google has the source
code for every app on android. 

> If Google wanted to have an injunction against distribution of the New Pipe
> source code and compiled binaries, they have the money and power to do
> that.
> 
> What they don't have is the legal means to do that.
> Either that, or they don't care.
> 
> Any adult would reasonably conclude this since New Pipe is operating out in
> the open very clearly.
> 
> So please, Diesel, act like an adult.
> 
> Here is an adult question for you, Diesel:
> Q: If New Pipe was breaking any law, don't you think Google would have a
> court case?

The code or app in itself is not illegal, but it allows you to commit
copyright theft if you use it on copyrighted materials. That's neither
google's nor new pipe's responsibility, it's yours. 

So regardless of google's interests and your iOS invective if you download
copyrighted material from YouTube circumventing their restrictions, then
you're more than likely infringing copyright. 

> Where is that court case?
> 
> HINT: An injunction would be trivial for Google to get if it had any basis
> in law for one, and there clearly is no injunction against New Pipe code
> distribution.

Because it's not illegal. In the same way that guns aren't illegal in many
places , but using one to shoot a person is (unless there mitigating
circumstances). 

> Please Diesel - don't act like a child. 

Pot meet kettle. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56095

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:32 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> It's immaterial to the discussion, but i doubt that google has the source
> code for every app on android.

The point simply is that if NewPipe, which is open source code that has
been available for years, was doing something illegal, then Google would
have a case against them since clearly New Pipe does many things that the
YouTube app can't do (and which, for some features, Google attempts to
extract money from YouTube Red subscribers for).

I'm not a lawyer and I never said I was one, but I can look at obvious
logical facts, and make an adult assessment, which is that Google (IMHO) is
most certainly extremely well aware of New Pipe functionality and source
code particulars.

You may wish to assume Google is ignorant of New Pipe functionality, but I
don't assume that Google is that ignorant of an app that directly competes
with both their freeware app and their payware app.

IMHO, it's just not logical to think Google is _that_ ignorant
(particularly in light of the fact they yanked the multiple New Pipe clones
off of Google Play about, oh, about half a year or so ago, as I recall).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56098

Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:32 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
> 
>> It's immaterial to the discussion, but i doubt that google has the source
>> code for every app on android.
> 
> The point simply is that if NewPipe, which is open source code that has
> been available for years, was doing something illegal, then Google would
> have a case against them since clearly New Pipe does many things that the
> YouTube app can't do (and which, for some features, Google attempts to
> extract money from YouTube Red subscribers for).
> 
> I'm not a lawyer and I never said I was one, but I can look at obvious
> logical facts, and make an adult assessment, 

Ok. Let's go there.

You posit that if an app were illegal Google would block it. Therefore as
new pipe is available from Google it can't be illegal. That's true.

However, you're confusing the legality of an object with the legality of an
act using that object or thing. Just because new pipe isn't illegal doesn't
mean you can't use for illegal activity. They are logically distinct.

If A is illegal and B is used to commit A, then B is also illegal *only* if
B's only purpose is to enable A.

> which is that Google (IMHO) is
> most certainly extremely well aware of New Pipe functionality and source
> code particulars.

Stop snipping relevant responses. I already covered this.

> You may wish to assume Google is ignorant of New Pipe functionality, but I
> don't assume that Google is that ignorant of an app that directly competes
> with both their freeware app and their payware app.
> 
> IMHO, it's just not logical to think Google is _that_ ignorant

Logic isn't your strong point. Why not trying sticking to your "facts"? 

> (particularly in light of the fact they yanked the multiple New Pipe clones
> off of Google Play about, oh, about half a year or so ago, as I recall).

And you're willfully ignorant if you believe that because Google allows new
pipe to be available on it's play store, it absolves you of any
responsibility of how you use it. Its like saying Ford cars can do 100mph
therefore you're allowed to drive at that speed whenever you want. 

Be a grown up and accept your actions for what they truly are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56100

In article <pokpcc$fm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 
> > (particularly in light of the fact they yanked the multiple New Pipe clones
> > off of Google Play about, oh, about half a year or so ago, as I recall).
> 
> And you're willfully ignorant if you believe that because Google allows new
> pipe to be available on it's play store, it absolves you of any
> responsibility of how you use it.

newpipe is *not* available on the play store.

<https://www.slashgear.com/newpipe-youtube-android-app-with-more-control
s-and-no-google-20492117/>
  To be clear, NewPipe is not an app that you can find on Google Play
  Store for one very important reason. It violates Google¹s Terms of
  Service because of the way it uses YouTube to deliver functionality
  that is otherwise not even available on the web browser version of
  YouTube. Because of that, the only way to get it is by getting the
  APK from the project¹s GitHub page and sideloading it. All
  disclaimers about security and safety apply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56103

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:52:59 -0400, nospam wrote:

> newpipe is *not* available on the play store.

Chris' weakness === reading comprehension
nospam's weakness === actual facts

While Chris failed on every count for adult reading comprehension, I know
you, nospam, to actually comprehend quite well "most" of what we already
know about New Pipe type functionality on Google Play.

Your weakness isn't reading comprehension; your weakness is facts.

HINT: You brazenly fabricated imaginary New Pipe-like functionality for iOS
when I asked why iOS doesn't have this functionality (see references
below).

The fact is that, long ago, I reviewed both of the New-Pipe-like clones
that were on Google Play for quite some time, both of which I concluded
were outright scams, where the record will show I advised Android users to
stay away from those long-standing new-pipe-like clones that were available
for a long time from Google Play.

You, in your quite childish way, play your silly game "intimating" that the
reasons those obvious scams no longer exist on Google Play was your pet
reason. You always just guess, nospam, where your record is worse than that
of the monkey.

While you "just guess", I make no claims as to why those two obvious scams,
both of which were on Google Play for quite a long period of time, no
longer exist on Google Play.

If someone has a real reference (not nospam's silly childish games), it
would be useful to see why the two known NewPipe-like scams which were on
Google Play for long periods of time, are no longer on Google Play.

*Please only respond if you are an adult as this is an adult question.*

REFERENCES
 What free iOS app downloads video & rips audio from YouTube? 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Sa27Y5JRvLE/jBAAk-7mCAAJ>

 Why doesn't iOS have a single free app that completely replaces the YouTube app entirely (with far more powerful functionality)?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/GSy2yOsVg68/0oeJY1GXAwAJ>

 Nospam posted just now that New Pipe YouTube "red" functionality exists on iOS
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/DkZPV7thX8k/ULqj14ruAAAJ>

Is there a YouTube player with no ads app like AT New Pipe for Windows?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/b3vWA2G2HLI/wdiLiFIwBwAJ>

 I have never seen an ad on Android, ever (not in youtube, and not in apps)
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/I98FnUVQ8zo/cuuXRHUuBwAJ>

 YouTube sans ads + download youtube audio and/or video
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/GdGYH9x9yU0/2KcNX-aWBAAJ>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56105

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <pokpcc$fm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> (particularly in light of the fact they yanked the multiple New Pipe clones
>>> off of Google Play about, oh, about half a year or so ago, as I recall).
>> 
>> And you're willfully ignorant if you believe that because Google allows new
>> pipe to be available on it's play store, it absolves you of any
>> responsibility of how you use it.
> 
> newpipe is *not* available on the play store.
> 
> <https://www.slashgear.com/newpipe-youtube-android-app-with-more-control
> s-and-no-google-20492117/>
>   To be clear, NewPipe is not an app that you can find on Google Play
>   Store for one very important reason. It violates Google¹s Terms of
>   Service because of the way it uses YouTube to deliver functionality
>   that is otherwise not even available on the web browser version of
>   YouTube. Because of that, the only way to get it is by getting the
>   APK from the project¹s GitHub page and sideloading it. All
>   disclaimers about security and safety apply.
> 

Whoops. Another one of his "facts" being anything but. Thanks. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56108

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:44:02 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Whoops. Another one of his "facts" being anything but. Thanks.

As always, Chris, you prove yourr reading comprehension is that of a child.

The link nospam posted is clearly talking about "NewPipe" itself (not the
scam clones for heaven's sake) ... which was NEVER on Google Play (AFAIK).

For Christs' sake, Chris.
*Each time you post, you _prove_ how unbelievably _stupid_ you are.*

Read the link again, Chris, and read what it says, Chris:
 <https://www.slashgear.com/newpipe-youtube-android-app-with-more-controls-and-no-google-20492117/>

Then think about the facts, Chris, where you are too stupid to comprehend
them, and where nospam is too clever to admit them, but the facts show
there were at least two different Newpipe-like clones (one of which was
called "AT New Pipe") on Google Play for a very long time.
 Someone put ads in the open source youtube app "NewPipe" and upload to Google Play Store as "AT NewPipe"
 <https://www.reddit.com/r/androidapps/comments/6czkdx/someone_put_ads_in_the_open_source_youtube_app/>

Both were scams, which could be why they're not on Google Play anymore for
all we know - but both were on Google Play for quite a long time.
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.at.newpipe>

The net is that there is no known legal case in the entire world that
anyone here can cite that backs up _anything_ you and that game-player
nospam intimate.

You can intimate anything you want - but the facts never back up your
intimations.

Your weakness, Chris, is your reading comprehension is that of a child.
While noospam's weankesses are facts (he just guesses - where the monkey
guesses better than he does).

My strength, is that I have average intelligence (which means I tower over
most of you Apple Apologists), and I always speak facts (to which you have
no defense).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56120

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:52:59 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <pokpcc$fm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 
>> > (particularly in light of the fact they yanked the multiple New Pipe clones
>> > off of Google Play about, oh, about half a year or so ago, as I recall).
>> 
>> And you're willfully ignorant if you believe that because Google allows new
>> pipe to be available on it's play store, it absolves you of any
>> responsibility of how you use it.
>
>newpipe is *not* available on the play store.
>
><https://www.slashgear.com/newpipe-youtube-android-app-with-more-control
>s-and-no-google-20492117/>
>  To be clear, NewPipe is not an app that you can find on Google Play
>  Store for one very important reason. It violates Google¹s Terms of
>  Service because of the way it uses YouTube to deliver functionality
>  that is otherwise not even available on the web browser version of
>  YouTube. Because of that, the only way to get it is by getting the
>  APK from the project¹s GitHub page and sideloading it. All
>  disclaimers about security and safety apply.

Use F-Droid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56126

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 15:57:42 +0800, Krusty wrote:

> Use F-Droid

To always add value to our tribal knowledge, and to reassure everyone,
given that both well-known child-like Apple Apologists' nospam and Chris
were dead wrong (as usual) on almost everything they foolishly opined, the
"real" NewPipe app was never on Google Play.

Since NewPipe was released in 2015, there were at least two knock-off scam
clones of New Pipe on Google Play which we've written about in the past on
the Android ng (one of which was called AT New Pipe which had an avatar
very similar to the official app).

It is _those_ knock-off scam apps which are no longer on Google Play.

The official free and open source NewPipe app has always, to my knowledge
anyway, been available via the developer's web site, GitHub, and F-Droid
(and probably other locations).

*DEVELOPER*
 <https://newpipe.schabi.org/>

*GITHUB*
 <https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/releases>

*F-DROID*
 <https://f-droid.org/packages/org.schabi.newpipe/>

*WIKIPEDIA*
 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewPipe>

Note that Wikipedia says the same thing that the SlashGear article says,
where the critical detail the Apple Apologists always whoosh on is that the
scam *clones* were on Google Play, not the official NewPipe FOSS app.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56102

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:39:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Ok. Let's go there.

First off, your history,  Chris, is that of a childish troll.
You're one of the dozen most obvious Apple Apologists of all time.

Let's see if it's even _possible_ for you to ever act like an adult.
Shall we?

> You posit that if an app were illegal Google would block it. Therefore as
> new pipe is available from Google it can't be illegal. That's true.

That's wrong on so many counts that I have to wonder about your
comprehension skills, Chris.

Your comprehension of what I said is so lacking that I must wonder:
a. Are you really _that_ stupid? or, 
b. Are you simply playing games (again)?

> However, you're confusing the legality of an object with the legality of an
> act using that object or thing. Just because new pipe isn't illegal doesn't
> mean you can't use for illegal activity. They are logically distinct.

This is the first adult statement you've made, Chris, where you bring up a
point which nobody made, but which is valid, where I'll use the example of
an ice pick to reflect that all the adults here know the platitude:
a. An ice pick isn't in and of itself illegal, 
b. And yet, you can use an ice pick to perpetuate an illegal act.

> If A is illegal and B is used to commit A, then B is also illegal *only* if
> B's only purpose is to enable A.

Platitudes, Chris. Platitudes.
a. An ice pick isn't in and of itself illegal, 
b. And yet, you can use an ice pick to perpetuate an illegal act.

> Stop snipping relevant responses. I already covered this.

I don't play your silly games, Chris.
I snip whatever I don't respond to.

It happens to be normal Usenet etiquette to do so.
 <http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?quoting?>

> And you're willfully ignorant if you believe that because Google allows new
> pipe to be available on it's play store, it absolves you of any
> responsibility of how you use it. Its like saying Ford cars can do 100mph
> therefore you're allowed to drive at that speed whenever you want. 

Chris,
Yet again, you prove you have no comprehension of adults topics.
Look at what I wrote about New Pipe clones on Google Play.
Look Chris.
Look again Chris.
You think I don't know EXACTLY what was on Google Play and when it was on
there and when it was removed?

Please Chris, never make the mistake of thinking everyone is as
incomprehensibly stupid as you prove yourself to be every time you post.

> Be a grown up and accept your actions for what they truly are.

Chris,
It's kind of funny that you an entire post which provided absolutely zero
adult value, and then you conclude in such a childish manner.

All you've accomplished, Chris, is you proved beyond any shadow of a doubt,
that you possess the comprehensive mind of a child.

HINT: We've covered in the past that the original open-source New Pipe was
NEVER on Google Play (to my knowledge); it was the clones, at least two of
them, both of which I downloaded and tested and reported on in the past,
which were all scams, and all of which were yanked after about a year or so
of being on Google Play.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56104

Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:39:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
> 
>> Ok. Let's go there.
> 
> First off, your history,  Chris, is that of a childish troll.
> You're one of the dozen most obvious Apple Apologists of all time.
> 
> Let's see if it's even _possible_ for you to ever act like an adult.
> Shall we?

Ah I see I've become the latest to receive your boilerplate "troll"
treatment. Whatever...

>> You posit that if an app were illegal Google would block it. Therefore as
>> new pipe is available from Google it can't be illegal. That's true.
> 
> That's wrong on so many counts that I have to wonder about your
> comprehension skills, Chris.
> 
> Your comprehension of what I said is so lacking that I must wonder:
> a. Are you really _that_ stupid? or, 
> b. Are you simply playing games (again)?

How can anyone know given you snip everything? 

>> However, you're confusing the legality of an object with the legality of an
>> act using that object or thing. Just because new pipe isn't illegal doesn't
>> mean you can't use for illegal activity. They are logically distinct.
> 
> This is the first adult statement you've made, Chris, where you bring up a
> point which nobody made, but which is valid, where I'll use the example of
> an ice pick to reflect that all the adults here know the platitude:
> a. An ice pick isn't in and of itself illegal, 
> b. And yet, you can use an ice pick to perpetuate an illegal act.

You're just repeating what I said.

>> If A is illegal and B is used to commit A, then B is also illegal *only* if
>> B's only purpose is to enable A.
> 
> Platitudes, Chris. Platitudes.
> a. An ice pick isn't in and of itself illegal, 
> b. And yet, you can use an ice pick to perpetuate an illegal act.

You're repeating yourself as well as what I said. Stunningly, you're making
even less sense than "normal". 

Time to killfile this new nym of yours, methinks. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56106

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> You're repeating yourself as well as what I said. Stunningly, you're making
> even less sense than "normal". 

So as to always strive to add value in every post, please see one of my
thousands of tutorials, where this one is useful for cross-platform
edification:

 Tutorial for how to watch any Youtube video without ever seeing an advertisement
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/AB8gWkSnM1E>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56107

On 09/28/2018 12:44 PM, Chris wrote:
> Arlen H Holder <arlenholder@no.spam.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:39:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Ok. Let's go there.
>>
>> First off, your history,  Chris, is that of a childish troll.
>> You're one of the dozen most obvious Apple Apologists of all time.
>>
>> Let's see if it's even _possible_ for you to ever act like an adult.
>> Shall we?
> 
> Ah I see I've become the latest to receive your boilerplate "troll"
> treatment. Whatever...

You mean I'm not at the top of his List anymore? Oh Gee I feel Real bad 
now.  :-)


> 
>>> You posit that if an app were illegal Google would block it. Therefore as
>>> new pipe is available from Google it can't be illegal. That's true.
>>
>> That's wrong on so many counts that I have to wonder about your
>> comprehension skills, Chris.
>>
>> Your comprehension of what I said is so lacking that I must wonder:
>> a. Are you really _that_ stupid? or,
>> b. Are you simply playing games (again)?
> 
> How can anyone know given you snip everything?
> 
>>> However, you're confusing the legality of an object with the legality of an
>>> act using that object or thing. Just because new pipe isn't illegal doesn't
>>> mean you can't use for illegal activity. They are logically distinct.
>>
>> This is the first adult statement you've made, Chris, where you bring up a
>> point which nobody made, but which is valid, where I'll use the example of
>> an ice pick to reflect that all the adults here know the platitude:
>> a. An ice pick isn't in and of itself illegal,
>> b. And yet, you can use an ice pick to perpetuate an illegal act.
> 
> You're just repeating what I said.
> 
>>> If A is illegal and B is used to commit A, then B is also illegal *only* if
>>> B's only purpose is to enable A.
>>
>> Platitudes, Chris. Platitudes.
>> a. An ice pick isn't in and of itself illegal,
>> b. And yet, you can use an ice pick to perpetuate an illegal act.
> 
> You're repeating yourself as well as what I said. Stunningly, you're making
> even less sense than "normal".
> 
> Time to killfile this new nym of yours, methinks.
> 
> 
> 

Yeah, He does get boring eh.

Rene

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web