Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50809 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-26 17:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 156 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2013-10-26 17:02 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 20:21 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-27 08:08 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-10-27 14:16 +1300
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-26 21:23 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-27 02:37 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-26 23:09 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-27 09:31 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-27 11:00 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-27 19:49 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 12:30 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 17:41 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-28 21:52 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 18:03 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-10-28 16:00 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 23:03 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 23:39 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Zaidy036 <Zaidy036NoSpam@optonline.com> - 2013-10-31 07:36 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-10-27 10:30 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when sync(hroniz)ing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-10-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-28 10:20 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-28 18:15 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-28 12:31 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 18:38 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-29 12:16 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 18:22 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-10-28 15:57 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-28 20:56 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 23:57 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 00:47 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 02:02 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 21:38 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 00:50 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 22:21 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-30 09:09 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 09:05 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "857" <8571953@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 06:59 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 11:13 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-29 12:59 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 09:07 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 11:00 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 16:22 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 14:53 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2013-10-30 21:01 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-11-02 06:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 10:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-11-02 06:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-31 09:28 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-31 09:17 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-31 15:01 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-31 13:35 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-04 17:28 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-31 15:36 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-01 22:20 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2013-11-02 08:26 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-02 15:06 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 13:42 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:37 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 06:24 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 19:32 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-02 14:37 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 04:48 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-01 22:45 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-02 14:37 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 12:12 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-04 17:32 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-05 09:13 +1300
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-05 11:19 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 18:18 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-11-02 22:49 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 05:23 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 18:02 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 16:08 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 11:00 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:28 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 16:42 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 08:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 17:29 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 09:41 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 08:33 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 15:58 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 12:30 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 23:14 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:23 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 10:13 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 10:24 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 16:32 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 11:22 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 02:41 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 20:51 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:42 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-30 21:55 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 20:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:43 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-30 22:05 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 21:00 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-31 10:01 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:48 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-06 17:21 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 19:58 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-07 09:32 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-07 22:03 -0700
Re: (OT) Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-11-08 10:48 -0500
Re: (OT) Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-08 21:34 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-09 10:06 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-09 20:01 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-09 21:26 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-11 09:58 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2013-11-10 09:49 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:38 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 16:41 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 10:08 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 08:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:44 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 17:52 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 15:54 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 12:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 23:08 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:15 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 10:11 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 10:22 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 10:22 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 16:52 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:42 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:17 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 09:24 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:38 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-31 09:53 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 08:34 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-04 17:53 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 05:21 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-05 12:58 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-06 05:25 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-06 12:41 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 04:53 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 18:02 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-05 14:08 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-10-27 19:34 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 17:07 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 07:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdajgfFjb2qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51173 |
Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote > Davoud wrote >> Michael Eyd wrote >>> And I think that there are still many people out there >>> (many more than you think), that would rather not put >>> anything into any cloud - least any private information. >> Wow! That means no web surfing, no e-mail, no USENET, >> no Internet full stop--because it all puts personal stuff on >> the the remote servers that we have come to call "the cloud." >>> Might be different in the US, but in Europe e.g. mentalities >>> may differ quite a lot from the ones in the US. And the latest >>> discussions about the NSA (and others) spying on basically >>> everybody don't help here either... >> Everybody? Really? Europeans are so poor at basic arithmetic that they >> think that NSA can spy on /everybody/ ? Or Europeans' egos are so >> puffed up that they think (hope?) that they are important enough to >> draw the attention of the U.S. Intelligence Community? Wrong again. > You may continue to make fun of this topic - but be aware that one day > you might wake up in a world that you always thought was not possible to > come true. I've never bought that sort of nightmare scenario. I couldn't care less that the stores that I buy my grocerys from know in full detail what I do and do not buy. I just make a mental note that if I do ever plan to kill someone, that I will make sure I use what can't be tracked to a purchase of mine to do that. > And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting > all the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of > what they might tell the public... But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on all those surveillance cameras just in case they might want to shaft you for being a terrorist some time in the future, so I don't bother to wear a balaclava every time I am outside the house so they can't keep track of my movements using facial recognition software. > Whether my data (or your data) is part of this collection > is not so much my concern, I'm already concerned more > than enough about it *possibly* being part of it. But you use the phone system anyway, and presumably do move around in public at times, even tho the NSA could keep track of your activitys if they wanted to. > But I guess you will not understand these concerns, > because you never read '1984', I have actually. > you never lived in a country that had experienced in its > last 100 years two dictatorships, both making use of very > effective secret services as well against internal 'enemies', ... But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. Just like its very unlikely to have another Kaiser again either. > But sure, the NSA aims only at terrorists. Ah, could you please remind > me in exactly which terrorist plots the German chancellor, the French > prime minister and ~30 high ranking politicians from around the > world were involved? Momentarily slipped my memory... > So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( All foreigners are bad guys by definition... > Best regards, and keep on dreaming, You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4qfnj$s44$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51231 |
Am 29.10.2013 21:17, schrieb Rod Speed: > Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >> Davoud wrote >>> Michael Eyd wrote >> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all >> the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what >> they might tell the public... > > But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on all > those surveillance cameras That might be true - or not. Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already have working face recognition to track people? ...? The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been shown many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can do it, I will do it' attitude. And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly control them. And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. >> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 >> years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret >> services as well against internal 'enemies', ... > > But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps that might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. > Just like its very unlikely to have another Kaiser again either. The Kaiser was pretty harmless, compared to the Führer. I certainly don't expect history to copy itself 1:1 - but dreams of big power in one's hands are neither new nor limited to carrying specific titles. >> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( > > All foreigners are bad guys by definition... So you're a bad guy - good to know! >> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, > > You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my best (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to shape a future not allowing those things to happen again. Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 03:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdcr17F324pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51314 |
Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>> Davoud wrote >>>> Michael Eyd wrote >>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all the >>> information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what they might >>> tell the public... >> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on all >> those surveillance cameras > That might be true - or not. Absolutely certainly not even possible. > Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. > And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already have > working face recognition to track people? ...? We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. > The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been shown > many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can do it, I will > do it' attitude. But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. > And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly control > them. The story always gets out eventually. Merkel won't be saying anything that matters on her mobile phone, you can be completely sure about that. > And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. Sure, but there is no viable alternative. >>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 years >>> two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret services as >>> well against internal 'enemies', ... >> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. > Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps that > might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. > On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. >> Just like its very unlikely to have another Kaiser again either. > The Kaiser was pretty harmless, compared to the Führer. That's a separate matter to any possibility of another of either. > I certainly don't expect history to copy itself 1:1 - but dreams of big > power in one's hands are neither new nor limited to carrying specific > titles. But the US has never had either. >>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( >> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... > So you're a bad guy - good to know! No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. >>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, >> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. > I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my best (as > little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to shape a future not > allowing those things to happen again. You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your country. Germany won't be starting another world war either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4t5qm$77$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51366 |
Am 30.10.2013 17:38, schrieb Rod Speed: > Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>> Davoud wrote >>>>> Michael Eyd wrote > >>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all >>>> the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what they >>>> might tell the public... > >>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on all >>> those surveillance cameras > >> That might be true - or not. > > Absolutely certainly not even possible. > >> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? > > Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? Wow! >> And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already >> have working face recognition to track people? ...? > > We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks > would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more > dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. Even they don't have (or had) access to everything, AFAIK. >> The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been >> shown many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can do >> it, I will do it' attitude. > > But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement > where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. What did they skip? Spying on other members of the Five Eyes? If so (and at least as of today I didn't see any leakage that they did) it was their decision because in the total cost calculation they deemed this behavior to be in their favor. Nothing there to decide otherwise anytime this think it will give them enough of an advantage. >> And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly control >> them. > > The story always gets out eventually. But possibly only at a time (decades later) when hardly anybody bothers anymore... Standard reasoning for many secret operations... ;-) > Merkel won't be saying anything that matters on her > mobile phone, you can be completely sure about that. Over a not encrypted phone: I surely hope you're correct. Over a specially hardened and encrypted phone (line): Hard to believe she wouldn't... >> And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. > > Sure, but there is no viable alternative. There is: Better public control over those services. >>>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 >>>> years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret >>>> services as well against internal 'enemies', ... > >>> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. > >> Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps that >> might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. > > Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. I surely hope you're correct on that one! >> On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. > > There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. Let's hope that this claim stays true for the future... >> I certainly don't expect history to copy itself 1:1 - but dreams of >> big power in one's hands are neither new nor limited to carrying >> specific titles. > > But the US has never had either. Not being a real expert on American presidents, but I have the strong feeling that some of them felt quite powerful, and tried a lot to circumvent the checks and balances. Never got almighty, though (and that's good). >>>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( > >>> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... > >> So you're a bad guy - good to know! > > No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. Thank you for the confirmation of my statement. :-) >>>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, > >>> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. > >> I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my best >> (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to shape a >> future not allowing those things to happen again. > > You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your country. It will not happen again if there are enough people in my country to prevent it from happening. If nobody's there to prevent something to happen, it might happen eventually - democracy includes as well the responsibility of everybody to be vigilant for unwanted developments. > Germany won't be starting another world war either. See my last statement. Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-01 08:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdg0o4Fnov5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51468 |
Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote >>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all the >>>>> information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what they might >>>>> tell the public... >>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on all >>>> those surveillance cameras >>> That might be true - or not. >> Absolutely certainly not even possible. >>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? >> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. > And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? Everyone does. > Wow! No. >>> And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already have >>> working face recognition to track people? ...? >> We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks >> would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more >> dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. > Even they don't have (or had) access to everything, AFAIK. Don't need to with something as important as that. >>> The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been shown >>> many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can do it, I >>> will do it' attitude. >> But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement >> where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. > What did they skip? Spying on other members of the Five Eyes? Yep. > If so (and at least as of today I didn't see any leakage that they did) And neither has anyone else that has looked at that much more closely than you can. > it was their decision because in the total cost calculation they deemed > this behavior to be in their favor. No, because they had agreed not to do that. > Nothing there to decide otherwise anytime this think it will give them > enough of an advantage. That wasn't the reason they chose not to do that. >>> And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly control >>> them. >> The story always gets out eventually. > But possibly only at a time (decades later) when hardly anybody bothers > anymore... Standard reasoning for many secret operations... ;-) Not with something as important as that. They will always care about something like that. Just like they would if the US was actually stupid enough to try killing the leaders of their allies they didn't like etc. >> Merkel won't be saying anything that matters on her >> mobile phone, you can be completely sure about that. > Over a not encrypted phone: I surely hope you're correct. Even she isn't actually THAT stupid. > Over a specially hardened and encrypted phone (line): Hard to believe she > wouldn't... Bet she doesn't now. >>> And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. >> Sure, but there is no viable alternative. > There is: Better public control over those services. Not even possible. >>>>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 >>>>> years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret >>>>> services as well against internal 'enemies', ... >>>> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. >>> Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps that >>> might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. >> Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. > I surely hope you're correct on that one! Corse I am. You haven't even come close since the last one. >>> On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. >> There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. > Let's hope that this claim stays true for the future... It isnt a claim, it's a fact and the reason hasn't changed. The US didn't even come close in the great depression. FDR couldn't even manage to get the US interested in being part of WW2 until Pearl Harbor changed the US mentality on that. >>> I certainly don't expect history to copy itself 1:1 - but dreams of big >>> power in one's hands are neither new nor limited to carrying specific >>> titles. >> But the US has never had either. > Not being a real expert on American presidents, but I have the strong > feeling that some of them felt quite powerful, FDR couldn't even get the US involved in WW2 until after Pearl Harbor changed the US mentality on that. > and tried a lot to circumvent the checks and balances. And got the bums rush when they were caught trying to do that. > Never got almighty, though Or even close to that. > (and that's good). >>>>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( >>>> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... >>> So you're a bad guy - good to know! >> No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. > Thank you for the confirmation of my statement. :-) Fraid not. >>>>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, >>>> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. >>> I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my best >>> (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to shape a future >>> not allowing those things to happen again. >> You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your country. > It will not happen again if there are enough people in my country to > prevent it from happening. And there always will be, essentially because of the result you got last time. Same thing happened with Britain, they will never have a dictator again because of what happened with Cromwell. > If nobody's there to prevent something to happen, That won't ever be the case. > it might happen eventually No, because those circumstances won't happen. We won't see a return of absolute monarchs either. Or slavery either. > - democracy includes as well the responsibility of everybody to be > vigilant for unwanted developments. Its not necessary with that. >> Germany won't be starting another world war either. > See my last statement. Not relevant at all to that. The reason Germany won't ever start another world war is because nukes have ensured that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-04 17:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l58jdj$dvv$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51543 |
Am 31.10.2013 22:34, schrieb Rod Speed: > Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote > >>>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all >>>>>> the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what >>>>>> they might tell the public... > >>>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on >>>>> all those surveillance cameras > >>>> That might be true - or not. > >>> Absolutely certainly not even possible. > >>>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? > >>> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. > >> And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? > > Everyone does. Obviously not. >>>> And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already >>>> have working face recognition to track people? ...? > >>> We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks >>> would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more >>> dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. > >> Even they don't have (or had) access to everything, AFAIK. > > Don't need to with something as important as that. Oh, sure... NSA internally is just a big bazaar, where everybody sees everything they have and do. Sure. >>>> The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been >>>> shown many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can >>>> do it, I will do it' attitude. > >>> But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement >>> where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. > >> What did they skip? Spying on other members of the Five Eyes? > > Yep. > >> If so (and at least as of today I didn't see any leakage that they did) > > And neither has anyone else that has looked at that much more > closely than you can. > >> it was their decision because in the total cost calculation they >> deemed this behavior to be in their favor. > > No, because they had agreed not to do that. And, what was the reason to sign this agreement in the first place? You certainly don't want to tell me (or the others around) that the US signed it without expecting advantages from it. >> Nothing there to decide otherwise anytime this think it will give them >> enough of an advantage. > > That wasn't the reason they chose not to do that. Right, I forgot: It was because the US are so nice, they just simply signed it because the others had so nice faces... ;-) >>>> And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly >>>> control them. > >>> The story always gets out eventually. > >> But possibly only at a time (decades later) when hardly anybody >> bothers anymore... Standard reasoning for many secret operations... ;-) > > Not with something as important as that. They > will always care about something like that. > > Just like they would if the US was actually stupid enough > to try killing the leaders of their allies they didn't like etc. Oh, it's not that that never happened... ;-) Certainly not with major leaders in Europe, but the US dropped more than one leader in other regions of the world once they saw better chances with somebody else... >>>> And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. > >>> Sure, but there is no viable alternative. > >> There is: Better public control over those services. > > Not even possible. Oh yes, and there were (long) times in history where people thought that better control over the ones in power (mostly kings et.al. at that time) was not possible. History proved otherwise. Just one example. >>>>>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 >>>>>> years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret >>>>>> services as well against internal 'enemies', ... > >>>>> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. > >>>> Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps >>>> that might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. > >>> Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. > >> I surely hope you're correct on that one! > > Corse I am. You haven't even come close since the last one. Isn't it nice how humble you are. Lovely. >>>> On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. > >>> There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. > >> Let's hope that this claim stays true for the future... > > It isnt a claim, it's a fact For the the past. You can state facts for the future? And you're still spending time here in this newsgroup rather than spending your time on a luxurious island in the Caribbean (or which corner of the world you like best)? >>>>>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( > >>>>> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... > >>>> So you're a bad guy - good to know! > >>> No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. > >> Thank you for the confirmation of my statement. :-) > > Fraid not. Oh, yes, you confirmed it. And you cannot talk yourself out of that! :-) >>>>>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, > >>>>> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. > >>>> I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my >>>> best (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to shape >>>> a future not allowing those things to happen again. > >>> You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your >>> country. > >> It will not happen again if there are enough people in my country to >> prevent it from happening. > > And there always will be, essentially > because of the result you got last time. Oh, unfortunately history shows that people may forget such lessons over time - therefore it is important to keep the memories alive. > Same thing happened with Britain, they will never have > a dictator again because of what happened with Cromwell. > >> If nobody's there to prevent something to happen, > > That won't ever be the case. > >> it might happen eventually > > No, because those circumstances won't happen. > > We won't see a return of absolute monarchs either. > > Or slavery either. And we will never see the communist block collapse, the wall being teared down, ... Never is quite a bold world when dealing with the future as this can be quite long... ;-) >> - democracy includes as well the responsibility of everybody to be >> vigilant for unwanted developments. > > Its not necessary with that. Oh, great news, democracy doesn't need people to make it work, to keep it up, ...! It can live right on its own! :-) >>> Germany won't be starting another world war either. > >> See my last statement. > > Not relevant at all to that. The reason Germany won't ever > start another world war is because nukes have ensured that. Since WWII nukes were about the least reason why Germany didn't start another war. Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-05 05:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdq6vjFscj7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51841 |
Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote >>>>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all >>>>>>> the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what they >>>>>>> might tell the public... >>>>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on all >>>>>> those surveillance cameras >>>>> That might be true - or not. >>>> Absolutely certainly not even possible. >>>>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? >>>> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. >>> And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? >> Everyone does. > Obviously not. Fraid so. >>>>> And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already >>>>> have working face recognition to track people? ...? >>>> We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks >>>> would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more >>>> dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. >>> Even they don't have (or had) access to everything, AFAIK. >> Don't need to with something as important as that. > Oh, sure... NSA internally is just a big bazaar, where everybody sees > everything they have and do. Sure. With something as important as that, it would be completely impossible to stop knowledge about that spreading within an operation that is into that sort of thing. Anyone with even half a clue would notice the situations in which it wouldn't have been possible to catch various terrorists without that capability. So it doesn't even need to have be leaked either. >>>>> The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been >>>>> shown many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can do >>>>> it, I will do it' attitude. >>>> But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement >>>> where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. >>> What did they skip? Spying on other members of the Five Eyes? >> Yep. >>> If so (and at least as of today I didn't see any leakage that they did) >> And neither has anyone else that has looked at that much more >> closely than you can. >>> it was their decision because in the total cost calculation they >>> deemed this behavior to be in their favor. >> No, because they had agreed not to do that. > And, what was the reason to sign this agreement in the first place? Because it was decided that that would produce a better result. Germany and the US have just decided to agree to that now too. > You certainly don't want to tell me (or the others around) that the US > signed it without expecting advantages from it. Sure, but the advantages are obvious. Just like they are with the most recent decision to have something similar with Germany and the US. >>> Nothing there to decide otherwise anytime this think it will give them >>> enough of an advantage. >> That wasn't the reason they chose not to do that. > Right, I forgot: It was because the US are so nice, they just simply > signed it because the others had so nice faces... ;-) Having fun thrashing that straw man ? >>>>> And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly control >>>>> them. >>>> The story always gets out eventually. >>> But possibly only at a time (decades later) when hardly anybody >>> bothers anymore... Standard reasoning for many secret operations... ;-) >> Not with something as important as that. They >> will always care about something like that. >> Just like they would if the US was actually stupid enough >> to try killing the leaders of their allies they didn't like etc. > Oh, it's not that that never happened... ;-) Certainly not with major > leaders in Europe, but the US dropped more than one leader in other > regions of the world once they saw better chances with somebody else... That is a different matter entirely. Those had been put in place by the US in the first place. That didn't happen with the european allies. Even de Gaulle who arguably did get where he got to because of the way the US and Britain chose to treat him during the war didn't get killed by either of them when they decided that they didn't like what he got up to once the war had ended. >>>>> And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. >>>> Sure, but there is no viable alternative. >>> There is: Better public control over those services. >> Not even possible. > Oh yes, and there were (long) times in history where people thought that > better control over the ones in power (mostly kings et.al. at that time) > was not possible. History proved otherwise. Just one example. Kings have always had to make sure they don't get too far out of line otherwise they will be replaced by someone else. No one has ever come up with a way of having a democracy control what their spies get up to without producing a situation where they a no longer effective. We haven't even been able to work out how to do a democracy where the voters have a direct say on the detail of how something complex like taxation is done either. It isn't even possible. You lot haven't even been able to work out how to give the voters a direct say on stuff like Bismarck's arguable invention of socialism either. >>>>>>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 >>>>>>> years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret >>>>>>> services as well against internal 'enemies', ... >>>>>> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. >>>>> Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps >>>>> that might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. >>>> Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. >>> I surely hope you're correct on that one! >> Corse I am. You haven't even come close since the last one. > Isn't it nice how humble you are. Lovely. Humble is for wimps. >>>>> On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. >>>> There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. >>> Let's hope that this claim stays true for the future... >> It isnt a claim, it's a fact > For the the past. You can state facts for the future? Didn't do anything like that. > And you're still spending time here in this newsgroup rather than spending > your time on a luxurious island in the Caribbean (or which corner of the > world you like best)? I do spend my time in the luxurious corner of the world I like best. Leaves the rest of the world for dead on real standard of living measured properly and not how stupid bean counters measure that. >>>>>>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( >>>>>> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... >>>>> So you're a bad guy - good to know! >>>> No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. >>> Thank you for the confirmation of my statement. :-) >> Fraid not. > Oh, yes, you confirmed it. And you cannot talk yourself out of that! :-) Wrong. >>>>>>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, >>>>>> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. >>>>> I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my best >>>>> (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to shape a >>>>> future not allowing those things to happen again. >>>> You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your >>>> country. >>> It will not happen again if there are enough people in my country to >>> prevent it from happening. >> And there always will be, essentially >> because of the result you got last time. > Oh, unfortunately history shows that people may forget such lessons over > time Not in countrys as well organised as yours is now. You don't even try to hide the utterly obscene detail that you lot produced the last time, unlike the Japanese. > - therefore it is important to keep the memories alive. That happens regardless of anything you do. >> Same thing happened with Britain, they will never have a dictator again >> because of what happened with Cromwell. And put systems in place that ensure that it can't happen again. >>> If nobody's there to prevent something to happen, >> That won't ever be the case. >>> it might happen eventually >> No, because those circumstances won't happen. >> We won't see a return of absolute monarchs either. >> Or slavery either. > And we will never see the communist block collapse, the wall being teared > down, ... No one with even half a clue ever said that. > Never is quite a bold world when dealing with the future as this can be > quite long... ;-) We've been checking what happened for millennia now and the systems we have put in place to ensure that that sort of thing won't happen again are working very well indeed in the most advanced societys. It took you lot quite a while to understand what needed to be done, but even you lot eventually woke up and smelt the coffee and put those systems in place too, essentially because of the utterly obscene result you got the last time you didn't have them. >>> - democracy includes as well the responsibility of everybody to be >>> vigilant for unwanted developments. >> Its not necessary with that. > Oh, great news, democracy doesn't need people to make it work, to keep it > up, ...! It can live right on its own! :-) That is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said there. >>>> Germany won't be starting another world war either. >>> See my last statement. >> Not relevant at all to that. The reason Germany won't ever >> start another world war is because nukes have ensured that. > Since WWII nukes were about the least reason why Germany didn't start > another war. Even sillier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-05 12:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l5amhm$qi7$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51847 |
Am 04.11.2013 19:21, schrieb Rod Speed: > Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote > >>>>>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting >>>>>>>> all the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of >>>>>>>> what they might tell the public... > >>>>>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on >>>>>>> all those surveillance cameras > >>>>>> That might be true - or not. > >>>>> Absolutely certainly not even possible. > >>>>>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? > >>>>> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. > >>>> And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? > >>> Everyone does. > >> Obviously not. > > Fraid so. Oh I forgot, you know exactly what everybody in the world knows. Hilarious. If it wasn't so pathetic. >>>>>> And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already >>>>>> have working face recognition to track people? ...? > >>>>> We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks >>>>> would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more >>>>> dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. > >>>> Even they don't have (or had) access to everything, AFAIK. > >>> Don't need to with something as important as that. > >> Oh, sure... NSA internally is just a big bazaar, where everybody sees >> everything they have and do. Sure. > > With something as important as that, it would be completely > impossible to stop knowledge about that spreading within > an operation that is into that sort of thing. It would be hard to keep such a secret for a long time, but it is definitively possible to keep it for some time. > Anyone with even half a clue would notice the situations > in which it wouldn't have been possible to catch various > terrorists without that capability. So it doesn't even need > to have be leaked either. But that takes time... >>>>>> The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been >>>>>> shown many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can >>>>>> do it, I will do it' attitude. > >>>>> But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement >>>>> where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. > >>>> What did they skip? Spying on other members of the Five Eyes? > >>> Yep. > >>>> If so (and at least as of today I didn't see any leakage that they did) > >>> And neither has anyone else that has looked at that much more >>> closely than you can. > >>>> it was their decision because in the total cost calculation they >>>> deemed this behavior to be in their favor. > >>> No, because they had agreed not to do that. > >> And, what was the reason to sign this agreement in the first place? > > Because it was decided that that would produce a better result. And that is not an advantage? > Germany and the US have just decided to agree to that now too. Nope, please read the news more carefully: They decided to take on negotiations that should lead to some agreement on dos (and don'ts!) regarding the work of the intelligence services in the other state. We're at this time not even anywhere close to any kind of agreement, least to some coming close the Five Eyes agreement. >> You certainly don't want to tell me (or the others around) that the US >> signed it without expecting advantages from it. > > Sure, but the advantages are obvious. It is irrelevant whether the advantages were obvious or not, it was signed because there were advantages for the signatory states. And that's exactly what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. :-) > Just like they are with the most recent decision to > have something similar with Germany and the US. See above. As far as I can see the points of view of the US and of Germany with regards what such an agreement should contain are still pretty much apart from each other - and I'm not sure that they will manage to close this gap. >>>> Nothing there to decide otherwise anytime this think it will give >>>> them enough of an advantage. > >>> That wasn't the reason they chose not to do that. > >> Right, I forgot: It was because the US are so nice, they just simply >> signed it because the others had so nice faces... ;-) > > Having fun thrashing that straw man ? You already conceded that it was signed because it provided advantages for the signatory states. No straw there... :-) >>>>>> And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly >>>>>> control them. > >>>>> The story always gets out eventually. > >>>> But possibly only at a time (decades later) when hardly anybody >>>> bothers anymore... Standard reasoning for many secret operations... ;-) > >>> Not with something as important as that. They >>> will always care about something like that. > >>> Just like they would if the US was actually stupid enough >>> to try killing the leaders of their allies they didn't like etc. > >> Oh, it's not that that never happened... ;-) Certainly not with major >> leaders in Europe, but the US dropped more than one leader in other >> regions of the world once they saw better chances with somebody else... > > That is a different matter entirely. Those had been put in place by > the US in the first place. That didn't happen with the european allies. > > Even de Gaulle who arguably did get where he got to because > of the way the US and Britain chose to treat him during the war > didn't get killed by either of them when they decided that they > didn't like what he got up to once the war had ended. And he was certainly lucky in this. Others had much less luck... :-( >>>>>> And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. > >>>>> Sure, but there is no viable alternative. > >>>> There is: Better public control over those services. > >>> Not even possible. > >> Oh yes, and there were (long) times in history where people thought >> that better control over the ones in power (mostly kings et.al. at >> that time) was not possible. History proved otherwise. Just one example. > > Kings have always had to make sure they don't get too far > out of line otherwise they will be replaced by someone else. Which depended on the king and on the means he was willing to use to stay in place. > No one has ever come up with a way of having a democracy control > what their spies get up to without producing a situation where they > a no longer effective. And that's enough reason to not even try to come up with such a way? > We haven't even been able to work out how to do a democracy > where the voters have a direct say on the detail of how something > complex like taxation is done either. It isn't even possible. Oh, it is (technically) possible. Just nobody dares to try it in reality, because everybody fears what might happen if the voters are really as stupid as some people think... > You lot haven't even been able to work out how to give the voters a > direct say on stuff like Bismarck's arguable invention of socialism either. That statement is so stupid and off that I won't go there. You really have no idea about the differences between socialism and a social market economy. >>>>>>>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last >>>>>>>> 100 years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective >>>>>>>> secret services as well against internal 'enemies', ... > >>>>>>> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. > >>>>>> Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps >>>>>> that might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. > >>>>> Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. > >>>> I surely hope you're correct on that one! > >>> Corse I am. You haven't even come close since the last one. > >> Isn't it nice how humble you are. Lovely. > > Humble is for wimps. If you think so... >>>>>> On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. > >>>>> There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. > >>>> Let's hope that this claim stays true for the future... > >>> It isnt a claim, it's a fact > >> For the the past. You can state facts for the future? > > Didn't do anything like that. You might want to reread my statement and then yours... Perhaps you see your faulty argumentation then... ;-) >>>>>>>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( > >>>>>>> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... > >>>>>> So you're a bad guy - good to know! > >>>>> No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. > >>>> Thank you for the confirmation of my statement. :-) > >>> Fraid not. > >> Oh, yes, you confirmed it. And you cannot talk yourself out of that! :-) > > Wrong. I wonder whether I shall give you a crash course on logic... No, I'll let you figure this one out on your own. :-) >>>>>>>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, > >>>>>>> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. > >>>>>> I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my >>>>>> best (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to >>>>>> shape a future not allowing those things to happen again. > >>>>> You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your >>>>> country. > >>>> It will not happen again if there are enough people in my country to >>>> prevent it from happening. > >>> And there always will be, essentially >>> because of the result you got last time. > >> Oh, unfortunately history shows that people may forget such lessons >> over time > > Not in countrys as well organised as yours is now. And therefore I (and many others here) try to keep an eye on keeping it that way. Other than you we don't take that for granted. >> - therefore it is important to keep the memories alive. > > That happens regardless of anything you do. Not necessarily - one has to do something for that to happen. You cannot take anything like this for granted, especially not now that the last people having witnessed WWII are slowly dying out. >>> Same thing happened with Britain, they will never have a dictator >>> again because of what happened with Cromwell. > > And put systems in place that ensure that it can't happen again. And each and every system can be changed - if the people let it happen. >>>> If nobody's there to prevent something to happen, > >>> That won't ever be the case. > >>>> it might happen eventually > >>> No, because those circumstances won't happen. > >>> We won't see a return of absolute monarchs either. > >>> Or slavery either. > >> And we will never see the communist block collapse, the wall being >> teared down, ... > > No one with even half a clue ever said that. Oh, there were people saying that. And there were even more (and probably more sensible ones) saying that we wouldn't see this happen in our lives (and that was like two years before it actually happened). History sometimes changes its path very quickly, allowing the best dreams or the worst nightmares to happen. THAT is really one of the most important lessons one can learn from the history books. >> Never is quite a bold world when dealing with the future as this can >> be quite long... ;-) > > We've been checking what happened for millennia now > and the systems we have put in place to ensure that that > sort of thing won't happen again are working very well > indeed in the most advanced societys. They are working fairly well up to today. Let's hope that this doesn't change in the future... > It took you lot quite a while to understand what needed > to be done, but even you lot eventually woke up and > smelt the coffee and put those systems in place too, > essentially because of the utterly obscene result you > got the last time you didn't have them. > >>>> - democracy includes as well the responsibility of everybody to be >>>> vigilant for unwanted developments. > >>> Its not necessary with that. > >> Oh, great news, democracy doesn't need people to make it work, to keep >> it up, ...! It can live right on its own! :-) > > That is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said there. Then you might want to make your point clearer. For all I see this is precisely what you said. >>>>> Germany won't be starting another world war either. > >>>> See my last statement. > >>> Not relevant at all to that. The reason Germany won't ever >>> start another world war is because nukes have ensured that. > >> Since WWII nukes were about the least reason why Germany didn't start >> another war. > > Even sillier. Your statement is silly and you definitively overestimate the influence of nukes on German foreign policy. There were much better reasons for Germans not to start another war than those nukes. Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-06 05:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdsrh8Ff125U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51875 |
Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote >>>>>>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting all >>>>>>>>> the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of what >>>>>>>>> they might tell the public... >>>>>>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured on >>>>>>>> all those surveillance cameras >>>>>>> That might be true - or not. >>>>>> Absolutely certainly not even possible. >>>>>>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? >>>>>> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. >>>>> And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? >>>> Everyone does. >>> Obviously not. >> Fraid so. > Oh I forgot, you know exactly what everybody in the world knows. Don't need to. The parameters needed for that very basic calculation is readily available to anyone who wants to do that basic calculation. > Hilarious. If it wasn't so pathetic. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>>>> And if they can't keep the movies themselves, perhaps they already >>>>>>> have working face recognition to track people? ...? >>>>>> We know they don't, because people like Snowdon and Wikileaks >>>>>> would have spilled the beans on that because that is much more >>>>>> dramatic information than they have bothered to expose. >>>>> Even they don't have (or had) access to everything, AFAIK. >>>> Don't need to with something as important as that. >>> Oh, sure... NSA internally is just a big bazaar, where everybody sees >>> everything they have and do. Sure. >> With something as important as that, it would be completely >> impossible to stop knowledge about that spreading within >> an operation that is into that sort of thing. > It would be hard to keep such a secret for a long time, For any time at all in fact. If they actually were capable of doing that, that news would spread like wildfire in an operation like that that would need to be able to identify those it is snooping on to see if they were terrorists. > but it is definitively possible to keep it for some time. Not with something as useful as that. >> Anyone with even half a clue would notice the situations >> in which it wouldn't have been possible to catch various >> terrorists without that capability. So it doesn't even need >> to have be leaked either. > But that takes time... Not enough to matter. >>>>>>> The problem with very capable secret services is (and that's been >>>>>>> shown many times in history) that they tend to develop a 'if I can >>>>>>> do it, I will do it' attitude. >>>>>> But we still see other examples like the Five Eyes agreement >>>>>> where they choose not to do what they can do anyway. >>>>> What did they skip? Spying on other members of the Five Eyes? >>>> Yep. >>>>> If so (and at least as of today I didn't see any leakage that they >>>>> did) >>>> And neither has anyone else that has looked at that much more >>>> closely than you can. >>>>> it was their decision because in the total cost calculation they >>>>> deemed this behavior to be in their favor. >>>> No, because they had agreed not to do that. >>> And, what was the reason to sign this agreement in the first place? >> Because it was decided that that would produce a better result. > And that is not an advantage? Of course it is. >> Germany and the US have just decided to agree to that now too. > Nope, please read the news more carefully: Don't need to. > They decided to take on negotiations that should lead to some agreement on > dos (and don'ts!) regarding the work of the intelligence services in the > other state. You're behind the times on what has been agreed to. > We're at this time not even anywhere close to any kind of agreement, Wrong. > least to some coming close the Five Eyes agreement. Sure, but it is about much more than just that, it is about cooperating on the sharing of intelligence information. It is hardly surprising that your lot isn't interested in doing that, particularly now that they know what the US got up to with snooping on your leader's phone calls etc. It is hardly surprising that your lot are interested in an agreement to stop doing that sort of thing tho. >>> You certainly don't want to tell me (or the others around) that the US >>> signed it without expecting advantages from it. >> Sure, but the advantages are obvious. > It is irrelevant whether the advantages were obvious or not, it was signed > because there were advantages for the signatory states. And that's exactly > what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. :-) There is no confirmation. No one ever disputed that it was signed by the signatorys because they believed that there were advantages in doing that. >> Just like they are with the most recent decision to >> have something similar with Germany and the US. > See above. Completely useless. > As far as I can see the points of view of the US and of Germany with > regards what such an agreement should contain are still pretty much apart > from each other Then you need new glasses, BAD. > - and I'm not sure that they will manage to close this gap. Your problem. Of course they will on snooping on each other. >>>>> Nothing there to decide otherwise anytime this think it will give them >>>>> enough of an advantage. >>>> That wasn't the reason they chose not to do that. >>> Right, I forgot: It was because the US are so nice, they just simply >>> signed it because the others had so nice faces... ;-) >> Having fun thrashing that straw man ? > You already conceded that it was signed because it provided advantages for > the signatory states. It was always obvious that that was the case. I 'conceded' nothing. Just like I never 'conceded' that the sun will rise tomorrow either. > No straw there... :-) Everyone can see for themselves that your were thrashing a straw man there. >>>>>>> And due to the secrecy they put around them public can hardly >>>>>>> control them. >>>>>> The story always gets out eventually. >>>>> But possibly only at a time (decades later) when hardly anybody >>>>> bothers anymore... Standard reasoning for many secret operations... >>>>> ;-) >>>> Not with something as important as that. They >>>> will always care about something like that. >>>> Just like they would if the US was actually stupid enough >>>> to try killing the leaders of their allies they didn't like etc. >>> Oh, it's not that that never happened... ;-) Certainly not with major >>> leaders in Europe, but the US dropped more than one leader in other >>> regions of the world once they saw better chances with somebody else... >> That is a different matter entirely. Those had been put in place by >> the US in the first place. That didn't happen with the european allies. >> Even de Gaulle who arguably did get where he got to because >> of the way the US and Britain chose to treat him during the war >> didn't get killed by either of them when they decided that they >> didn't like what he got up to once the war had ended. > And he was certainly lucky in this. Nothing whatever to do with luck. > Others had much less luck... :-( Not within europe. Just a few pimples on the bum of the world where the US or Britain had put a puppet in place for their own ends. Didn't happen with Japan or Singapore or India or Pakistan either. >>>>>>> And that's definitively not how a democracy should work. >>>>>> Sure, but there is no viable alternative. >>>>> There is: Better public control over those services. >>>> Not even possible. >>> Oh yes, and there were (long) times in history where people thought >>> that better control over the ones in power (mostly kings et.al. at that >>> time) was not possible. History proved otherwise. Just one example. >> Kings have always had to make sure they don't get too far >> out of line otherwise they will be replaced by someone else. > Which depended on the king and on the means he was willing to use to stay > in place. None of them could ever have enough of the means to stay in place once the populace had decided he had passed his useby date. Even in Germany that was very late to realise what was possible. >> No one has ever come up with a way of having a democracy control what >> their spies get up to without producing a situation where they a no >> longer effective. > And that's enough reason to not even try to come up with such a way? It is when it has been tried for more than a century now and no one has ever been able to come up with any way of doing that. >> We haven't even been able to work out how to do a democracy >> where the voters have a direct say on the detail of how something >> complex like taxation is done either. It isn't even possible. > Oh, it is (technically) possible. No. You will never be able to get very many of the voters to understand the complexity of what modern tax systems are about. > Just nobody dares to try it in reality, because everybody fears what might > happen if the voters are really as stupid as some people think... No, because they realise that hardly any of the voters will ever be able to understand the basics. Have a look at how VATs were introduced. There is just one country in the entire world that spelt out what was proposed, put it to the voters in an election and asked them how they felt about that. Everyone else just sprang it on the voters well before an election, so that the voters got to see how it worked in practice and then got to kick those who had forced it on the country out the door if they hated it enough. >> You lot haven't even been able to work out how to give the voters a >> direct say on stuff like Bismarck's arguable invention of socialism >> either. > That statement is so stupid and off that I won't go there. What a stunning line in rational argument you have there. > You really have no idea about the differences between socialism and a > social market economy. You don't have a fucking clue about how differently the word socialism is used around the world. I don't even object to what he did, I just rubbed your nose in the fact that that was imposed by him, not put to a vote. >>>>>>>>> you never lived in a country that had experienced in its last 100 >>>>>>>>> years two dictatorships, both making use of very effective secret >>>>>>>>> services as well against internal 'enemies', ... >>>>>>>> But which is very unlikely to be that stupid again. >>>>>>> Oh, unfortunately I see 'interested parties' trying to take steps >>>>>>> that might open possibilities for such (mis-)behavior again. >>>>>> Doesn't mean they have any possibility of succeeding. >>>>> I surely hope you're correct on that one! >>>> Corse I am. You haven't even come close since the last one. >>> Isn't it nice how humble you are. Lovely. >> Humble is for wimps. > If you think so... I know so. >>>>>>> On both sides of the Atlantic, btw. >>>>>> There's a reason there has never been a dictatorship in the US. >>>>> Let's hope that this claim stays true for the future... >>>> It isnt a claim, it's a fact >>> For the the past. You can state facts for the future? >> Didn't do anything like that. > You might want to reread my statement and then yours... No. I know what we both said. > Perhaps you see your faulty argumentation then... ;-) The only faulty argumentation is yours. >>>>>>>>> So much for 'We're only after the bad guys...' :-( >>>>>>>> All foreigners are bad guys by definition... >>>>>>> So you're a bad guy - good to know! >>>>>> No, my country is one of the signatorys to the Five Eyes agreement. >>>>> Thank you for the confirmation of my statement. :-) >>>> Fraid not. >>> Oh, yes, you confirmed it. And you cannot talk yourself out of that! :-) >> Wrong. > I wonder whether I shall give you a crash course on logic... No, I'll let > you figure this one out on your own. :-) You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>>>>>> Best regards, and keep on dreaming, >>>>>>>> You're the one with the fantasys of more dictators at all likely. >>>>>>> I certainly don't have fantasies about them - but I try to do my >>>>>>> best (as little as I can influence it at all) nevertheless to >>>>>>> shape a future not allowing those things to happen again. >>>>>> You're wasting your time, it isn't going to happen again in your >>>>>> country. >>>>> It will not happen again if there are enough people in my country to >>>>> prevent it from happening. >>>> And there always will be, essentially >>>> because of the result you got last time. >>> Oh, unfortunately history shows that people may forget such lessons over >>> time >> Not in countrys as well organised as yours is now. > And therefore I (and many others here) try to keep an eye on keeping it > that way. It will stay that way regardless of anything you or anyone else has your eye on. Essentially because of the utterly unspeakable result you lot got the last time. Same thing happened in Britain with Cromwell. > Other than you we don't take that for granted. Your problem. >>> - therefore it is important to keep the memories alive. >> That happens regardless of anything you do. > Not necessarily Fraid so. > - one has to do something for that to happen. No, the system will carry on regardless of anything you personally do. > You cannot take anything like this for granted, Yes you can with the result you lot got the last time. > especially not now that the last people having witnessed WWII are slowly > dying out. You don't need to have personally witnessed it. No one who personally witnessed what Cromwell got up to is around anymore and the British system got reorganised so that it can't happen again anyway. Britain didn't even come close to having another even with two world wars and the great depression. >>>> Same thing happened with Britain, they will never have a dictator again >>>> because of what happened with Cromwell. >> And put systems in place that ensure that it can't happen again. > And each and every system can be changed But not to allow another dictator again. > - if the people let it happen. It's got nothing to do with people. It isnt even possible for Britain or the US for the legislature to vote itself out of existence the way you lot were actually stupid enough to do. It isnt even possible in Germany now either. >>>>> If nobody's there to prevent something to happen, >>>> That won't ever be the case. >>>>> it might happen eventually >>>> No, because those circumstances won't happen. >>>> We won't see a return of absolute monarchs either. >>>> Or slavery either. >>> And we will never see the communist block collapse, the wall being >>> teared down, ... >> No one with even half a clue ever said that. > Oh, there were people saying that. Only those who didn't have even half a clue. > And there were even more (and probably more sensible ones) saying that we > wouldn't see this happen in our lives (and that was like two years before > it actually happened). Sure, its harder to say when something will happen. > History sometimes changes its path very quickly, Not with something like the return of absolute monarchs or slavery they don't. > allowing the best dreams or the worst nightmares to happen. THAT is really > one of the most important lessons one can learn from the history books. Not with absolute monarchs or slavery or dictators. Even Germany wont be that stupid again, you watch. Just like Britain wasn't post Cromwell. >>> Never is quite a bold world when dealing with the future as this can be >>> quite long... ;-) >> We've been checking what happened for millennia now >> and the systems we have put in place to ensure that that >> sort of thing won't happen again are working very well >> indeed in the most advanced societys. > They are working fairly well up to today. Very well in fact. You western europeans have even stopped trying to rip each others throats out in every single generation now. Corse the north americans came to their senses on that quite a bit earlier than you lot did. And many of the eastern europeans still haven't managed to come to their senses on that even now. > Let's hope that this doesn't change in the future... Those basics won't you watch. You lot won't be allowed to do another holocaust again either. >> It took you lot quite a while to understand what needed >> to be done, but even you lot eventually woke up and >> smelt the coffee and put those systems in place too, >> essentially because of the utterly obscene result you >> got the last time you didn't have them. >>>>> - democracy includes as well the responsibility of everybody to be >>>>> vigilant for unwanted developments. >>>> Its not necessary with that. >>> Oh, great news, democracy doesn't need people to make it work, to keep >>> it up, ...! It can live right on its own! :-) >> That is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said there. > Then you might want to make your point clearer. We've worked out how to put controls in placed that stop the worst insanitys like legislatures voting themselves out of existence like you lot were once stupid enough to do. > For all I see this is precisely what you said. Then you need new glasses, BAD. >>>>>> Germany won't be starting another world war either. >>>>> See my last statement. >>>> Not relevant at all to that. The reason Germany won't ever >>>> start another world war is because nukes have ensured that. >>> Since WWII nukes were about the least reason why Germany didn't start >>> another war. >> Even sillier. > Your statement is silly and you definitively overestimate the influence of > nukes on German foreign policy. There were much better reasons for Germans > not to start another war than those nukes. But the reason that no one will attempt to do what Adolf tried again is because the result would be even worse for you lot than when he tried that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-06 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l5d9u2$r76$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51893 |
Am 05.11.2013 19:25, schrieb Rod Speed: > Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote > >>>>>>>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting >>>>>>>>>> all the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of >>>>>>>>>> what they might tell the public... > >>>>>>>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video ever captured >>>>>>>>> on all those surveillance cameras > >>>>>>>> That might be true - or not. > >>>>>>> Absolutely certainly not even possible. > >>>>>>>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? > >>>>>>> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. > >>>>>> And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? > >>>>> Everyone does. > >>>> Obviously not. > >>> Fraid so. > >> Oh I forgot, you know exactly what everybody in the world knows. > > Don't need to. The parameters needed for that very basic calculation > is readily available to anyone who wants to do that basic calculation. > >> Hilarious. If it wasn't so pathetic. > > You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. And here we go again. You certainly can't stop yourself from insulting people - or at least from trying to. Actually, I was already wondering at what point you would start going there, again... :-) Feel free to continue that way, just that I will stop taking part in this discussion (anyways, most of your answers are now only repetitive claims that you were right, without any argument to back that up). Have fun, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-07 04:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdve22F14fmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51917 |
Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> Davoud wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Eyd wrote >>>>>>>>>>> And believe me, NSA *is* capable (quantitywise) of collecting >>>>>>>>>>> all the information they can get their hands on. Regardless of >>>>>>>>>>> what they might tell the public... >>>>>>>>>> But just not even possible to keep all the video >>>>>>>>>> ever captured on all those surveillance cameras >>>>>>>>> That might be true - or not. >>>>>>>> Absolutely certainly not even possible. >>>>>>>>> Who (outside the NSA) can tell for sure? >>>>>>>> Anyone who does even the most basic calculations on that. >>>>>>> And you do have the necessary parameters for those calculations? >>>>>> Everyone does. >>>>> Obviously not. >>>> Fraid so. >>> Oh I forgot, you know exactly what everybody in the world knows. >> Don't need to. The parameters needed for that very basic calculation >> is readily available to anyone who wants to do that basic calculation. >>> Hilarious. If it wasn't so pathetic. >> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. > And here we go again. Yep, you always end up with that sort of juvenile comment when you find that you have got done like a fucking dinner, as you ALWAYS are. > You certainly can't stop yourself from insulting people Everyone can see for themselves who did the initial insulting. Yes, when you try that sort of juvenile comment when you find you have got done like a fucking dinner, yet again, I may very well point out what you have resorted to, again. > - or at least from trying to. Actually, I was already wondering > at what point you would start going there, again... :-) I didn't bother, it was obvious that you had already done that. > Feel free to continue that way, just that > I will stop taking part in this discussion Great, there is only so much of your mindless silly pig ignorant shit and attempt at insults anyone should have to put up with. > (anyways, most of your answers are now only repetitive claims > that you were right, without any argument to back that up). Everyone can see you are lying thru your teeth, just like you ALWAYS do when you have got done like a fucking dinner, as you ALWAYS are. > Have fun, Have another shitty day on us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-05 18:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1lbvdo2.jroe7p181fv5mN@marc.my-fqdn.de> |
| In reply to | #51068 |
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > There are myriads of workarounds if your concern is privacy, including > simply running your own CardDAV/CalDAV server on your own computer I just did this. Installed Mavericks Server on my old Mini, switched on Calendar Server and Contacts Server, synced my calendars and contacts from my Mac to the server, and finally added two new accounts on my iPhone in Settings=>Mail,Contacts,Calendars=>Accounts, one for CalDAV, one for CardDAV. Then I did the same for my girlfriend. In Calendar.app on the Mac, you can share one (or more) of your calendars. So I made a new "Shared" calendar, which both my girlfriend and I can read and write. Voila, finally shared events... However, in Contacts.app it is not possible to share e.g. a "Group" of contacts with someone else. We have common friends and family, and of course would like to share such a contacts group like we can with the "Shared" calendar. How do you guys share contacts with your partner/family? Workaround I can think of is to add a virtual user in Mavericks Server, then login to that from Contacts.app, and make 3 groups of contacts - his, shared, hers. My girlfriend would then use the same (virtual) account on the server, and we would always synchronize all our contacts on all our devices. She would then only use/show the groups "hers" + "shared", I would only use/show "his" + "shared". Of course, no privacy, no read or write protection, just not using/showing the other person´s group. There must be a better way... -- In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-05 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <051120131408163872%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #51881 |
Todd Allcock wrote: > > There are myriads of workarounds if your concern is privacy, including > > simply running your own CardDAV/CalDAV server on your own computer No! Please tell me that none of the learned denizens of CSMS or CSMC wrote "myriads of!" "There are myriad workarounds..." -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-27 19:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <timmcn-E4B8E4.19343027102013@news.iphouse.com> |
| In reply to | #50809 |
In article <fLGdnaDebrREpvHPnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) wrote: > http://support.apple.com/kb/PH12117 from > http://www.macworld.com/article/2057971/sync-contacts-and-calendars-with-your- > iphone-via-itunes-not-in-mavericks-you-dont.html > > Is anyone else annoyed by this cloud force? :( All your data are belong to us. We are on our way back to before the sledgehammer toss. Full speed behind! -- And wackiness ensues...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-28 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4m5jl$mr7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50809 |
In comp.sys.mac.apps Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote: > Is anyone else annoyed by this cloud force? :( Yes. I have an iPod Classic, which Apple seems to have forgotten that they still sell. With Mavericks, all of my contacts and calendars were deleted from it and I can't put them back on. It sucks. -- K. Lang may your lum reek.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4mibi$h8n$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51078 |
Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote: > In comp.sys.mac.apps Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote: >> Is anyone else annoyed by this cloud force? :( > > Yes. I have an iPod Classic, which Apple seems to have forgotten that > they still sell. With Mavericks, all of my contacts and calendars were > deleted from it and I can't put them back on. It sucks. Yet another "up"grade I'm fortunate not to be able to install, I see. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web