DOJ Asks Court To Keep Secret Google / NSA Partnership 157
SonicSpike writes "The Justice Department is defending the government's refusal to discuss — or even acknowledge the existence of — any cooperative research and development agreement between Google and the National Security Agency. The Washington based advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center sued in federal district court here to obtain documents about any such agreement between the Internet search giant and the security agency. The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called 'Glomar' response in which the agency said it could neither confirm nor deny whether any responsive records exist. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington sided with the government last July."
China issues similar statement (Score:5, Funny)
China can neither confirm or deny that the U.S. contracting out almost all its intelligence work now to third-party private contractors like Google, Stratfor, etc. makes it a lot easier to steal classified intelligence and code from you dumb yankees.
Re:China issues similar statement (Score:5, Funny)
Re:China issues similar statement (Score:5, Funny)
That's not what you said in your last email...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was the first to fall in pwn2own because it was the first one they told them to try cracking.
Who really cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since NSA took over Facebook all of the data they need is on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who really cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical government inefficiency!
Re: (Score:2)
And the FBI has ties to Microsoft. Competition is a good thing!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the FBI is part of the DoJ right?
Re:Who really cares? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/ [theonion.com]
The Facebook program was FOUNDED by the CIA. Sheesh!!!
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The CIA has ties to Facebook, the NSA has ties to Google.
So Alex Jones was actually correct when he said facebook and google were working with the government? Every time I heard him say that I was like, "Yeah sure alex." Wow. That blows my mind.
Re:Who really cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
My friends and I have a running joke that Alex Jones is, in fact, a government plant to derail things by taking a real "conspiracy theory" and going crazy with it. The final conclusion he reaches is so out there that no one would believe the original theory in the first place.
Re:Who really cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
So Alex Jones was actually correct when he said facebook and google were working with the government? Every time I heard him say that I was like, "Yeah sure alex." Wow. That blows my mind.
You're assuming it's true. Look closely at what happened: The NSA "could neither confirm nor deny" anything -- which is what they always say about everything. It's the stock spy agency answer to everything, because any alternative is an information leak. They can't even deny the rumors that are totally false. Because if false rumors get denied and true rumors all get "refuse to confirm" then you can obviously tell when a rumor is true. So instead, whether it's true or false, they always refuse to confirm or deny everything.
And then you throw in things like the spy agencies having developed some of the satellite technology which is used for Google Earth and you've got a bunch of conspiracy theorists running around speculating about nonsense.
NSA uses Glomar! (Score:2)
It's super effective!
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is... When you ask a question like this, it just publicizes suspicion. I think it's likely that there's a relationship there, but if you asked the NSA, something preposterous like "Is gnick collaborating with you to collect information about slashdot users?" Their response would be identical to this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I 'know' that, you 'know' that, everybody 'knows' that, doesn't make it true!
BTW, ensure to put in your report that RivenAleem has not, nor ever will plot any acts of terrorism against the USA, because he's such a swell guy. And ensure you get the capital A right, people are always forgetting that.
Fascism in action (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
What we currently have is corporations acting as arms of the government, and government acting as an arm of corporations, to the point where they aren't very distinguishable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
What we currently have is corporations acting as arms of the government, and government acting as an arm of corporations, to the point where they aren't very distinguishable.
When commentators can't distinguish between government and contractors, the problem isn't fascism, the problem is nonsense passing as insight.
One telltale (Score:2)
The one obvious telltale is the size of the Golden Parachute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference between the left and the right is which set of corporations they support.
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference between the politicians on left and the right is which set of corporations they support.
FTFY. Sane, intelligent individuals, no matter how far left or right, recognize corporations for what they are: Unfeeling, nearly unbounded forces of nature, with their own welfare as their sole objective. The illusion of altruism that may come from a corporation is either coincidental alignment of human/corporate values, or intentional manipulation in order to separate more monetary lifeblood from the easily manipulated.
Guys, corporations are not people, Citizens United notwithstanding. And they sure as he
Re:Fascism in action (Score:4, Insightful)
This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate personhood.
Think of this another way: Say a US agency (which can legally be only the FBI) wants to intercept a US citizen's phone calls. If they do this legitimately, they have to gather evidence enough to create probable cause, get it to a judge to approve a warrant, and then go to AT&T to intercept the calls. However, if they're willing to break the rules, they can have AT&T just intercept everything and send it to them, grant AT&T immunity from being investigated for wiretapping, and keep everything classified so that nobody can actually bring the issue to court.
They could do this whether or not AT&T had the free speech rights of a person, because this is all about doing things and *not* talking about it.
Re:Fascism in action (Score:4, Insightful)
declared Corporations are *people*
No, they didn't. You merely misunderstand what corporate personhood is or why it exists. Corporate personhood exists merely to protect the rights of the people associated with that corporation.
The Constitution frequently assigns rights or privileges to "people", for example, freedom of speech and the right against seizure of assets. So how do you protect the rights of the people who make up organizations such as limited liability corporations? The US Supreme Court chose to do so via corporate personhood. By treating corporations as people for the purpose of these above rights which refer to people, the Court delivered a simple and logical fix for this problem. They could have fixed it some other way, but they didn't.
And as dkleinsc noted, corporate personhood has nothing to do with the problem of blurring of business and government. That would happen anyway. In fact, it probably would be worsened by the removal of the protections that organizations enjoy today. For example, in the absence of these protections, a politician could take property away from a corporation and give it to a favored crony. And then they could punish the original corporation, if any member of that company dared speak out.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to protect the free speech rights of people who are involved in corporations, or other legal entities, by granting those organizations these rights.
History has shown differently. Corporate personhood evolved as a response to government abuse of power (incidentally, McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional in at least two ways, it's selective free speech restrictions on corporations are only one of those ways). Corporate personhood isn't needed in itself, but something is needed.
As to your assertions that corporate personhood only exists for the rich and unions, it's worth noting that the same legal infrastructure prevents a hostile government in most of
Re: (Score:2)
It happens all the time, and is a big concern with the Keystone Pipeline:
Eminent Domain
It's worth noting that most states have responded to the recent adverse Supreme Court ruling with their own laws preventing the worst of the abuses of eminent domain. Both Oklahoma and Texas, the states which enclose the current set of proposed pipeline extension plans, have such laws.
Frankly, I doubt eminent domain is needed in the sense of the developer being completely unable to procure a pathway without it. Right of ways aren't that hard to obtain and farmland is cheap.
No Such Agency (Score:5, Funny)
The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called 'Glomar' response in which the agency said it could neither confirm nor deny whether any responsive records exist.
The NSA Representative then followed up that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the NSA as well. The reporters counter question was, "So you're saying that there may, or may not be an arrangement between Google and an agency that may or may not exist?" To which the NSA representative simply replied, "I'm not saying anything." And then promptly morphed into a bubble which shrank out of existence over a three second period of time and vanished with a small pop.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surpised (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, go ask Apple, MS and Yahoo there involvement with China. If you get an honest answer, you would be shocked and PISSED.
Re: (Score:1)
isn't Yahoo owned by a Chinese company? or did that sale not go through?
I hadn't heard of an Apple/NSA connection, but wouldn't be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA's had its hand in many things, and not necessarily in bad [wikipedia.org] ways.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM researchers independently discovered differential cryptanalysis, so it's not like NSA contributed anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce Schneier observed that "It took the academic community two decades to figure out that the NSA 'tweaks' actually improved the security of DES."
The changing of the S-block hardened DES to a "new" form of attack, differential cryptanalysis. The NSA seems to have already been familiar with the technique, enough to be able to advise IBM on the use of better S-blocks. The use of a shorter key speeds up brute-force attacks, but the use of a strong S-block makes differential cryptanalysis much more difficult.
It's worth noting that even with the shorter key, brute-force attacks still took until the mid-90's computing power to be practical (in public, at l
Re: (Score:3)
Ask for docs on NSA and Slashdot, or NSA and the local pizza place, or NSA and your mother, and you'll get the same non-response.
Re: (Score:2)
> Go ask for docs on NSA and MS partnership, or NSA and Apple,
> or NSA and Yahoo, or NSA and even Bull.
You'll probably get the same answer if you ask for docs about their relationship with Krusty Korporation or Santa Industries. I believe it's boilerplate for "Hi, we read your letter".
We can neither confirm nor deny ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We can neither (not) deny ... (Score:2)
Generally this response has the informal meaning of Confirming something, but it avoids perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
It sometimes confirms something, but only if the person (or agency in this case) accidentally confirming it isn't particularly clever.
Monday: "Did you steal my sandwich?" "Of course not!"
Tuesday: "Did you steal my sandwich?" "Of course not!"
Wednesday: "Did you steal my sandwich?" "I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I may have stolen your sandwich."
That doesn't work. If you want "I can't confirm or deny" to work you have to use it consistently.
In this case it's a one-time allegation abo
Re: (Score:2)
Nice effort, but it's still not quite the way it all shakes out. The way you prove it is use their own new laws/proto-laws against them. (Enforcement is a problem, but that's the next problem.)
"We can neither confirm or deny that we have secret info".
"Sudo you stole an iPad and downloaded a Journey album and violated a patent on a method of being a weasel. Now give us your secret info."
"Okay, here's our info!"
It's a government agency. Of course they have Non-Zero info about *everything*.
Of course they're talking (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be clever if... (Score:3)
Google and Facebook were just NSA and CIA fronts. The best part would be that they have an almost self-sustaining business model so the cost of running it is defrayed. People get cheap software, and the government gets cheap information on the users plus surveillance and tracking devices in every pocket...
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for the morning laugh.
In all seriousness, I would be suprised if the various inteligence agencies are not using Facebook, G+, MySpace and other social networks to track potential criminals. The only problem is the signal to noise ratio and you are correct that both Google and Facebook are self supporting, thus there's no money trail from the government showing. So they throw a few bits of code at them. Hell the NSA threw SELinux at us along with published those pesky docs about securing Windows an
Re: (Score:2)
> Google and Facebook were just NSA and CIA fronts.
Well, it was nice knowing you, man! Such a bright future ahead of you and now all for nothin'. Because you couldn't keep your mouth shut! :-/
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, I know what that is! (Score:1)
Don't be evil ...without cause.
Secret? (Score:1)
Not so secret now, is it?
not an either/or, though, is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
quote:
EPIC said its records request does not seek documents about NSA's role to secure government computer networks. "Google provides cloud-based services to consumers, not critical infrastructure services to the government," Rotenberg said.
once google 'grew up' and got cozy with the government, I don't think there's any going back. they are *both* for the consumer (if you think that way) and now they are also a source of info feed for the government agencies.
I don't think google set out to do this, when they were a 1000 person company or less; but at their huge successful size and power, now, I don't see how you can exist and not be forced to 'play ball' when ask^Htold to by those who really run things.
with all the data google has, do you really think the gov would sit back and not ask for a fiber tap and a cut of the action, so to speak? come on.
only some of the googlers would be able to deal with this, and it ruins the whole 'do no evil' sunshine and ponies bullshit game they play. whatever ties there are, it won't be confirmable or made public. not even from inside the normal rank and file. but the same as any large powerful company that has things the government wants.
its always been this way, though. don't be shocked. companies and governments are powerful entities and from time to time, they 'have lunch' together.
"its all part of the plan" ;)
Obama administration (Score:1)
So much for Obama's promise of government transparency.
Romney will be no better either. Too bad it isn't practical to pull a Monty Brewster and check "None of the above." I want to write in Ron Paul, but he hasn't a chance of getting elected. He just isn't marketable enough for the drooling masses. :-(
Re:Obama administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Voting Ron Paul, or any member of any third party you like, IS voting none of the above. It would not take a majority of voters doing such a thing, to get the parties to notice that swath of potential swing voters isn't buying the current political narrative, and then cater to those voters by changing the narrative. But because everyone is so concerned about picking a winner, we ensure that we only get losers in office.
Voting isn't a bet like picking a horse in a race -- unless you're donating millions to candidates you aren't going to get anything from being in a winning politician's camp except for the feeling that your candidate won. But when that candidate turns around and screws you, what is that winning feeling really worth? Nothing, and worse, you gave up your chance to actually vote for change -- the change that comes when politicians realize that people aren't sucking up their BS like they used to and that sticking with the status quo can cost an election. For the average American, this represents a much bigger win than the temporary happiness of being on a winning team, but in order to win the war, you have to be willing to lose some battles along the way to prove the point.
Here's a list of third parties. Pick one that reflects your values and vote with pride:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
So much for Obama's promise of government transparency.
Romney will be no better either. Too bad it isn't practical to pull a Monty Brewster and check "None of the above." I want to write in Ron Paul, but he hasn't a chance of getting elected. He just isn't marketable enough for the drooling masses. :-(
Not marketable enough? You mean not desireable enough for the corporations who market the likes of Larry King to the drooling masses, to market him, because if he was, they'd be able to market Paul. The media in the US could get a literal monkey elected, if it was pro corporate enough. And by now it's hardly the drooling masses. To quote "How to get ahead in advertising" on marketing and the PR industry...."...if you breathe, it works on you...".
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I want to write in Ron Paul, but he hasn't a chance of getting elected. He just isn't marketable enough for the drooling masses. :-(
Ron Paul Newsletters Controversy [wikipedia.org]. /. is for sci/tech not politics usually, but since you brought it up - how can you support someone who would, say, refuse to hire you because of your skin color, instead of your skills? Shouldn't we tech people be better than that?
Really? This is a man you would endorse for president? I think
Re: (Score:2)
That's the wrong response -- acquiescence is acceptance. Be a third party voter and join those willing to tell the government it doesn't represent them AND that you're willing to put your beliefs where your vote is. Cost a lesser-evil-candidate an election or two, and just maybe, we'll start getting some candidates of a greater-good type. Worst case scenario is
Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK.... (Score:1)
Some wise man once said .... (Score:2)
NSA: "Why yes. We have been working with Google to secure their IT infrastructure and protect their user's data."
Or: "We have been working with them on techniques applicable for mining large quantities of data."
It could even be correct, although an incomplete explanation. But it will satisfy most people's curiosity and explain the presence of NSA personnel on Google property. For the tin foil hat crowd, there is nothing anyone could say
Re:well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do I want the government to know about X?" If you don't, never post anything about X on the Internet and don't tell about X to anyone because they post stuff on the Internet.
FTFY.
Re:X (Score:5, Funny)
The first rule about X is never talk about X :)
Re: (Score:3)
X? What X? There is no X.
Re:X (Score:5, Funny)
And you tell me this now after I've spent all my school years finding it?
Re: (Score:3)
Y
Re: (Score:1)
Why must geeks see everything in binary? If you are doing something which involves communication with other people, they have to know at least something about what you're doing. If you choose the Internet to communicate, then it stands to reason that you will not use a centralised service the primary business of which is datamining (for advertisers).
You could assume our benevolent masters have all the resources to record every single packet to and from everywhere, and decrypt a good deal of what we consider
Re:well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is if you want to know something about X one thing you do these days is a Google search about X, followed by clicking on links in the results. If you are afraid Google is tracking your search queries maybe you will use DuckDuckGo or go to some other website. Whatever, when you get to the web site on X there is a fair chance the web site will have embedded in it HTTP connections to doubleclick.net, google-analytics.com, googlesyndication.com, googleadservices.com or the Google API like apis.google.com/js/plusone.js.
You don't actually need to post anything about X, or tell anyone about X, you just need to leave bread crumbs scattered about the Internet showing you have interest in X, and Google will know.
All the bread crumbs Google tracks would, no doubt, be extremely interesting to any intelligence agency.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Virtualbox container - Debian Privoxy/TOR server
2. Virtualbox container - DSL LiveCD set to use Debian TOR server
3. ???
4. Anonymity
Re: (Score:2)
99.9% of people DONT use TOR, a VM, or even a blocker in their browser. The NSA may not even be looking for a well trained "terrorist" or a "spy".
They can just mine a vast treasure trove of information on what most of the people on the planet are interested in by looking at all the data Google and Facebook are accumulating. I wouldn't be surprised if you could use the data to fairly accurately predict which countries are ripe for or on the virge of a revolution just by looking at the X's its people are
Re: (Score:1)
there is a fair chance the web site will have embedded in it HTTP connections to doubleclick.net, google-analytics.com
*cough* Slashdot *cough*
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What if "X" is simply showing up to a friend's party? These days, I ask my friends not to tag me on Facebook when they take pictures of me at parties.
I think I'm on the verge of not caring anymore. A couple weeks ago I got curious about what happened to a childhood friend whom I haven't seen for over 20 years. So I Googled him. I now know where he lives, where he works, how much his house is worth and when he bought it, the year/make of his car, his marriage date, his wife's maiden name and family try (and income, professions, etc...)... This is all with perhaps 15 minutes of idle Googling, and I quit after that because this started feeling creepy (
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not too worried about Google. IMHO, if there is somebody out there to worry about, it's your ISP. They have a much better idea of what it is that you do on the internet and they have a well established history of doing whatever the government asks them to do. Thankfully TLS is quickly becoming the normal way of connecting to sites, so this does quite a bit to shield you from the prying eyes of your ISP.
Re:well, duh (Score:4, Insightful)
TLS does nothing to prevent your ISP from knowing which sites your are going to, only the data you are sending and receiving from them.
Re: (Score:2)
TLS does nothing to prevent your ISP from knowing which sites your are going to, only the data you are sending and receiving from them.
That's why I use EFF's HTTPS Everywhere [eff.org]. Neither my ISP, nor any other entity between my machine and destination address, have a legitimate need to examine the contents of my traffic. I'm astounded by the number of users here that don't prefer secure connections, as evidenced by number of http links to sites that support https.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that there's anything wrong with your comment, but I was pointing out that ISPs will still know which sites you are visiting (by IP address). This is a well known problem in secure communications; they know who you are talking to even though they don't know what you have said. And with the current belief of guilt by association, that will still be a problem.
Think 'dissidents read slashdot'.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that there's anything wrong with your comment, but I was pointing out that ISPs will still know which sites you are visiting (by IP address). This is a well known problem in secure communications; they know who you are talking to even though they don't know what you have said. And with the current belief of guilt by association, that will still be a problem.
Think 'dissidents read slashdot'.
I know; I know they know the IP your client's requesting, I just wanted to point out the availability and benefit EFF's plugin provides. Certainly, it's preferable to leak only your 4-byte destination IPs to Eve (and Mallory), as opposed to leaking destination IPs, plus kBs-GBs of cleartext payload data transferred to/from said IP. Using HTTPS will still allow Eve to know the site you're communicating with, but not the individual, nor the topic of discussion, without using techniques that are more costly in
Re:well, duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. The NSA has a lot of power to blackmail, and we know that they have no scruples about violating the Constitution left and right, but there's a non-subtle difference between violating the Fourth Amendment and destroying a company.
So even assuming there is data big enough and black enough to destroy Google out there--not a point I'd concede--even then, I'd be hesitant to say the NSA is destroying them or would destroy them absent actual evidence. Frankly, if they got caught taking down a multibillion dollar American company, they would face a real risk of being defunded or decapitated (i.e. leadership replacement). Congress listens to multibillion dollar companies.
Re: (Score:2)
"we know that they have no scruples about violating the Constitution left and right"
Citations? If not, you're talking out of your ass about things you want to believe are true.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Citations just show to you that I am not doing so; that doesn't mean I am doing so.
Google for it. For example, there was a big article in rolling stone that was well done on the wiretapping of US Citizen as part of the war on terror. To be fair, the system had been designed to carefully avoid this, so the members of NSA who *designed* it cared about rights, but then it was retasked. There are some great observations in there, however, about the what-we-can-get-away-with/lack-of-oversight men
Re:well, duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you can replace google with any large technology company - not just microsoft or apple, and the issue is the same.
Don't forget: Cisco, Riverbed, any MPLS complaint devices, any internet-facing devices, DNS, ISPs, TIVO, etc.
The list is way, way, way bigger than Google. Not a good thing but something worth highlighting.
Re:well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
In fairness to Google and the NSA, it's possible for them to be involved on projects together that *don't* involve assembly of a complete dossier of every citizen alive today, with realtime updates.
There are lots of people around the world - many of whom even live outside the US! - who might view Google's systems as an attractive (and critical) piece of infrastructure that would be valuable to penetrate; the NSA is tasked with monitoring and collecting foreign signal intelligence and other communications... it's entirely possible that their collaboration involves detecting, monitoring, and responding to foreign threats, even the establishment and monitoring of honeypots and the like, the existence of which would be confirmed by documents detailing the relationship. This would serve to tip off the organizations trying to penetrate Google's systems, and they could adapt and circumvent the monitoring Google & the NSA have put in place. Being able to monitor these penetration attempts lets the NSA collect data on the methods & capabilities of other intelligence agencies.
There ARE possibilities that don't require careful application of tin foil to your cranium. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be prudent with the use of Google's services, but a collaboration between Google and the NSA *need not* be solely for evil purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
...There ARE possibilities that don't require careful application of tin foil to your cranium. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be prudent with the use of Google's services, but a collaboration between Google and the NSA *need not* be solely for evil purposes.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Too bad the only response to try and confirm "do no evil" from either party is "we cannot confirm or deny", so I guess we'll just have to open up the history books and start making some (likely accurate) assumptions...
Re: (Score:2)
And that's fine, and perfectly reasonable - but if you're truly making assumptions based on past performance, make sure you take note of the number of times that the NSA and other intel agencies have legitimately acted in America's security interests and "done the right thing" - not just the "Top 50 worst moments in American intelligence agency history, which prove they're all inherently, irredeemably evil because assuming that fits neatly with my biases."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing Google operates many overseas & international businesses. Also, good thing that the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD), which is one half of the NSA, is tasked with protecting the information systems owned by the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously believe that the NSA is downright giddy to be able to use data about and monitoring of attacks on Google's information systems from foreign sources to learn about the capabilities and methods of foreign intelligence agencies and non-governmental organizations who might be interested in gaining access to Google for illegal or unethical purposes.
I also seriously believe that Google's systems are incre
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Google still exists is confirmation that they comply with whatever the NSA asks of them.
ergo
The fact that you still exist is confirmation that you comply with whatever the NSA asks of you.
OMG RUN!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No sex in the champagne room (Score:4, Funny)
If he's wrong that you can't have privacy on the internet... does that mean he's wrong about sex in the champagne room?
Because I swear, that stripper was TOTALLY digging me... she even asked to see me again at the club sometime!
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a bit of a warning, mate: girls dig guys who use Apple gear.
Apple = cool user.
Microsoft = corporate user.
Linux user = nerd loser*.
* this comment is not aimed at unix on servers.
Then I am proud to be a nerd loser (Ubuntu 10.04 on both desktop and laptop).. Being 61 and happily married for 26 years
I'm not gonna worry about "the girls not digging me" cuz I don't use rotten apple gear..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that mounting Moby Dick...er.... your wife is great....fun?
I haven't had a complaint about her yet.
Re:I bought an iPad! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It takes a mobile supercomputer to manage all those relationships.
Re: (Score:2)
neither does steve job's rectum, but that's never stopped an apple fan.
Rectum!?!? Damned near killed 'em!!!
Oh, wait...
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Strat