Sure, and one day I will be able to converse, and even disagree, with the policies of my government without ending up on a terrorist watch list, cataloged by the Echelon system, or any number of other things. I mean, we have that freedom, right? It isn't like anyone just passed a law allowing indefinite detention without trial or anything. It isn't like we have the death penalty, or have anyone running for office that wants to force us to follow their religious beliefs....

Maturity is earned, but earned through demonstrating you have it. We haven't done that yet. There are still many parts of this country where it isn't safe to have dusky skin. There are many parts of this country where admitting to being gay gets you dragged behind a truck til you are dead. Do you know what the murder rate is in the United States? I do, cause I looked it up. 5,000 a year. 28,700 rapes, 133,000 robberies, 263,000 aggravated assaults. You see, there ARE a whole bunch of people being killed, raped, assaulted in our 'mature' society, and what happens to the perpetrators is not much, usually. The conviction rate for murder in the US is around 20%. Of course none of these statistics count the people killed by the death penalty, official government sanction, or by just plain being disappeared.

The truth of it is, we like to think we are better than everyone else, while we spend billions killing people to make sure the oil keeps flowing, and a pittance to reduce the rate of infant mortality. A culture is 'mature' when it works well for everyone, and we are nowhere near that.

Yes, the guy who provided actual evidence, and added something to the conversation, is the troll. You are absolutely correct. Just like you were in the last thread you still keep replying to, with witty things like "You are a jackass". To those who claim we are the 'mature' culture, I provide as my evidence to the contrary noh8rz2.

One more try: Please provide an example of how I am harassing you, violating your rights, violating any laws, or violating the ToS here? Please tell me why YOU keep replying, if I am such a jackass, and so repugnant? Please point to where you added anything to this conversation resembling evidence, or even informed opinion? No?

Didn't think so.

No, I think you missed the point. The point is, all cultures have fringe elements. All cultures have those that justify their actions, no matter what they are. We have people killing abortion providers because they think God wants them to. The real difference between radical Islam and radical Christianity is usually desperation. The harder people get pushed, the more desperate they get, and the more radicalized they become.

Maybe you need a history lesson. Do you know who taught Osama bin Laden to kill people? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't other Muslims. It was the United States. He was a useful tool, and even a friend, when he was committing terrorist acts and ambush attacks against the Russians in Afghanistan. He was promised a good deal, promises then broken when he was no longer of use to us, and no longer politically viable to keep around. Betrayal almost never ends with everyone going about their merry way.

The same people who orchestrate these attacks, the same people who finance them, and make them possible, are often doing so with our training, and our money. We still pour millions of dollars into Afghanistan, which is becoming even more radicalized every day. We patronize the Saudis, Pakistan, and several other countries we know provide safe harbor for terrorists. So I'll ask you, why is it ok for us to use terrorists, fund and train them, and turn them loose on others, but then complain, and call them immature, if they turn on us?

Another thing, since Islamic culture has been around for nearly 15 HUNDRED years longer than American culture has, why on earth do you think WE are the mature ones? Because we only kill people when they are really bad? Because we can say with a straight face that there were only 15 instances of 'collateral damage' when we popped a missile into a building to kill a suspected terrorist? Maybe you can explain to me the difference, to the people on the ground, between a suicide bomber and a missile attack, both of which kill innocent bystanders?

Nice avoidance of the evidence too, by the way. You ignore the talk of killings, beatings, being assaulted, spit on, and several other things, only to divert attention by saying 'hate crimes covers a lot of ground'? Did you look at any of those reports? I'm guessing not, since I didn't spoon feed you the links. Try taking a look at the NYC report, and see what it says. Never mind, I know you won't. It might interrupt your fantasy world.

Way to miss the point entirely. What I said was, quite plainly, we weren't even targeting the right people. I don't know how many Muslims were dragged from their homes and killed, but I know at least 7 Sikhs were assaulted, a number of Hindus, and anyone of middle eastern descent.

A good many of those incidents were listed in the New York City Commission on Civil Rights report dated summer of 2003. A Ball State study released in September 2003, using FBI uniform crime reporting software data, found a 1600% increase in hate crimes directed to those thought to be of Muslim extraction. CNN reported on Sept. 16, 2001 that more than 300 reports of hate crimes had been received by the Council on American-Muslim Relations, ranging from being spit on to being physically assaulted at their homes or businesses.

Need me to go on? I can do this all day. Of course you could have too, it was pretty easy to look up after all, but its way easier to just act like I don't know what I'm talking about because it doesn't agree with your worldview.

Ok, let me just say... huh? What ad hominems or defamation did I get into? Maybe you can point that out, since you still haven't pointed out any of the laws I've allegedly broken, or ToS provisions I've broken.

And yet, after September 11, many Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and who knows who else were attacked, killed, threatened in their homes. We aren't even smart enough to seek vengeance against the right people. If you think America is 'grown up' because no one gets killed when someone drops a cross in a vat of urine, you don't know a thing about America. Do you really believe that all Muslims approve of suicide bombings? Do you really believe all Muslims think people not of their faith must be destroyed? I have bad news for you, if that were true, we'd all already be dead.

The grown up countries, and grown up people, realize that there are extremists in any group or religion, that there will always be those that justify whatever actions they take as being the right ones, religiously speaking, and that find them perfectly moral. In fact, it's awfully rare to find a man who doesn't think every action he takes is justified by something, whether he's right or not.

So let me see if I understand this... By posting comments to a public board, I am violating your rights? Maybe you can explain that to me, or cite the relevant laws in your country that make speaking in your general direction illegal? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh, and no, I'm not lonely, I just didn't happen to be near anyone at the time. Thanks for the concern though.

To use one of your own responses, slap the handcuffs on me then. I can pretty much say whatever I like, regardless of your feelings, and no, it does not constitute 'verbal assault', or a violation of your personal space. If I stood hovering over you, that would be a violation of your personal space, but since no one is within several hundred feet of me at the moment, I can guarantee I am in no one's personal space. As to verbal assault, if I threatened you in some way, you might have some case, but I haven't. See, here's the thing. I have every right to freedom of speech, within the bounds of the rules set up for this private space, and unless I violate them, there isn't anything you can do. The proper thing to do, if you don't like what I'm saying, is to not listen, because while I have freedom of speech, I have no guaranteed right of an audience.

Actually they aren't. I've even been known to post about doctor's salaries and things like that. Oh, and I'm not talking to you, I'm posting on a board, and I can do that whenever I like, whether you like it or not. Have a nice day.

I'm sorry, if you construed any part of my arguments to mean that I thought Google wasn't evil, you got the wrong idea. Or that is to say, I think they are every bit as amoral and greedy as any other company. What I'm saying is that we have enough reasons to be angry at all corporations, we don't need to manufacture outrage at something that isn't really an issue. The more we wail and moan and wave our hands at meaningless stuff, the less often we are taken seriously when there is an actual reason to be upset.

The lead contributor to the working group is not Microsoft, genius. Does that mean they didn't write or propose the spec in the first place?

I'll even help you out. Try this page and then tell me who appears on the list of signatories?

I counter your bullshit with actual cited facts. While you are poking around there, look at all the rest of the historical documents, and see how many times the 'minor contributors' at Microsoft show up.

Yeah, that's it, I'm the one trolling. The guy who is actually presenting evidence, and asking questions that you ignore. I'm not the one who doesn't answer the question asked, ignores the facts, keeps claiming that their privacy was violated when it most likely wasn't, and keeps presenting BS analogies that don't remotely fit the situation.

Yeah, It's boring me too, I hate having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

I like to read just fine, I think the issue is I actually understand what I read.

If you made a specific choice on your browser settings, great. I am also willing to bet you never signed up for G+, don't log in to it, and never accepted the opt-in for tracking cookies. Do you understand what this means? It means this issue doesn't even apply to you, and nothing was done to you. If you accepted a G+ account, and opt-in to targeted ads, then left the browser settings to block it, you are violating the terms of service. It's that easy.

I most certainly can claim users were ignorant of their browser defaults, yet claim they could opt-in to tracking, in the same way Google can claim it, because they had to actively accept the terms. If they didn't read it, that isn't Google's fault, or their responsibility. That belongs to the user. If they sign up for things without understanding the consequences, that is on them, but they made an active choice to participate. They did not choose to participate in their browser settings, it was set for them, and set in a manner not the norm for any other browser.

Google might could pop up a window like that, to tell people how to fix their browser settings, except it also blocks pop-ups by default.

Someone actively choosing to participate in something, even if they didn't understand it, is always more powerful an argument than something set by default. Understand now, genius?

Now, answer this simple question. Did you sign up for G+, log in, and accept the opt-in for targeted ads? Because if not, your privacy was never violated, and you have no horse in this race. You are looking for a reason to be pissed (I assume your screen name is meant as irony?), and someone gave it to you. Congratulations on allowing PR to guide your actions, instead of reading about the situation and coming up with an informed opinion.

Aren't relevant to you, perhaps, but then your conspiracy theories about Google aren't relevant either, nor the ones about Facebook. Interestingly enough, Facebook and Microsoft themselves both use the same P3P process to serve cookies when necessary, yet called Google out on it.

If there was an opt-out program that overrode your browser preferences, it would be a problem. Since this was an explicit opt-in, my wishes should be respected, not the default setting on a browser. User choice should always come first, especially in a case where one browser handles things outside the norm.

No matter how many times I ask, there still hasn't been a single answer to my question: How does setting tracking cookies I explicitly opted in for constitute a breach of privacy? I keep hearing people say "Google violated my privacy!" Then tell me they don't even use G+, and didn't opt in to targeted ads. How then was their privacy violated, since they never received one of the tracking cookies anyway? This issue is a whole bunch of folks who want so very badly to be indignant about something crying about what never happened to them anyway.