Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Bing vs Google

Bing Challenge research study
In an online survey conducted by Answers Research among 1,054 online respondents, the majority of participants chose Bing search results over Google’s.

Bing It On - Bing versus Google Challenge. Would you bet ...

Bing produces better results and that's a proven fact. 

Bing doesn't spy on you and Google does.

Bing has never been fined for breaking the law and violating people's privacy and security.

How and why to switch from Google to Bing | PCWorld


See the source image

See the source image
Uninstall Google Chrome NOW!

Spying is Google's stock and trade and it shitty browser Google Chrome spies on you and it performs as badly as Firefox. Switch to Opera or Safari everything else sucks.

See the source image

Google Silently Listens to your Conversation

This issue came to light by Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, who says Google has silently installed black box code into the open-source Chromium browser, meaning it contains pre-compiled code that users cannot see.

Exactly what this black box does is still unclear, but Falkvinge claimed that Google is listening to the conversations of Chromium users through this black box of code.

The 'black box' code enabled a feature that activates a search function on the browser when you say "Ok, Google," however the code enabled the microphone, as well as permitted to capture audios.
"Your computer has been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge," says Falkvinge.

Will Trump Have Bannon Killed?

See the source image

Trump is about as slimy as slimy gets. He's told over 2000 lies since taking office and he's made a lot of enemies within his own inner circles. One of those enemies is Steve Bannon. Bannon may be a snake but he is not the seasoned and savvy snake that Trump is. Steve Bannon is mostly a weasel with a big mouth and he is one weasel that really pissed of Trump and if that's not bad enough he was disloyal to Trump and if that's not bad enough, Bannon has enough dirt on Trump to not only get him impeached and sent to prison, Bannon has dirt on the entire Trump crime family.

Trump has very little if any honor. I will do anything to save his ass. He will also try to save the Ivanaka, Donald Jr, Eric Trump and his son in law Jarrod Kushner. Trump may try to put a hit out on Bannon. I doubt if Bannon will be shot but suspect Bannon's death will look like natural causes. Bannon would be smart of go into protective custody. Donald Trump is a very dangerous man with some very dangerous people in low and high places.

Usually with the Mafia if a don has suspicion that a contract was being taken out on him that don would order a preemptive hit. Bannon would have a tough time trying to put a hit on Trump unless he has some insiders at the Whitehouse -- perhaps a secret service agent who out of a sense of patriotism and love of country will assassinate Trump? Bannon could possibly buy somebody on the Trump staff but that is unlikely.

Bannon needs to hide even if it is in protective custody. Bannon needs to be careful what he eats of drinks and he should have a Geiger counter to protect himself from a Putin cocktail. A Putin cocktail is polonium. Polonium-210: Why is Po-210 so dangerous? Putin could see this as an opportunity of sink his claws even deeper into Trump and the Trump Whitehouse.


Steve Bannon knows groveling is his only hope now ...

Bannon may have some other major dirt on Trump and Bannon may have already informed people that is something happens to him, Trump was probably behind it.

Trump told Bannon to clam up at the House Intelligence Committee hearing and that is exactly what Sloppy Steve did but Bannon's unwillingness to cooperate caused special prosecutor Robert Mueller to issue a subpoena that will force Bannon to testify before a the grand jury. Bannon won't be able to stonewall the grand jury because he won't be allowed to have a lawyer present during his testimony and he won't be allowed to invoke the fifth amendment and if he lies he gets held in contempt of court and faces fines and prison. Bannon is FUCKED and if Trump doesn't have him killed Trump will also be FUCKED! 

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Outgoing Virginia Governor Says He'd Deck Trump If Provoked Him

Outgoing Virginia governor says he'd deck Trump if provoked

FILE - In this Jan. 10, 2018 file photo, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe gestures as he addresses a joint session of the the 2018 session in the House chambers at the Capitol in Richmond, Va. McAuliffe told a national television audience he’d knock President Donald Trump to the floor if the president ever tried to intimidate him. During an interview Thursday, Jan. 11 on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews asked McAuliffe how he would respond if Trump tried to intimidate him during a debate by hovering over him, as he did in a 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton, a close friend of McAuliffe’s. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, File)

OP ED by Me Fatty O'Bastardo: Every patriotic America loving democracy defending American would take great joy in beating the shit out of Trump but sadly, none of us will get the opportunity to do so. Enter no bullshit Irishman and Virginia  Governor Terry McAulliffe. As an honorary Irishman, I Fatty O'Bastardo, would love to pummel a loud mouthed vulgar punk like Donald J. Trump.  

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Outgoing Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe told a national television audience he'd knock President Donald Trump to the floor if the president ever tried to intimidate him.
See the source image
During an interview Thursday on MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews asked McAuliffe how he would respond if Trump tried to intimidate him during a debate by hovering over him, as he did during the 2016 presidential election with Hillary Clinton, a close friend of McAuliffe's.
"You'd have to pick him up off the floor," McAuliffe said.
When Matthews laughed and asked if he meant he would "deck" Trump, McAuliffe answered with a straight face.
"You want to get in my space ... you punch me, I'm going to punch you back twice as hard."
"But if he ever came over and leaned on me and got in my space, that would be the last time Donald Trump ever did that. I promise you that," he added.
OP ED by me Fatty O'Bastardo: This guy reminds me of Connor McGregor, another Irishman who takes no shit from punks. Had Jeb Bush not been a wimp and hit Trump with a step-in right hook during the Republican primary debates maybe he would be the president today. When Trump was talking shit about Jeb's mother Jeb should have blasted Trump.

McAuliffe, who was a top Democratic fund-raiser before being elected governor in 2013, is set to leave office Saturday. He has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate.
McAuliffe has been a vocal critic of Trump, particularly after Trump said "both sides" shared blame after white nationalists and counter-protesters clashed during a deadly rally in Charlottesville in August.
During the "Hardball" interview, McAuliffe also called Trump "an embarrassment to our country."

OP ED by me Fatty O'Bastardo: When Trump was a kid he was too much of an asshole to attend public school so his father Fred Trump shipped him of to a military style school for spoiled rich brats. Had Trump attended my school, guy like Proud FA would have beat the shit out him and beaten some humility and manners into him. 

Hillary was too reserved and too elite to "lower herself" to belting Trump. She hadn't dealt with a punk and bully like Trump since she was a kid and even if she had slapped the shit out of him it probably would have backfired. Had Jeb Bush belted Trump he probably would have faired well politically although Jeb's punch probably would not have done much damage but it would be a different story had McAuliffe had belted Trump. There would be damage and a concussion to Trump's moth eaten brain. McAullife has big man hands and thick wrists.

Hillary should have knee'd Trump in the balls. 

Friday, January 12, 2018

Google IS De-Indexing Blogs?

See the source image

Like Wikipedia Google operates under mob rule and a cloak of anonymity. Like Wikipedia, Google censors unpopular speech. Google is run by fascists because only fascists censor.  Google has now qualms about allowing pornography but say something critical of some absurd movement or idea and Google will come down on you with both feet. 

Had I, Fat Bastardo, wanted to monetize my blogs I could have pulled in a few bucks but because I have integrity I didn't want advertising to pop up on my blogs. I would have been OK with ads providing I could decide what companies I would allow but that it not how Google Adsense works. My blogs were kicking ass and taking names as you can see by the numbers below and then over night those numbers plummeted. I can't say why for sure but I have my suspicions. 

The political correctness in the US is running amok and unfortunately there are a lot of nasty little butt hurt tin gods patrolling the Internet and sites like Wikipedia. Google kind of acts like the FCC in that if a small group of assholes complain or if one are two people complain, Google droids, without investigating the validity of those complaints or even giving an explanation or a means of appeal will de-index or remove a blog or place a dishonest warning on it this besmirching and defaming the blog owner like they did with me, Fat Bastardo.

See the source image

Butt hurt losers who play this game need to grow the fuck up and they need the shit beaten out of them and so does Google and its pathetic droids and well as its droid command and control.  Perhaps a little cyber version of Robespierre's reign of terror will cause a mass exodus to the other search engines? Perhaps someone at Google will monkey wrench the whole sleazy operation? Something has to be done! 

Fat Bastardo's Explains Further
Graph of Blogger page views Removed Restored and then De-Indexed 
You may be asking what this has to do with fat acceptance. Sometime in 2010 someone, probably on of my readers edited a wikipedia article on fat acceptance and included a link to my blog BiggerFatterBlog Bigger Fatter Blog was created in a reaction to the insanity that is fat acceptance and fat feminism. Bigger Fatter Blog is a parody site that lampoons the fat acceptance.  The parody was so close the the absurdity that is fat acceptance that most people could not distinguish Bigger Fatter Blog from actual fat acceptance sites. 
The hardcore fat acceptance morons and the fat sluts at google knew that I was making a mockery of fat acceptance under the guise that fat men are excluded from the movement by the "man hating angry jealous fat girls" who co-opted the movement and kicked all the men out in favor of fat lesbians and "skinny guys who like porking fat girls because fat girls are easy". Actually, that's true, fat girls really are big sluts.
After being mocked, shamed and exposed for the fraudsters and liars that they are angry fat girls flagged Bigger Fatter Blog and got it removed. Eventually Google restored it for fear of litigation but the did de-index it. Bigger Fatter Blog articles were no longer being crawled. Google assholes that they are, do not investigate charges of wrongdoing but instead like Wikipedia rely on mob rule.  To this day Google manipulates search data. Google and Youtube censor unpopular and politically incorrect speech same as Wikipedia under their own mob rule policies. They don't investigate charges. They allow special interest groups to set the narrative and the agendas.
Graph of Blogger page views Partially De-Indexed
After the de-indexing of Bigger Fatter Blog we started Bigger Fatter Politics and like Bigger Fatter Blog page views soared and like Bigger Fatter Blog page views sharply declined. This happened after someone edited the Wikipedia Fat Acceptance page and included a link to Bigger Fatter Politics and my NAAFA blog. At this point I suspect Wikipedia is wired to some SJWs at Google who need to be fired and black balled.
Graph of Blogger page views
NAAFA.BlogSpot.Com De-indexed

The Internet today is controlled by mob rule and filthy rich oligarchs. The good people are subject to abuse and lies by the trash who now control agenda sites like Wikipedia and the Internet as whole. The post truth era is upon us!

Graph of Blogger page views Deindexed
The most egregious thing that Wikipedia and Google did was de-index Gastric Bypass Kills. I have little doubt that anonymous editors at Wikipedia conspired to de-index Gastric Bypass Kills because as you can see, it was kicking butt and saving lives. The medical industry in the US is as corrupt as the Trump administration and far more deadly. I have little doubt that they bribed people at Google to de-index my blogs. 

BTW, Bing and Duck Duck Go return better results than the highly censored American Google.

A Quick Comment About Twitter's Sleaze Factor and Hypocrisy
If the average Twitter use were to write the vile crap Trump writes, they would be banned. Perhaps the time has come for a star chamber of ethical hackers like the Jester to censor the censor by shutting them down? It seems that lying is tolerating but criticism of ideas isn't. 

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Wikipedia Sucks: The Wikipedia Dictatorship

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia

October 27, 2011 08:00 AM
by Mark E. Moran
Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper. According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't.”

To help you develop such an understanding, we present 10 reasons you can't rely on information in Wikipedia.
10. You must never fully rely on any one source for important information especially Wikpedia.
Everyone makes mistakes. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain “corrections” sections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. And even the most neutral writer is sometimes guilty of not being fully objective. Thus, you must take a skeptical approach to everything you read.

The focus of your search should be on finding accurate information and forming a full picture of an issue, rather than believing the first thing you read. This is particularly true on the Internet, where anyone can publish, cheaply and quickly. Always verify important information by confirming it with multiple sources.

9. You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.
Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” On sites with anonymous authors like Wikipedia, you can't find this information.

8.  The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.

In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.

Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.

7. Individuals with agendas often have dictatorial editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.

Furthermore, in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing Wikipedia entries in their employers' favor.

6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.
Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries. Though in many instances reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism,” occasionally false information can remain on Wikipedia for extended periods of time.

For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.

5. There is little diversity among editors.
According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.

Although most of these editors are undoubtedly intelligent and passionate about enhancing the accuracy of Wikipedia, the site falls far short of its ideals of providing “the sum of all human knowledge” without the broad perspectives that a more diversified pool of editors would bring.

4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined.
The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

2. Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.

When the Taliban kidnapped New York Times reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan, the paper convinced 40 media organizations plus Wikipedia not to report on it out of concerns that it would compromise Rohde's safety. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told the Times, once Rohde was free, that “We were really helped by the fact that it (postings on Rohde) hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source.” Thus, Wales and other senior Wikipedia editors showed they were willing to rely on the “unreliable source” canard to delete information they had been told by a very reliable source was true, even when a more noble reason—Rohde’s safety—would have justified it.

And finally, the number one reason you can't cite or rely on Wikipedia:

1. It says so on Wikipedia
Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”

Furthermore, as Wikipedia notes in its “About” section, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information.”

Reference: Using Wikipedia

Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly. To learn more, read findingDulcinea’s Web Guide to Wikipedia in the Classroom.

North Carolina State University Libraries has a short video that explains what Wikipedia is and how information is entered into it. Take a tour of the “article,” “discussion,” “edit this page” and “history” tabs to go “beneath the surface” of Wikipedia.

Stephen Colbert takes a satirical view of Wikipedia in a segment on his show and on his own user-generated encyclopedia, Wikiality. Though intended for laughs, it captures, in an entertaining fashion, why Wikipedia can't be relied upon as a sole source of information.
See the source image
Fat Bastardo's Op Ed:  Since Mark E Moran's was published in October of 2011 Wikipedia's governance has descended into a state of what can best be described as a chaotic cabal of dictatorships run by a cadre of agenda driven despots and expert liar. At this point Wikipedia is beyond redemption. It's governance and integrity have clearly become victims of the post truth era. 
Wikipedia can still be used as resource for subjects such an engineering, or entertainment but for subjects like sociology, history or politics, the agenda trolls and SJWs have ensured that their biased agendas and misinformation will go unchallenged unless you take the time to edit the pages yourself and challenge the Wiki-Nazis. 

When you come across an article that shows clear bias, edit it. If the Wiki-Nazis revert it back edit it again until they block you. At that point retaliate in any way you see fit.

Asshole Rand Paul

Another Republican Pack Of Lies - Demotivational Poster