Soooooo if you clicked the link then how didn’t you see the part which clarifies the thing that is supposedly misleading? In the interest of brevity it’s impossible to write all details into an article; particularly when you’ve written about it before and you’ve linked to that article from the one which contains an incomplete quote. Not really sure what you’re trying to say there with your EULA commentary, apart from it being a lame attempt at annoying me. I’ve been here a long time and your overtures are adorable.
You’re arguing semantics to prove that something is confusing, when you’re the only person who seems to be having any trouble understanding it. It’s perfectly clear and it’s merely you injecting confusion and conjecture into the subject.
One figure (it’s 0.000025% btw) is from a 2006 document that contain other statements that are now known to be factually wrong. The other figure is a FISA court opinion that is from two months ago and comes after the Snowden revelations. Why does it matter how far the WSJ figure is off considering the guy’s basing it on information that’s nearing a decade old and that information is directly contradicted by a fucking federal court?
This has been great, let’s do it again sometime.
