Maybe you need to read my first comment again: I clearly said that you can find the correct, non-misleading, information by clicking through to the second EFF piece. It also would not have taken any additional space to write the BB-linked piece in a non-misleading way.
I don’t think that what I’m saying about EULAs and terms & conditions is that difficult: websites often have conditions that do not appear on the first page of anything, but can be found by following links. If you’re saying that readers should be aware of all information that is contained on any linked page, it’s pretty clear that you should find EULAs and T&C pages unobjectionable.
Congratulations on being here a long time. [quote=“teapot, post:16, topic:15548”]
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.
[/quote]
By the same token, I could say that you’re the only one claiming that the BB-linked piece was perfectly clear and non-misleading.
If it doesn’t matter how far the WSJ figure is off, then why does the EFF article quote it, why does it pretend to rebut it, and why does it care at all? And heck, does the 17,000 figure even show that the 0.000025% figure is wrong, let alone directly contradict it? And remember, you’re not allowed to do any math on these cold, hard figures, because that would just be introducing unnecessary confusion and conjecture.
Also, the FISC opinion containing the 17,000 figure is from 2009, and not “from two months ago,” which means only three years separates the 17,000 and 0.000025% figures. Not that I think this is particularly relevant, but you seemed to think the difference between two-month old data and something “nearing a decade old” was important.
