Avast WEBforum

Other => General Topics => Topic started by: william8004 on November 17, 2012, 04:21:26 AM

Title: Google Chrome
Post by: william8004 on November 17, 2012, 04:21:26 AM
If you don't stop trying to force me to install Google Chrome, I'm done with you.  Stop giving me popups about installing it even when I have popups disabled in settings.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 17, 2012, 09:49:36 AM
Might you be able to do a screen shot of the next popup?  Would appreciate the help in understanding what sort of popup you are seeing.

Thank you.

Wait a moment.  I forget.  Are new folks here able to attach images?
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Asyn on November 17, 2012, 11:21:33 AM
Wait a moment.  I forget.  Are new folks here able to attach images?

Yes.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 17, 2012, 11:29:01 AM
Wait a moment.  I forget.  Are new folks here able to attach images?

Yes.

Thank you, Asyn.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Asyn on November 17, 2012, 11:30:20 AM
You're welcome.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 17, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
If you don't stop trying to force me to install Google Chrome, I'm done with you.  Stop giving me popups about installing it even when I have popups disabled in settings.
You aren't being forced to install chrome. It's a suggestion that you can refuse.
See if this helps:
http://youtu.be/KJcfAZHGRHE (http://youtu.be/KJcfAZHGRHE)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Aventador on November 17, 2012, 02:22:36 PM
Google Chrome is the safest and fastest browser around. Like bob said "Its a suggestion". No one is forcing anything on you. Be happy the Avast team is looking out for everyone and trying to make them aware of Google Chrome.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 17, 2012, 02:55:53 PM
Get real, folks!

It's not that they are trying to offer some advice about a browser.  Not at all.  Not even close!!

What it is is that Google, Inc. forces Avast to do the opt-out style, instead of the opt-in.

Don't feed BS to people, okay?  We know you folks aren't that stupid.

This is the heavy hand of one man -- Larry Page!!!  Plain and simple.

And that idea that Chrome is the safest is also BS.  The information Google, Inc. is stuffing into their data files that they collect from those that use Chrome should be illegal.

But as the United States government is also storing data and much of it with the help of Google, Inc. it will be a cold day in hell when any United States lawmaker will clamp down on all this data collecting.

So who can we turn to to protect us from all this?
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Aventador on November 17, 2012, 03:15:01 PM
Get real, folks!

It's not that they are trying to offer some advice about a browser.  Not at all.  Not even close!!

What it is is that Google, Inc. forces Avast to do the opt-out style, instead of the opt-in.

Don't feed BS to people, okay?  We know you folks aren't that stupid.

This is the heavy hand of one man -- Larry Page!!!  Plain and simple.

And that idea that Chrome is the safest is also BS.  The information Google, Inc. is stuffing into their data files that they collect from those that use Chrome should be illegal.

But as the United States government is also storing data and much of it with the help of Google, Inc. it will be a cold day in hell when any United States lawmaker will clamp down on all this data collecting.

So who can we turn to to protect us from all this?

Do your research my friend. Chrome with its add ons and sandbox is by far the safest and fastest browser around.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 17, 2012, 03:15:09 PM
@ ManyQs,
Your preaching not helping.  :)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 17, 2012, 03:20:42 PM
Do your research my friend. Chrome with its add ons and sandbox is by far the safest and fastest browser around.
William8004 asked a question.
Please stick to answering his remarks. (Personal opinions aren't helpful.)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 17, 2012, 03:26:28 PM
@ ManyQs,
Your preaching not helping.  :)

Yes, you might be right,  but who is trying to help who(m)?

Anyway, we're waiting for the return of the OP, so while we wait and as long as others are going to ... you know, do that.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: polonus on November 17, 2012, 04:21:59 PM
@ManyQs,

You certainly will like the contents on this site. The translation into English is here:
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ikhebniksteverbergen.nl%2Finternet&act=url
"I have nothing to hide" is the excuse  that will provide  some with the pre-text to give up their online privacy alltogether,
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 17, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
Thank you for posting that link, polonus.

You know, I always have in my head something that took place a few years ago.  Some CEO or president of some hotshot tech company was saying something about there being no more privacy in the world and folks should just get over it and it popped into my mind whether that fella would have a bank account and if he did if he had posted the account number and password and all that because there wasn't any privacy anyway.

It's funny how all these folks that make money from taking away our privacy still try to have some privacy of their own even while they are doing like that rich fella and extolling the benefits of us giving away our privacy, but they keep all their money privately stashed away in some bank that must have assured them that their money is safe because of all the safeguards of their private PINs and all that.  Ironic, isn't it?  There's no privacy for you, but don't touch my money.

The day when there really isn't a thing called privacy in the world will truly be a remarkable day in the history of the human race, because on that day we will all truly be equal.

The way I see it, the only reason these hotshot tech companies want to take away my privacy is because they want to make some money at my expense.  And they are succeeding and the reason they are succeeding is because the lawmakers twenty years ago weren't paying attention and now it's too late.

Well, that is until there is that really, really massive solar flare that wipes out the Internet as we know it and Dr. Neumann gets his wish and we start all over again.

You folks do know about Dr. Peter G. Neumann, don't you?
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 17, 2012, 05:12:53 PM
Please don't go totally into outer space.
This post wasn't started for you to go into your personal philosophy.

Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: polonus on November 17, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
Hi bob3160,

Well at least now we know what position ManyQs holds and what her favourite hobby horse is. So much for clarity and as I said before on other occasions and in other threads where she reacted I think avast is not the right platform to ride this hobby horse of hers,

polonus
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 17, 2012, 05:45:31 PM
This isn't ManyQ's thread.  ;)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Aventador on November 17, 2012, 07:11:51 PM
Please don't go totally into outer space.
This post wasn't started for you to go into your personal philosophy.

Thanks bob. Well said!
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Para-Noid on November 17, 2012, 08:02:42 PM
Please don't go totally into outer space.
This post wasn't started for you to go into your personal philosophy.
Amen to that.  :)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 18, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
It would appear that personal attacks are quite okay in this thread.  And given the members that are conducting such personal attacks, it must be okay anywhere in/on this forum, right?  I was not aware of that little detail about this forum.  Thank you for educating me.  I'll see if I can be like you folks and cast aspersions upon a member's character when I don't like what someone posts.

But now I suppose you all will have some way to state that indicating someone's post is "totally into outer space" is not cruel, or mean, or nasty.  That is just kind and understanding English.

Oh yes, and a response to one post about how safe Chrome is then makes me so off-topic it is worthy of a warning from one of you elite folks.  Then a response to a link about privacy is then worthy of another warning about it not being my thread, thus meaning off-topic.  No such barbs aimed at the other two members.  Only me.  Yes, that's very nice and fair and reasonable.

The funny thing is the OP is actually complaining about an Avast company policy related to a Google, Inc. product and is not asking any questions.  I was the first to ask a question.  I was not the first to start into opinions about the Google product the OP clearly doesn't want.

Oh, and I must remember that with the elite on this site privacy is a bygone notion and expounding upon its value is only worthy of scorn.

Yes, at least we now know, as one of you wrote.

But it's odd that casting barbs at me is okay, but nobody disputed that the opt-out instead of the opt-in at this company is mandated by Google, Inc.  You can't cast doubt upon that statement so you will just shoot the messenger.  Yep, we know that technique.  It's become quite common these days.  Unlike me you folks are in tune with the times.  Be nasty.  It's acceptable now.

And being in outer space is weird English.  Where is inner space?  Space is space, my friend.  But you knew that, right?

And I decided you might wish to see how far out into space I am:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538

Quote
The chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems said Monday that consumer privacy issues are a "red herring."
"You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company's new Jini technology.

"Get over it."

McNealy's comments came only hours after competitor Intel (INTC) reversed course under pressure and disabled identification features in its forthcoming Pentium III chip.

... ... ...  truncated ... ... ...



I apologize, because the comments were made much longer ago than I had remembered.  More than ten years ago.  But us folks that are not in touch with reality on this planet tend to lose track of time.  Sorry about that.


EDIT to fix punctuation.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Charyb on November 18, 2012, 04:04:48 AM
It would appear that personal attacks are quite okay in this thread.  And given the members that are conducting such personal attacks, it must be okay anywhere in/on this forum, right?  I was not aware of that little detail about this forum.  Thank you for educating me.  I'll see if I can be like you folks and cast aspersions upon a member's character when I don't like what someone posts.

But now I suppose you all will have some way to state that indicating someone's post is "totally into outer space" is not cruel, or mean, or nasty.  That is just kind and understanding English.

Oh yes, and a response to one post about how safe Chrome is then makes me so off-topic it is worthy of a warning from one of you elite folks.  Then a response to a link about privacy is then worthy of another warning about it not being my thread, thus meaning off-topic.  No such barbs aimed at the other two members.  Only me.  Yes, that's very nice and fair and reasonable.

The funny thing is the OP is actually complaining about an Avast company policy related to a Google, Inc. product and is not asking any questions.  I was the first to ask a question.  I was not the first to start into opinions about the Google product the OP clearly doesn't want.

Oh, and I must remember that with the elite on this site privacy is a bygone notion and expounding upon its value is only worthy of scorn.

Yes, at least we now know, as one of you wrote.

But it's odd that casting barbs at me is okay, but nobody disputed that the opt-out instead of the opt-in at this company is mandated by Google, Inc.  You can't cast doubt upon that statement so you will just shoot the messenger.  Yep, we know that technique.  It's become quite common these days.  Unlike me you folks are in tune with the times.  Be nasty.  It's acceptable now.

And being in outer space is weird English.  Where is inner space?  Space is space, my friend.  But you knew that, right?

And I decided you might wish to see how far out into space I am:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538

Quote
The chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems said Monday that consumer privacy issues are a "red herring."
"You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company's new Jini technology.

"Get over it."

McNealy's comments came only hours after competitor Intel (INTC) reversed course under pressure and disabled identification features in its forthcoming Pentium III chip.

... ... ...  truncated ... ... ...



I apologize, because the comments were made much longer ago than I had remembered.  More than ten years ago.  But us folks that are not in touch with reality on this planet tend to lose track of time.  Sorry about that.


EDIT to fix punctuation.


Personal attacks? I don't see this at all. Don't you think this may be a little overdramatic? I do see  posts that probably weren't necessary and do absolutely nothing to help the original poster or to keep things on topic.

I also see posts where the intent was meant to keep things on topic.

In several threads you voice privacy concerns. If you wish to discuss privacy issues then why not create your own topic and discuss it there? Hijacking someone's thread for your own personal agenda is rather rude.

It's a matter of common courtesy and forum etiquette.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 18, 2012, 04:40:18 AM
Quote
Please don't go totally into outer space.

You don't see that as an attack upon me.  I am being overdramatic by thinking it is a personal attack on me.

And we now add that I have been rude.

Did I start with the opinions in this thread?

Did I post the only substantive response to the OP?  By which I mean does anyone here have a clue what popup the OP was referring to?

Well, I'll just take my rude arse over to the corner where it seems you members of that elite club wish for me to be.

By the way, where might I be allowed to start a thread on Net privacy concerns?  There's no forum/sub-forum for that. 
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Charyb on November 18, 2012, 05:10:12 AM
By the way, where might I be allowed to start a thread on Net privacy concerns?  There's no forum/sub-forum for that.

The general forum.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 18, 2012, 04:26:32 PM
Quote
Please don't go totally into outer space.

You don't see that as an attack upon me.  I am being overdramatic by thinking it is a personal attack on me.
(snip)
It was an attempt to keep this thread on topic which you still seem to have a problem doing.
(Personal attacks are best done face to face and are meaningless in an open forum. Certainly not something I have done.)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: polonus on November 18, 2012, 04:49:35 PM
Well I cannot see why ManyQ does not do something positive with her complaints. It is good to make others aware of the fact that the modern Internet will create various privacy concerns. It also is legit to question Google's privacy policy and what they seem fit to do with the giant private data bomb they are sitting on. But all this does not change one jota on the given situation. For instance the return of the "scroogle" search service that was discontinued could help. Webproxies won't help because they also use full data retention. What are the alternatives as almost every site uses Google Analytics for tracking?
But then I do not hear ManyQ to come up with privacy neutral alternatives that won't feed BigBro's demands.....

polonus
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 18, 2012, 05:03:54 PM
Unfortunately none of this has anything to do with the original post made by William8004.  :(
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: polonus on November 18, 2012, 05:21:48 PM
Hi bob3160,

Agree with you there that the thread was being hijacked period. I just ventilated that I cannot imagine why ManyQs does not start a thread of her own in the general forum section and does continue breaking in to existing threads to ventilate on her "allergies".

And in my previous post in this hijacked thread I said that when she breaks in she does not offer any upbuilding criticism, only gives us negativistic rants.

polonus
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 18, 2012, 05:34:51 PM
Quote
Please don't go totally into outer space.

You don't see that as an attack upon me.  I am being overdramatic by thinking it is a personal attack on me.
(snip)
It was an attempt to keep this thread on topic which you still seem to have a problem doing.
(Personal attacks are best done face to face and are meaningless in an open forum. Certainly not something I have done.)

"Certainly not something I have done."

I'm trying very hard to figure out how that -- "Please don't go totally into outer space." -- I'm trying very hard to figure out how that is considered polite use of the English language.  Am studying it very hard. 

I'll keep working on it. 

Then when I have figured that use of the English language and its politeness in the Englsih language I'll try and figure out why that link that was posted by one of the members of the elite here was not off-topic.  That link I responded to but my response was the only off-topic part of that exchange/discussion.  Before my response it was just fine for this thread.  Maybe only the elite here can do that sort of stuff.  Like the elite here are the only ones allowed to insult other members.

Oh heck, my mistake again.  That wasn't an insult.  Nor a personal attack.  That is the way the elite talk down to the lower ranks on this board.  And if the lower ranks talk back then they are really out of line and need to be slapped down by as many of the elite as possible that can be talked into firing barbs of indignation at that out-of-line lower ranking member.  The system here is quite clear and I will try very hard to fall into line.

But first I have to go look at my profile and see what gender I entered in whatever part of the profile that has someone ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...  Note To Self ... ... ... ... ...

*Now remember ManyQs to mind your manners, ya hear?  You just be a good little lowly peon here and none o' dat talkin' back to them elite folks.  They want to throw shite at you, you just take it and keep your trap shut, ya hear!?*
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 18, 2012, 06:10:03 PM
No need to fall into line. Just stay on topic.  :)
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: DavidR on November 18, 2012, 07:02:17 PM
@ ManyQs
I think that you have a reasonable grasp of English given the sarcasm in your signature.

So I would have thought that you would have grasped that the "Please don't go totally into outer space." remark was plain enough in relation previous comments about your dragging the topic 'off-topic,' e.g. please stay on-topic.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: ManyQs on November 19, 2012, 01:22:40 AM
My God, you people just don't stop, do you?

Now you are denigrating my signature, which you must be aware is in that banner on that forum.  Now you folks have gone from denigrating just me to using the Avast organization to denigrate another organization -- denigrating a group of people you don't even know.  You're just not going to stop until you achieve some goal cooked up in that  Evangelist/Überevangelist sub-forum of yours.

For all I know you folks cooked this whole thing up from the get-go to try and cause me to go so far overboard you could then start a campaign to have me banned.  Maybe some Avast company officials are behind this because of my post about them bowing to the Larry Page pressure.  I am quite sure that Avast company officials have member privledges to allow them to read what's posted on the Evangelist/Überevangelist Group sub-forum.

Maybe you folks have just had it in for me since way back when.

Maybe this is all completely unfounded thinking, but there isn't any way we will know, right?

But on the unfounded thinking aspect stands something that is so glaring it would shine even coming out of the sun at a pilot at 10,000 feet.

With all this stampede out of that Evangelist/Überevangelist sub-forum to throw dirty water at ManyQs about how far off-topic he has been we see not one post from any of you Evangelist/Überevangelist sub-forum types that this post is off-topic.


Quote
@ManyQs,

You certainly will like the contents on this site. The translation into English is here:
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ikhebniksteverbergen.nl%2Finternet&act=url
"I have nothing to hide" is the excuse  that will provide  some with the pre-text to give up their online privacy alltogether,

Now how could it be that a fair-minded group, as you will call yourselves, has not done at least one acknowledgement, in your role as forum moderators, that ManyQs has not been the only guilty party here?  ManyQs already acknowledged his guilt in a response to your chief.  Or is that also going to be ignored.

And in all your attempts to snatch at any little detail to turn up the flame against ManyQs it couldn't possibly have escaped your notice that the first person to use the vocabulary "privacy" in this thread was one of your own group members.  Of course you didn't miss that.  But that must have been the bait, right?  "Draw him out where we can shoot at him."

Of course, just as  I predicted you'd state that there was absolutely no personal attack in that previous shot at me you will now state that ManyQs is so off his rocker that ...


... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...


Now I want an official group apology for that denigration of my signature or the paperwork -- Yes! hard copy, snail mail-spending paperwork. -- is going to be asking for some heads.  Maybe the ringleaders of this campaign in the Evangelist/Überevangelist Group against ManyQs have convinced you Evangelist/Überevangelist Group members this campaign against ManyQs is justified by my stances on issues that also cause headaches for the Avast company, but when you use this Avast platform to start denigrating an outside organization you have just stepped way, way out of bounds.  Or you have the authority from the CEO to do what you are doing.  I have no idea to what lengths you people will go to try and get a member banned, but the words written here can't be any clearer when read out on a piece of paper -- this is an orchestrated campaign and you just went too far.

As a matter of fact, I just told some folks at a dinner last night that from what all I have seen here over the past year or so I am beginning to sense that Larry Page is trying to scoop up Avast, too.  And you can bet your sweet arse they are seeing this campaign with eyes that don't hasve the brown-nosing sheen of a sycophant.

Speak-Ez wants that apology.  That is not a request!
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: bob3160 on November 19, 2012, 02:07:13 AM
You're still off topic.  :(
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: SPZ Co-founder on November 19, 2012, 02:27:58 AM
As a co-founder of the Speak-Ez Forums and a director on the board of the SPZ Network I have concerns about the insult of our site's banner by a member of an Avast forum sanctioned group.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Charyb on November 19, 2012, 02:58:56 AM
As a co-founder of the Speak-Ez Forums and a director on the board of the SPZ Network I have concerns about the insult of our site's banner by a member of an Avast forum sanctioned group.


Please locate and quote the insult you are referring to.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: DavidR on November 19, 2012, 03:16:33 AM
As a co-founder of the Speak-Ez Forums and a director on the board of the SPZ Network I have concerns about the insult of our site's banner by a member of an Avast forum sanctioned group.

There is no insult to your site, the error was in my thinking that the sarcasm ManyQs posted was part of his signature and not part of the actual post. So ManyQs has the wrong end of the stick in running off telling tales.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: SPZ Co-founder on November 19, 2012, 03:36:10 AM
Quote
Charyb -

Please locate and quote the insult you are referring to.


Please identify your administrative or moderation role on these forums.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: Charyb on November 19, 2012, 03:44:32 AM
You can't locate an insult because there is not one to be found.
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: CraigB on November 19, 2012, 04:26:47 AM
Sorry but there has been no degradation or insults thrown towards yourself or your signature, the first place you went wrong was thinking Bob had insulted you with the outer space comment which was really just another way of saying that your so far off topic your in outer space.

Secondly the comment about you being a member of the Speak-Ez Forums was only in reflect that being a member of that forum you should have a good grasp of the English language and should have understood Bob's comment about going off into outer space was not an insult.

There is also no conspiracy to get you banned, this is a forum for helping people with security problems and not a chat site for you to drag all topics into the realm of your privacy concern issues which you have done so on so many threads and is also the reason why everyone has been repeatedly mentioning "stay on topic".
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: william8004 on November 29, 2012, 01:12:10 AM
I didn't get the chrome screen, but I do have this one.  Why does it keep showing me the popups when I don't have them selected to show?  Thanks.

sorry for my previous outbreak.



Will
Title: Re: Google Chrome
Post by: DavidR on November 29, 2012, 02:04:25 AM
Because zero isn't a valid input for the duration, the minimum duration is 1 second.

You can elect not to 'Show notification box after automatic update' in the Update settings.