Slashdot Mirror

Ahhh oops. That explains it.

Also, I noticed that although host was not giving an ipv6 addy, wget was, but that's just because facebook.com redirects to www.facebook.com that does have ipv6. Missed that first time.

~$ wget facebook.com
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://facebook.com/
Resolving facebook.com... 69.63.181.12, 69.63.189.16, 69.63.189.11
Connecting to facebook.com|69.63.181.12|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.facebook.com/ [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://www.facebook.com/
Resolving www.facebook.com... 2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2, 69.63.189.26
Connecting to www.facebook.com|2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:05-- http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr
Resolving m.facebook.com... 66.220.147.43
Connecting to m.facebook.com|66.220.147.43|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

That's a good dual stack test for the client end right there... 4 and 6 in one instance of wget.

Ahhh oops. That explains it.

Also, I noticed that although host was not giving an ipv6 addy, wget was, but that's just because facebook.com redirects to www.facebook.com that does have ipv6. Missed that first time.

~$ wget facebook.com
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://facebook.com/
Resolving facebook.com... 69.63.181.12, 69.63.189.16, 69.63.189.11
Connecting to facebook.com|69.63.181.12|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.facebook.com/ [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://www.facebook.com/
Resolving www.facebook.com... 2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2, 69.63.189.26
Connecting to www.facebook.com|2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:05-- http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr
Resolving m.facebook.com... 66.220.147.43
Connecting to m.facebook.com|66.220.147.43|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

That's a good dual stack test for the client end right there... 4 and 6 in one instance of wget.

Ahhh oops. That explains it.

Also, I noticed that although host was not giving an ipv6 addy, wget was, but that's just because facebook.com redirects to www.facebook.com that does have ipv6. Missed that first time.

~$ wget facebook.com
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://facebook.com/
Resolving facebook.com... 69.63.181.12, 69.63.189.16, 69.63.189.11
Connecting to facebook.com|69.63.181.12|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.facebook.com/ [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://www.facebook.com/
Resolving www.facebook.com... 2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2, 69.63.189.26
Connecting to www.facebook.com|2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:05-- http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr
Resolving m.facebook.com... 66.220.147.43
Connecting to m.facebook.com|66.220.147.43|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

That's a good dual stack test for the client end right there... 4 and 6 in one instance of wget.

Ahhh oops. That explains it.

Also, I noticed that although host was not giving an ipv6 addy, wget was, but that's just because facebook.com redirects to www.facebook.com that does have ipv6. Missed that first time.

~$ wget facebook.com
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://facebook.com/
Resolving facebook.com... 69.63.181.12, 69.63.189.16, 69.63.189.11
Connecting to facebook.com|69.63.181.12|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.facebook.com/ [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:04-- http://www.facebook.com/
Resolving www.facebook.com... 2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2, 69.63.189.26
Connecting to www.facebook.com|2620:0:1c00:0:face:b00c:0:2|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr [following]
--2011-06-08 12:00:05-- http://m.facebook.com/?w2m&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr
Resolving m.facebook.com... 66.220.147.43
Connecting to m.facebook.com|66.220.147.43|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

That's a good dual stack test for the client end right there... 4 and 6 in one instance of wget.

Facebook has had an IPv6 server running for some time. And Amazon support IPv6 for AWS, so I'd be surprised if they do not have at least an unpublicised test server running for their main site.

Facebook does, actually, at http://www.v6.facebook.com./

That's a lie, my browser says "The requested URL could not be retrieved"!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone is missing out on a good opportunity.

I actually read it as smoke pot the first time too.

Facebook does, actually, at http://www.v6.facebook.com./

> ping www.v6.facebook.com

Pinging www.v6.facebook.com [2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=169ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms

Ping statistics for 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3:
        Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
        Minimum = 169ms, Maximum = 170ms, Average = 169ms

On 'World IPv6 Day', they'll be making their main site (i.e. www.facebook.com) IPv6-enabled. That's really what the point of this day is ... not to test IPv6 itself, but to iron out bugs that might occur when major sites go to dual-stack on their main sites (both on their end, and the users' end).

after seeing what the genetically modified crap monsanto propagates around (curiously after a while the crap propagates itself without help from anyone), this is a win for my stomach.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/0328221/Organ-Damage-In-Rats-From-Monsanto-GMO-Corn?art_pos=1

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wood-prairie-farm/the-complete-text-of-dr-don-m-hubers-letter-to-usda-secretary-vilsak/197340006962367

http://vimeo.com/22997532

Of course he was raised as a Catholic! One look at his Facebook page should tell you that!

He's what you might call a Kosher Katholic.

Just followed the link and clicked "Report Page". You have a right to your opinions, but if you will go ahead and get people with opposing viewpoints' Facebook pages deleted, then I'm very glad yours got deleted too. I'm only disappointed a) nobody else got theirs back and b) you got yours back.

You could try to friend her?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Amelia-Fraser-Mckelvie/682534821

Well, not really. I worked in the industry that trades that information, and provides it to private investigators, law enforcement, and collections companies. Others provide it to anyone willing to pay. I know what some use for data sources. I still know people involved with those companies. They talk about their data sources, what they can provide to anyone who wants it.

Have you ever searched for yourself on intelius.com? How about looked at the current value of your house on zillow.com? Maybe searched for someone on zabasearch.com? Where do you think they get their information? Yes, they buy it.

I've also worked with people who have worked in other business segments of the same industry. For example, one company handles information used by marketing companies. They sell customized lists. You could get every independent car dealership within 100 miles of a particular city. Another company only trades in email lists. The more details with those email addresses the better. Want the email address for everyone in Middletown, Kansas? They'll be happy to provide it? Add to the list from Foursquare would then give you every person residing in the town, *and* those who "check in" there.

Those companies buy access to the credit reports. Not just hand picked ones, but all of them. They're expensive to buy, but they are out there. Does it show on your credit report? Then it's accessible. Search for "Experian File One" or "TransUnion TUCS file". You're looking at a 7-figure price, plus a whole stack of qualifications, but for the right price, they're more than happy to sell information on every person in the country.

They also buy lists or access to the lists of anything they can. Some it was perfectly legal, and some not so legal. For example, and unhappy and underpaid employee of a cell company may just happen to copy off the list of subscribers, and sell it for tens of thousands of dollars. Some random hacker gets a dump of the Sony database. They may not be in it for the credit card numbers. They may have wanted a verified list of names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers. The card numbers will stop working pretty quickly if they attempt to use them. The rest of the information is worth a fortune. How big was that data breech again? Oh ya, only 100 million users. That'll have a nice price tag on it when it goes to market. Of course, it will be filtered to remove seeds, and handed through so many people, it'd be easier to find the Holy Grail than the source.

If there is information available online, no matter how tedious it is to click through the forms, they have programs diligently pulling down ever bit they can. You can't guess every name on Facebook, but you can crawl through it pretty quickly. How hard would be be to write a script to request (through various anonymous proxies, with changing USER_AGENT strings):

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1
through
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2100000000

It'd take a while to run through 2,100,000,000 pages (that's the upper limit I found by changing the id number by hand, without redirecting automatically back to the front page). That's if you have one computer doing them one at a time. How about 100 servers with 100 crawler processes each? 210,000 seconds, or 2.43 days. It may seem like a lot of horsepower to do it, but it's very profitable if even a small percentage have their profiles open for anyone to see.

But what about Foursquare, since that was the topic?

https://foursquare.com/user/1
through

Well, not really. I worked in the industry that trades that information, and provides it to private investigators, law enforcement, and collections companies. Others provide it to anyone willing to pay. I know what some use for data sources. I still know people involved with those companies. They talk about their data sources, what they can provide to anyone who wants it.

Have you ever searched for yourself on intelius.com? How about looked at the current value of your house on zillow.com? Maybe searched for someone on zabasearch.com? Where do you think they get their information? Yes, they buy it.

I've also worked with people who have worked in other business segments of the same industry. For example, one company handles information used by marketing companies. They sell customized lists. You could get every independent car dealership within 100 miles of a particular city. Another company only trades in email lists. The more details with those email addresses the better. Want the email address for everyone in Middletown, Kansas? They'll be happy to provide it? Add to the list from Foursquare would then give you every person residing in the town, *and* those who "check in" there.

Those companies buy access to the credit reports. Not just hand picked ones, but all of them. They're expensive to buy, but they are out there. Does it show on your credit report? Then it's accessible. Search for "Experian File One" or "TransUnion TUCS file". You're looking at a 7-figure price, plus a whole stack of qualifications, but for the right price, they're more than happy to sell information on every person in the country.

They also buy lists or access to the lists of anything they can. Some it was perfectly legal, and some not so legal. For example, and unhappy and underpaid employee of a cell company may just happen to copy off the list of subscribers, and sell it for tens of thousands of dollars. Some random hacker gets a dump of the Sony database. They may not be in it for the credit card numbers. They may have wanted a verified list of names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers. The card numbers will stop working pretty quickly if they attempt to use them. The rest of the information is worth a fortune. How big was that data breech again? Oh ya, only 100 million users. That'll have a nice price tag on it when it goes to market. Of course, it will be filtered to remove seeds, and handed through so many people, it'd be easier to find the Holy Grail than the source.

If there is information available online, no matter how tedious it is to click through the forms, they have programs diligently pulling down ever bit they can. You can't guess every name on Facebook, but you can crawl through it pretty quickly. How hard would be be to write a script to request (through various anonymous proxies, with changing USER_AGENT strings):

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1
through
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2100000000

It'd take a while to run through 2,100,000,000 pages (that's the upper limit I found by changing the id number by hand, without redirecting automatically back to the front page). That's if you have one computer doing them one at a time. How about 100 servers with 100 crawler processes each? 210,000 seconds, or 2.43 days. It may seem like a lot of horsepower to do it, but it's very profitable if even a small percentage have their profiles open for anyone to see.

But what about Foursquare, since that was the topic?

https://foursquare.com/user/1
through

http://www.v6.facebook.com/

they also have an alternate v6 site, but don't recall what it was.

If you think this site is borked, you should check out their Facebook page!

This is neither cool nor interesting.

Who died and made you the arbiter of cool and interesting?

What is the concept, that browsers can be made to do more things they were never intended to do?

Yes. "Making things do what they were not intended to do" is what we call "Hacking". Perhaps you should try another website instead?

Won't you sign up your name?
We'd like to feel that you're acceptable
Respectable,
presentable,
a vegetable...

...the average person has no idea.

That's what they get for not reading Slashdot...

Feature, not bug. All us non-functioning hi-IQ types have fucked this place up enough, what happens if the hoi polloi show up?

Oh, yeah, that.

facebook.com still points to http://www.facebook.com/ by default, I'll wait for the headline when THAT changes.

Didn't you know? They've had a opt-out for years now, although there is no link to it, you just kind of have to know how to do it
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=i_am_13_and_want_to_be_opted_out_of_exploitation/yes/yes_i_really_want_to/yes_im_sure/yes_i_agree_to_tos/

Go to Facebook -> Account -> Apps and Web Sites -> Edit Your Settings ->Apps You Use -> Turn Off Platform Apps.

Even that doesn't stop everything. Go to Account-> Privacy Settings -> Block LIsts. This is where you see the list of apps you've blocked from contacting you when run by others. But you can't actually block anything from there. You have to find the Facebook page of the annoying app (for example, FarmVille) and then click on "Block App". Now, no more annoying Farmville messages. You may also have to find "Zynga's Players Community" and block that, too. Also, for Foursquare, you need to block both Foursquare and Foursquare Badges.

Yes, you have to do all this just to block the companies whose apps have the intrusion level of an anal probe.

https://www.facebook.com/toyota
https://www.facebook.com/Sony

Big companies and little guys (the other 500M on FB) are outsourcing a lot to third parties in terms of their brand, their communication, their data, their users..

And while we're at it, it doesn't seem like Sony ceding its community comms to Facebook is a problem. Sony managing it's Playstation network security was its problem (totally in-housed as far as I can tell).

My point is just that generalizations about insource/outsource paid/free are overly broad in terms of figuring out the right course of action in IT today.

https://www.facebook.com/toyota
https://www.facebook.com/Sony

Big companies and little guys (the other 500M on FB) are outsourcing a lot to third parties in terms of their brand, their communication, their data, their users..

And while we're at it, it doesn't seem like Sony ceding its community comms to Facebook is a problem. Sony managing it's Playstation network security was its problem (totally in-housed as far as I can tell).

My point is just that generalizations about insource/outsource paid/free are overly broad in terms of figuring out the right course of action in IT today.

I made an attempt to classify "truthiness" with opinion coming and going but the results being placed into permanent facts.

The Facebook page is: Here. And the mechanics page is: Here. It could definitely be improved but as a basis it is a "wisdom of crowds" type harnesser. I've always thought of it as a "classifer" for "truthiness."

There's a movement to do just that:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Official-Petition-to-Establish-Hella-as-the-SI-Prefix-for-1027/277479937276

heh.

Personally I'd have gone for "gigantor-"

It's still being played. =)

Join us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_178060565542861&ap=1

We will keep full servers going occasionally. Other people modified my code (I ran it open source from the beginning), so if you liked playing as a warlock, there's even more options for you now. =)

Indeed. I have a unique surname, and tried very hard to keep it away from Facebook. I asked all of my friends to never use it, and they didn't. They understood the reason behind it. I join a group about a possible school reunion, and the first three posts after I join are "Who's that?" "I don't know." "It's $Firstname $Surname he was in my class." I've since deleted my account, for what good that'll do.

That's OK Mr Hitler, your secret is safe with us on slashdot.

Indeed. I have a unique surname, and tried very hard to keep it away from Facebook. I asked all of my friends to never use it, and they didn't. They understood the reason behind it.

I join a group about a possible school reunion, and the first three posts after I join are "Who's that?" "I don't know." "It's $Firstname $Surname he was in my class."

I've since deleted my account, for what good that'll do.

it should also be noted that there's a line "Follow us on Facebook" on this site...

http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/

Which leads to here:
http://www.facebook.com/wikileaks

He did much more than that, apparently he also brought down PSN and told someone how to reset COD stats
http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-George-Hotz-For-Hacking-PS3-Fuing-Prk/102828309796766

That's what happens when these ignorant illiterate dummies learn to associate a name to a thing, doesn't matter what he actually did, PS3+hack=? "George did it! Tar and feathers!"
And that was his downfall, to promote a name and provide a target (at least a better one than a faceless corporation).
Had he cured cancer it'd still all come down to "I heard he did something, then Sony did something and something bad happened to my PS3, what an asshole".

Let me guess. It was these guys.

Agree. The similarities kinda end when Cisco doesn't cause the death of people. But that isn't black and white either. It would ignore the fact that while they don't really have a large presence in totalitarian governments, they kinda don't care about who they do business with because indirectly oppressing people is profitable.

Of course if they did it right with a clearly visible link to the HTTPS address it would work (though take a huge toll on their servers).

https://www.facebook.com/editaccount.php
Account Security
Set up secure browsing (https) and login alerts.
Secure Browsing (https)
Browse Facebook on a secure connection (https) whenever possible
When a new computer or mobile device logs into this account: Send me an email

Frankly why not let them create an account for you?

I mean does it matter? They're creating false profiles about you in their banking system - in a lot of places that's actionable. Just like if someone else opened an account in your name in Bank of America, or Barclays, it doesn't make you liable. And should their demonstrably false information materially harm you then you can recover that cost, and pretty much recover the cost of recovering the costs, etc. It's hassle, but you add that to the costs that facebook would have to host. Not to mention the legal minefield of libel when your 'friends' say unpleasant things about you on their (or your) walls and it suddenly increases the cost of your mortgage as you're now a higher risk. Would facebook assume that liability? Because some has to, giving random people the ability to materially detriment your life is going to be a lawyers wet dream I'd expect.

The article mentions 680million facebook users, the facebook stats themselves http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics say 500+million users, and then goes on to say that only 50% of them log on per day. Then a quick look at the number of farmville users http://www.facebook.com/FarmVille gives us about 48million users active in the last month. Now maybe this is just me, (and yes I'm aware that facebook games are more than just farmville) but I would suggest that the vast majority of the 'active' facebook users don't play games, and probably don't spend money to do it - so few of them would be using facebook credits, the underpinning of this idea in the first place.

It sounds like the stats have been inflated to say that everyone using facebook plays games, and everyone playing games gushes money into facebook, this really isn't the case.

Why would companies suddenly try and use facebook (and on Mark's terms, not theirs) to data mine and find out which people are good or bad credit risks? For that matter how truthful is facebook? Is all the stuff you put up there real? Or as I've seen so many times exaggerated to make the poster seem a much 'cooler' person.

It's good for headlines, but I'm pretty suspicious that it has any real world possibilities.

Z.

Frankly why not let them create an account for you?

I mean does it matter? They're creating false profiles about you in their banking system - in a lot of places that's actionable. Just like if someone else opened an account in your name in Bank of America, or Barclays, it doesn't make you liable. And should their demonstrably false information materially harm you then you can recover that cost, and pretty much recover the cost of recovering the costs, etc. It's hassle, but you add that to the costs that facebook would have to host. Not to mention the legal minefield of libel when your 'friends' say unpleasant things about you on their (or your) walls and it suddenly increases the cost of your mortgage as you're now a higher risk. Would facebook assume that liability? Because some has to, giving random people the ability to materially detriment your life is going to be a lawyers wet dream I'd expect.

The article mentions 680million facebook users, the facebook stats themselves http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics say 500+million users, and then goes on to say that only 50% of them log on per day. Then a quick look at the number of farmville users http://www.facebook.com/FarmVille gives us about 48million users active in the last month. Now maybe this is just me, (and yes I'm aware that facebook games are more than just farmville) but I would suggest that the vast majority of the 'active' facebook users don't play games, and probably don't spend money to do it - so few of them would be using facebook credits, the underpinning of this idea in the first place.

It sounds like the stats have been inflated to say that everyone using facebook plays games, and everyone playing games gushes money into facebook, this really isn't the case.

Why would companies suddenly try and use facebook (and on Mark's terms, not theirs) to data mine and find out which people are good or bad credit risks? For that matter how truthful is facebook? Is all the stuff you put up there real? Or as I've seen so many times exaggerated to make the poster seem a much 'cooler' person.

It's good for headlines, but I'm pretty suspicious that it has any real world possibilities.

Z.

I couldn't finish this: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=109033997044 though my (then) housemate did. Finish the world's hottest burger and get your name on a plaque.

Dude, didn't you see who it was? Anonymous! They have a reason to hide! They are about to protest Sony! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21903225493#!/event.php?eid=136813236391154

according to the bible, he can not. In timoohy it is stated the god will not deceive people.

A test is not a deception any more than a maze incorporating at least one dead end or overly long route is a deception - even if those who choose the wrong routes want to claim it so. In God terms: reveal the truth to those who seek it; deceive those who seek deception. There are discussions on the topic of your claim all over the interweb - here's an example.

Lots of things on the earth are deceptive: for a straight scientific example, look at Newtonian mechanics. It's such an alluring simplification of what actually seems to happen on comparatively hard-to-analyse large and small scales. Surely God was deceiving Newton and his ilk, right? No, but it's sure good that we didn't engage in hubris and assume we had a full understanding - otherwise we may not have discovered that our understanding was approximate and incomplete. Another test, if you like.

I love how believer don't even know their own theology.

"Believer"? Nope, don't believe I claimed such. The only thing I believe is that most anti-religious dilettantes (i) make an extremely shallow and out-of-context interpretation of some passage in some text; (ii) make sweeping conclusions based on their interpretation.

Do you know why I can cite Euclid? because what he said and showed is provable, and experiments have shown his claims to be correct.

No. Study has shown that Euclid is full of missing assumptions and some bullshit circular definitions right from the start of Book I. But it doesn't matter - we can use our further understanding of the work's context and discovery of geometry in general to fill in the gaps and see in which situations and under which interpretations his theorems and demonstrations do and do not apply (and remain consistent). The same is true for a great deal of religious writing.

I chose Euclid deliberately because, if you're not already raising your arms and crying "no, that doesn't necessarily follow" by the first half dozen theorems, you're not following closely enough. Yet it took around two millennia to create a foundation which does a good job of both explaining and filling in the gaps, and a good thousand years [as far as extant evidence reveals] before people even started noticing some problem.

The believers in the Bible on the other hand change the rules every time someone show something that does not hold up to any testing or experimentation.

The religious side never tests God, so within a sentence of your assertion otherwise you've illustrated that each side does not play by the same rules.

They've open-sourced some of their stuff ; Tornado in particular is very nice.

No, but slashdot has been facebooked https://www.facebook.com/slashdot

Facebook publicly says they use CentOS. They also have a large Mirror for lots of different Open Source tools: https://developers.facebook.com/opensource/

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
"More than 500 million active users
50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day
Average user has 130 friends
People spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook"

That means each "user" spends an average of 15 minutes per month on face book. Or just over 27 seconds per day.

"More than 200 million active users currently accessing Facebook through their mobile devices. "

So, if they're always on, how much does that skew minutes and thus average active usership?

# More than 500 million active users
# 50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=254000146591&topic=16411

That is a copy of this site that seems to have gone offline recently:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/

Suppressed? :-) At the very least by marketplace forces? :-(

See also:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090308132014/http://suppressedscience.net/physics.html
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090309114648/http://suppressedscience.net/

Stuff I wrote building on those ideas:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Talk-Like-Christopher-Walken-Day-March-31st/191561644207105

i would call it assbook.

Too late, according to Google, there's already a Facebook page for that: Assbook. The domain is for sale though...

I'd suggest the same with facebook too. I'm not too sure the legality of presenting 12 year old with changes to user agreements, misleading games that collect your info, etc.

That would not be a big problem for facebook because you have to be 13 to use facebook.

Let the people who matter know - their fans and readers. http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=63558643546

Public backlash only happens when the part of the public who matters know about it.

Do you really believe that Facebook has 600 [unique] million users? [instead of 50-150 million]

The same investors' money that has valued then at X billion dollars and the ad-sellers wouldn't be there unless they could prove statements put on FB's public page. It doesn't matter what slashdot believes because money is what talks. Remember that those guys have access to FB's private logs, and need them before plunking their hard cash to pay for your bandwidth, hard drive costs and so on.

The "public" information for non-investors says that 250 million log in at any given day. You can bet they have plenty 'semi-active' accounts besides these, and see confirmation from the lion's own mouth that the 500-600m is an active count, so it's safe to assume that they have private data on how many other accounts are out there and exact usage frequency of those old people who only use it once a week.