Quite simple. Because it's their fucking website and they'll have their servers send you hither and yon as they damn well see fit.
Don't like it? Leave.
Oh right, you can't because they don't honor account deletion requests.
I am being sarcastic, but the fact that they own the domain name pretty much means they get to do what they darned please. You cannot force them to change, and because they already have your information by the balls and refuse to delete it even when you tell them to, they pretty much have you locked in.
Yes, please trust your social network overlords to make your decisions for you.
You are not allowed to play games with your user string. Trust us, we must have total control over your browsing experience in order to provide you with the best possible service.
Let's see...I don't recall G+ ever playing with my privacy settings behind my back.
If I hadn't gotten my naive fingers caught in facebook's "too late we already have your data and we're not giving it up" mousetrap I'd have deleted my account there a long time ago.
And this stupid "2 week of no access" didn't work. I deleted my account there and then had facebook completely firewalled from my computer, and I waited a *month* for my "deleted" facebook account to disappear.
Actually, the cost of the address is not really proportional to the cost of giving it up as it is to the value that can be extracted from a desperate buyer.
Prices are high because demand is high and early adopters with a large hoard of addresses are effectively a cartel.
This is the price we pay for handing them out freely in the beginning and failing to force them to be treated as a public resource.
Ceding quasi-property rights in them was the big mistake that let early adopters scoop up loads of addresses for free and presently milk them for all they are worth. It's a black market that is paying monopoly profits to the hoarders of old.
This is nothing more than speculation in a cornered market.
Internet registries need to grow some balls and start seizing IP space that is being used inefficiently or being sold on the black market.
Come to think of it, I don't really think IPv6 is going to fare any better if efficiency is not enforced.
Would US drug prices go down if our pharmaceutical companies had to actually compete instead of hiding behind international borders that seizes foreign drugs as contraband?
In theory, bad laws are supposed to be prevented by two things:
1. An electorate responsive to the voters, and 2. A constitution that sets ground rules for what laws may be passed.
Federal law, for example, preempts state law. Case in point, the california medical marijuana law being trumped by federal drug statutes. Also an example of a bad law.
Besides, lying to the voters in the first place screws with who actually agrees with them, compared to who would agree with them if they knew the truth.
Being stuck in office for 4 years is plenty of time to sell out and set yourself up a nice cushy private sector job as a kickback to your corporate campaign donors.
Obama proved this twice. First by signing obamacare into law, and second by packing the DOJ with mafiaa attorneys.
No question who his campaign backers were.
Two ways I can see this being resolved.
First, require election candidates to publicly disclose the name of any donor and the amount of the donation. No exceptions. Also make it illegal to use personal funds on campaign expenses (to close the loophole of having a rich man use money he already possesses. Also helps level the playing field).
Second, allow the voters to recall federal officials. That way if they prove rotten we can kick them out before they do damage and they aren't standing pat while they screw us in the ass.
Number one allows us to see from the get go what they are going to do in office, and number two gives them an incentive to behave.
Naturally, since both versions shut off the corporate gravy train, neither one will be done.
Actually what you'd probably get is preemption by a higher law requiring medical professionals to offer reasonable first aid to the wounded.
To be blunt, a city statute forbidding motor vehicles in the city park probably does not actually have the authority to restrain a first responder acting in the official performance of his or her duties.
I disagree that judges should be allowed to legislate from the bench. Especially federal ones that aren't even elected.
Judicial and legislative roles are separated for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Monticello tried it already and they got their asses sued off.
By the time they won the incumbent telecom had already built their own network right out from under them.
By no means am I against municipal internet btw, I cite this as an example of just how greedy an incumbent monopoly can get.
The problem is that Facebook is disobeying the user's web browser.
Quite simple. Because it's their fucking website and they'll have their servers send you hither and yon as they damn well see fit.
Don't like it? Leave.
Oh right, you can't because they don't honor account deletion requests.
I am being sarcastic, but the fact that they own the domain name pretty much means they get to do what they darned please. You cannot force them to change, and because they already have your information by the balls and refuse to delete it even when you tell them to, they pretty much have you locked in.
Yes, please trust your social network overlords to make your decisions for you.
You are not allowed to play games with your user string. Trust us, we must have total control over your browsing experience in order to provide you with the best possible service.
Thank you and have a nice day
-- Big Brother
Let's see...I don't recall G+ ever playing with my privacy settings behind my back.
If I hadn't gotten my naive fingers caught in facebook's "too late we already have your data and we're not giving it up" mousetrap I'd have deleted my account there a long time ago.
And this stupid "2 week of no access" didn't work. I deleted my account there and then had facebook completely firewalled from my computer, and I waited a *month* for my "deleted" facebook account to disappear.
Not a god damned fucking thing happened.
Actually, the cost of the address is not really proportional to the cost of giving it up as it is to the value that can be extracted from a desperate buyer.
Prices are high because demand is high and early adopters with a large hoard of addresses are effectively a cartel.
I have no problem with the free market treating them as quasi private property.
Except for the presence of early adopters that were allowed to hoard them in the days of plenty and are now collecting a windfall.
NAT is useful as an economic barrier to force people to pay a premium for a static IP.
This is the price we pay for handing them out freely in the beginning and failing to force them to be treated as a public resource.
Ceding quasi-property rights in them was the big mistake that let early adopters scoop up loads of addresses for free and presently milk them for all they are worth. It's a black market that is paying monopoly profits to the hoarders of old.
This is nothing more than speculation in a cornered market.
Internet registries need to grow some balls and start seizing IP space that is being used inefficiently or being sold on the black market.
Come to think of it, I don't really think IPv6 is going to fare any better if efficiency is not enforced.
I think the critical distinction is whether harm to others results.
The government has a duty to protect others from you, and you from others.
The government does not have a duty to protect you from yourself.
Impeachment only works if you do something wrong *and* piss off the same corporate whores that got your congressional colleagues into office.
The only reason prohibition DIDN'T work was because the enforcement was half-assed enough to let the mafia move in.
All the government did was give the black market a monopoly.
Also, it's kinda hard to outlaw something that the whole fucking population craves.
Would US drug prices go down if our pharmaceutical companies had to actually compete instead of hiding behind international borders that seizes foreign drugs as contraband?
In theory, bad laws are supposed to be prevented by two things:
1. An electorate responsive to the voters, and
2. A constitution that sets ground rules for what laws may be passed.
Federal law, for example, preempts state law. Case in point, the california medical marijuana law being trumped by federal drug statutes. Also an example of a bad law.
They have the power to force it on us, we don't have the power to enforce it on them.
The one who has the gold makes the rules, and we don't have it.
Key word is promises.
If they're all liars why do voters even care what they promise anymore?
Indeed.
Besides, lying to the voters in the first place screws with who actually agrees with them, compared to who would agree with them if they knew the truth.
Being stuck in office for 4 years is plenty of time to sell out and set yourself up a nice cushy private sector job as a kickback to your corporate campaign donors.
Obama proved this twice. First by signing obamacare into law, and second by packing the DOJ with mafiaa attorneys.
No question who his campaign backers were.
Two ways I can see this being resolved.
First, require election candidates to publicly disclose the name of any donor and the amount of the donation. No exceptions. Also make it illegal to use personal funds on campaign expenses (to close the loophole of having a rich man use money he already possesses. Also helps level the playing field).
Second, allow the voters to recall federal officials. That way if they prove rotten we can kick them out before they do damage and they aren't standing pat while they screw us in the ass.
Number one allows us to see from the get go what they are going to do in office, and number two gives them an incentive to behave.
Naturally, since both versions shut off the corporate gravy train, neither one will be done.
Don't blame me, I voted for kodos.
I don't care if the public is stupid.
The point is to discourage the government from doing things that they want to hide in the first place.
Unless there's a damn good reason.
And I'm sorry, but "this is embarrassing" doesn't cut it.
The constitution is not at all silent.
It just says that all powers not delegated to the feds are reserved for the states or the people.
It's called a default rule.
Actually what you'd probably get is preemption by a higher law requiring medical professionals to offer reasonable first aid to the wounded.
To be blunt, a city statute forbidding motor vehicles in the city park probably does not actually have the authority to restrain a first responder acting in the official performance of his or her duties.
I disagree that judges should be allowed to legislate from the bench. Especially federal ones that aren't even elected.
Judicial and legislative roles are separated for a reason.
Quite right.
All Stare decisis does is set fuckups in stone.
Make it so that copyrights cannot be alienated.
Don't let them be sold, acquired as works for hire, or anything else.
The borrower truly is slave to the lender.