I know there are several alternatives to Facebook. The only problem is: no one I know uses them. The reason I stay on Facebook is because my friends and acquaintances are all there. If there was some mass exodus to another social network, I'd be happy to join it. Until then, however, my leaving by myself will only leave me feeling isolated online.
Not all of my friends are computer savvy and really only know what the mainstream Internet has, and aren't really able or willing to understand the rest of the social networking platforms out there, and so I'm socially stuck with Facebook. It's easy for a Forever-alone Nerd-troll to tell me what I think and should do regarding Facebook, but honestly, I'm able to have friends who don't know their HTTP from their FTP and don't particularly care about the hip new social networking platforms.
Aside: you know what there isn't? A public service campaign to introduce the masses to Facebook alternatives. THAT would be more effective than wasting time telling other people what they should do with their social network on an Internet forum.
Porn is, by definition, obscene. Also, as a radio DJ who must be familiar with such things, the FCC says that things that are sexually explicit and have no "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" are obscene (just like the earlier commenter posted).
I understand that the government isn't always right, and that the FCC theoretically only has jurisdiction over the United States, but the fact that a vague-but-menacing government agency also says that porn is obscene only helps to defend my (our?) point.
There appear to be several commenters misreading the OP. Please be aware that the "National Historical Park" only applies to the artifacts themselves. Thus, they are only applying "American jurisdiction" to property that was ours in the first place, and not a would-be-controversial boundary on land.
Marriage can be either or both a religious activity or a civil one. There are civil benefits for being married.
Put simply, if marriage was not a civil thing, there would be no regulation at all on it.
You are correct. Civil marriage is licensed by the state, and if the state you're in will not recognize a license from another state, you are not entitled to the benefits in that state.
I'm okay with that. Get them off of the Web! If the money-grabbers leave, the Internet might revert to its natural, free, anything goes state it enjoyed in the nineties.
I'm sure someone's already mentioned it, but this will never be a win for the challenger: religion is not a science. Why? Because it cannot be disproven. One cannot ask for scientific evidence because there is none: therefore, religion cannot be measured in terms of science.
For example, it is common knowledge that stars are made mostly of hydrogen and helium, which they then fuse to make heavier elements. We can disprove that. If we suddenly find a star that is made mostly of, say, neon, then we rewrite the science books and say that stars are now made of either H and He or just a bunch of Ne. We can't do that about a religion. We can't test it. Therefore, there will never be a scientific answer. It is scientifically null.
I've never heard of any successful political system requiring more than 10-15% of its membership for quorum. (Even then, most of them are even less than that.) How do they justify 300,000,000+ accounts being the bare minimum response?
Facebook has a sort of "social monopoly." (I'm not talking about money.) Many people use it, and for them, it's the only way to stay in touch with certain people. There is just no other place to go that is so widely used and so accessible. So I ask you:
Where do you send the people who are tired of Facebook? Google+? It's not used enough. Only 10 of my acquaintances use Google+ while all of my acquaintances, friends, best friends, family, and love interests are on Facebook.
We're in an era where sending letters, paper or electronic, just isn't as efficient as social media. We're in an era where phone conversations require a purpose to be socially acceptable. People choose giving others read permission to their facebook timelines over more sensitive data like a phone number or house address for a variety of reasons. (Also why the debit card is making checks obsolete: cards don't carry your house address or account number like checks do. Which would you rather give someone?)
So tell me, what would you have them do? Demand real customer service or be cut off from their social life? Do you have a solution to the social media monopoly or are you just going to sit here and insult those who complain that companies don't do what they say they will? ("Stop bitching about Facebook, and get a life." ~OP)
Do you realize how difficult that might be? Jobs can be scarce nowadays, and not everyone can just "get a new job," especially if they've been around for awhile and have a family to feed and can't just switch to a lower-paying job.
It could be an easier solution to convince the employer to change something.
To be fair, the way you worded it disinclines me to agree with you. Perhaps "they could use a different language so as to teach those skills" would enable people to "comprehend" your post better.
One of the options on the "Why aren't you giving your personal data away to the world dialogue box" is: I'm not sure, I'll decide later.
I don't want to believe that the people in charge of YouTube completely forgot the concept of anonymity, but I never had faith in humanity, and I probably never will.
What if there was a switch where the operator of the vehicle could choose between normal driving, computer-assisted driving (MIT), and human-assisted driving (Google)? I think that would be a better option than having to choose between expensive automobiles.
Slashdot Mirror
It runs on any machine as long as the core library is installed, right? Sounds a lot like Java to me.
I know there are several alternatives to Facebook. The only problem is: no one I know uses them. The reason I stay on Facebook is because my friends and acquaintances are all there. If there was some mass exodus to another social network, I'd be happy to join it. Until then, however, my leaving by myself will only leave me feeling isolated online.
Not all of my friends are computer savvy and really only know what the mainstream Internet has, and aren't really able or willing to understand the rest of the social networking platforms out there, and so I'm socially stuck with Facebook. It's easy for a Forever-alone Nerd-troll to tell me what I think and should do regarding Facebook, but honestly, I'm able to have friends who don't know their HTTP from their FTP and don't particularly care about the hip new social networking platforms.
Aside: you know what there isn't? A public service campaign to introduce the masses to Facebook alternatives. THAT would be more effective than wasting time telling other people what they should do with their social network on an Internet forum.
Porn is, by definition, obscene. Also, as a radio DJ who must be familiar with such things, the FCC says that things that are sexually explicit and have no "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" are obscene (just like the earlier commenter posted).
I understand that the government isn't always right, and that the FCC theoretically only has jurisdiction over the United States, but the fact that a vague-but-menacing government agency also says that porn is obscene only helps to defend my (our?) point.
There appear to be several commenters misreading the OP. Please be aware that the "National Historical Park" only applies to the artifacts themselves. Thus, they are only applying "American jurisdiction" to property that was ours in the first place, and not a would-be-controversial boundary on land.
Source: http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2013/hr2617.pdf (page 4)
This isn't that kind of license...marriage is not commerce, and thus has nothing to do with the commerce clause.
Marriage can be either or both a religious activity or a civil one. There are civil benefits for being married. Put simply, if marriage was not a civil thing, there would be no regulation at all on it.
You are correct. Civil marriage is licensed by the state, and if the state you're in will not recognize a license from another state, you are not entitled to the benefits in that state.
I'm okay with that. Get them off of the Web! If the money-grabbers leave, the Internet might revert to its natural, free, anything goes state it enjoyed in the nineties.
But seriously, any video ad on YouTube that is longer than 30 seconds should have "click to skip" after the first 5 seconds.
They do. I believe it's a 15-second mandatory; any longer and it's "skip after five seconds."
"Tens of millions more are playing and loving those games."
[citation needed]
I'm sure someone's already mentioned it, but this will never be a win for the challenger: religion is not a science. Why? Because it cannot be disproven. One cannot ask for scientific evidence because there is none: therefore, religion cannot be measured in terms of science.
For example, it is common knowledge that stars are made mostly of hydrogen and helium, which they then fuse to make heavier elements. We can disprove that. If we suddenly find a star that is made mostly of, say, neon, then we rewrite the science books and say that stars are now made of either H and He or just a bunch of Ne. We can't do that about a religion. We can't test it. Therefore, there will never be a scientific answer. It is scientifically null.
Never mind...someone posted first before I refreshed the screen.
Upgrade from 500 GB to 2.5 GB? Is that supposed to be "by 2.5 GB?"
I've never heard of any successful political system requiring more than 10-15% of its membership for quorum. (Even then, most of them are even less than that.) How do they justify 300,000,000+ accounts being the bare minimum response?
Then I posit this:
Facebook has a sort of "social monopoly." (I'm not talking about money.) Many people use it, and for them, it's the only way to stay in touch with certain people. There is just no other place to go that is so widely used and so accessible. So I ask you:
Where do you send the people who are tired of Facebook? Google+? It's not used enough. Only 10 of my acquaintances use Google+ while all of my acquaintances, friends, best friends, family, and love interests are on Facebook.
We're in an era where sending letters, paper or electronic, just isn't as efficient as social media. We're in an era where phone conversations require a purpose to be socially acceptable. People choose giving others read permission to their facebook timelines over more sensitive data like a phone number or house address for a variety of reasons. (Also why the debit card is making checks obsolete: cards don't carry your house address or account number like checks do. Which would you rather give someone?)
So tell me, what would you have them do? Demand real customer service or be cut off from their social life? Do you have a solution to the social media monopoly or are you just going to sit here and insult those who complain that companies don't do what they say they will? ("Stop bitching about Facebook, and get a life." ~OP)
Then I refuse to patronize them.
Do you realize how difficult that might be? Jobs can be scarce nowadays, and not everyone can just "get a new job," especially if they've been around for awhile and have a family to feed and can't just switch to a lower-paying job. It could be an easier solution to convince the employer to change something.
You know, this reminds me of this quote: "You know how to cure AIDS? Kill everyone who has AIDS." It's not right.
To be fair, the way you worded it disinclines me to agree with you. Perhaps "they could use a different language so as to teach those skills" would enable people to "comprehend" your post better.
But the thing is, you cannot change the nature of Vegas. Vegas is pushing sexual messages all the time, 24/7 into every nook and cranny.
Respectfully, it is the men who own the companies and run the city that push those messages, not the vague concept of "Vegas."
One of the options on the "Why aren't you giving your personal data away to the world dialogue box" is: I'm not sure, I'll decide later. I don't want to believe that the people in charge of YouTube completely forgot the concept of anonymity, but I never had faith in humanity, and I probably never will.
What if there was a switch where the operator of the vehicle could choose between normal driving, computer-assisted driving (MIT), and human-assisted driving (Google)? I think that would be a better option than having to choose between expensive automobiles.