No. Facebook doesn't reveal any of that. The person using it reveals that. And facebook doesn't even ask for race. Unless you mean pictures. I already post my pictures publicly. Anyone could determine my race by looking at me. Porn habit? No. You don't view porn through facebook. Sexting photos? Huh? those are by phone. Those are not through facebook. Posting "my boyfriend is a college guy when you're 16 or 17" - whether you say that on facebook, on a blog, or on twitter, that is the person revealing it publicly, not the service.
Like you pointed out - a lot of the same could be said about telephones, but it's not reasonable to not use a phone because you're scared of the government.
[[ Well, not THAT reasonable;)... You never know;) ]]
Right. But most (not all) of your examples have nothing to do with facebook. And not using facebook isn't really going to make the government stop bothering you, if it has decided that's what it's going to do. In fact, it's where one in that situation should go to best spread the message of one's oppression. It's where the most people will listen. (That, and twitter.)
Why should I hide from my government? It's not like they don't already know who I am. And I'm not a coward so scared of my government as to hurt my social life by not using the main tool that people who actually bother to keep in touch with everyone they know use. I'm a psuedolibertarian kook who hates our government, but I'm not saying anything on Facebook that I wouldn't say over the phone - where they can listen as welll. Almost everything I say is already in the library of congress anyway, since they archive twitter, and all my FB posts import from my twitter.
Quit hiding people. YOu're far more likely to get the government to do what you want if you are willing to stand up and be counted.
Wow. People like you (I'm talking more about your last paragraphs than your first) disgust me. Fortunately pretty much every human rights organization on the planet disagrees with you. You might like Japan or the Middle East. They run their prisons more to your standards. You clearly don't belong in a democracy.
Actually, whether or not *I* steal a towel, someone else will, so you will pay more with or without me. Case in point - I have only patronized 4 or 5 hotels in my life, and they probably aren't the ones you have. Your towels are more expensive because of other people, not me. If you want to blame my attitude, fine. But saying "Thanks Clint" is just completely fallacious. And no, modern society would not cease to exist, and you are completely overdramatizing. Hell, your comment made me burst into uproarious real-life laughter. Thanks for that.
Of course, incarcerating someone costs ~$30K a year - so if we sent everyone to jail for stealing 50 cents, there'd probably not be much money left for anyone else. (This is an absurd claim, but hopefully you get the gist of my point.) It's not worth spending $30,000 to save 50 cents. (Okay, you probably wouldn't go to jail for a year, but hopefully you get the gist of my point.)
So yes. This is a much more logical and practical solution.
I rip the Leviticus anti-gay part out (thanks for the idea, Sir Ian MacKlellan) and (my own special touch) leave it on the floor of my house for years on end to maximize the number of times I trample god's words.
Seeing as TFA doesn't specify which hotels they are, other than being 3 individual hotels, you've failed to validate your point, though I concede it is possible to be valid.
It is generally assumed when buying services or goods from someone that you are paying more than they are worth.
[Unless it's a loss-leader strategy like Microsoft losing money on an X-Box in hopes they'll gain money from the games -- but in that case, it's still true for the aggregate cost of the "Xbox experience" (xbox + games).]
Generally business works on the profit of "we price things such that we make a profit on them".
This is a rule of thumb, but one that is applicable far more than average (as a rule of thumb, rules of thumb are true 80% of the time, and I'd say this is more like 98%).
Theft is theft - but if every person always takes $8 in towels, they will simply charge people $8 more for the room. At which point, I've kind of paid for the towel. And if it's a $600/night room? That towel is a tip for me for paying that. (Okay, *I* didn't pay that, but I spent a week in a $600/night room and took toilet paper, soap, glasses, towels, washcloths. They're not losing money. They didn't even have a dvd player in the room. You can watch movies at the wrong aspect ratio for $16/ea. When it's messed up they'll pretend to take it off the bill without doing so...) Morals are relative to situations...
The diehard leftwingers I know are still signing praise to him. "If you don't like Obama, defriend me now", my west-coast half-uncle recently posted. (I was defriended by him a long time ago for calling him out on his bullshit.)
Now do the same thing with [some] regular expressions. What?!?! Windows search doesn't take [some] regular expressions? My command-line has since the 1990s. I win. Too bad I didn't think of that as my initial example:D
Yea, I addressed what you just said when I wrote: "Or you can maybe use a find program that gives you your results in a list that you can then delete. It's not gonna be as quick." So I'm not sure why you just made my own point for me. I just tried this out, and, y'know what? The directory traversal is far slower than the command-line I use. Maybe it's because I turn indexing off, but indexing slows your system down such that your cumulative delays far outweigh the time it takes to type "del/?". All in all, I'm still 99% convinced that my way will take less cumulative user time.
Everything can be done in a GUI, but not nearly as easily. What if you need to delete every.BAK file in a folder tree that has 100 folders, each of which has 100 subfolders? CLI you say "del/s *.bak". GUI, you go in and manually delete 100*100 times, taking hours. Or you can maybe use a find program that gives you your results in a list that you can then delete. It's not gonna be as quick.
Responsibility would imply reporting when it can result in actionable precautions. No reporting can bring back the thousands killed by the tsunami, but if there is any radiation danger (which there doesn't actually seem to be), reporting on that could save those who are paranoid enough to take it to heart. I didn't check my mail during the 2001 anthrax scare. One person died from unknown causes who was nowhere near a P.O. She was an old lady who probably caught it from contaminated mail. (Go google this if you don't believe me.) Maybe if she'd read scare stuff she would have stayed away from her mail like I did, and survived.
Reporting on dead victims isn't journalism, it's history.
Slashdot Mirror
Your examples suck.
Like you pointed out - a lot of the same could be said about telephones, but it's not reasonable to not use a phone because you're scared of the government. [[ Well, not THAT reasonable ;) ... You never know ;) ]]
Right. But most (not all) of your examples have nothing to do with facebook. And not using facebook isn't really going to make the government stop bothering you, if it has decided that's what it's going to do. In fact, it's where one in that situation should go to best spread the message of one's oppression. It's where the most people will listen. (That, and twitter.)
Quit hiding people. YOu're far more likely to get the government to do what you want if you are willing to stand up and be counted.
I take towels from hotels.. but my favorites ones I got for $2 at a yardsale.
I like you.
Wow. People like you (I'm talking more about your last paragraphs than your first) disgust me. Fortunately pretty much every human rights organization on the planet disagrees with you. You might like Japan or the Middle East. They run their prisons more to your standards. You clearly don't belong in a democracy.
Actually, whether or not *I* steal a towel, someone else will, so you will pay more with or without me. Case in point - I have only patronized 4 or 5 hotels in my life, and they probably aren't the ones you have. Your towels are more expensive because of other people, not me. If you want to blame my attitude, fine. But saying "Thanks Clint" is just completely fallacious. And no, modern society would not cease to exist, and you are completely overdramatizing. Hell, your comment made me burst into uproarious real-life laughter. Thanks for that.
It wouldn't be a very good insult if someone couldn't discern what you were saying now, would it?
nitpick - Perjury can definitely cause people to lose money!
hahah... Would a JPG of Towelie count?
Oh zing! I think you just called me gay! Whatever will I do! (besides roll my eyes, that is)
So yes. This is a much more logical and practical solution.
I rip the Leviticus anti-gay part out (thanks for the idea, Sir Ian MacKlellan) and (my own special touch) leave it on the floor of my house for years on end to maximize the number of times I trample god's words.
It is generally assumed when buying services or goods from someone that you are paying more than they are worth.
[Unless it's a loss-leader strategy like Microsoft losing money on an X-Box in hopes they'll gain money from the games -- but in that case, it's still true for the aggregate cost of the "Xbox experience" (xbox + games).]
Generally business works on the profit of "we price things such that we make a profit on them".
This is a rule of thumb, but one that is applicable far more than average (as a rule of thumb, rules of thumb are true 80% of the time, and I'd say this is more like 98%).
Yup. I'd steal your lunch from the fridge. (rolls eyes) And what type of job pays you $75K a year, but doesn't give you pens? Funny example is funny.
You wouldn't download .. a prize .. would you??
You wouldn't download .. a towel .. would you?!?!
Theft is theft - but if every person always takes $8 in towels, they will simply charge people $8 more for the room. At which point, I've kind of paid for the towel. And if it's a $600/night room? That towel is a tip for me for paying that. (Okay, *I* didn't pay that, but I spent a week in a $600/night room and took toilet paper, soap, glasses, towels, washcloths. They're not losing money. They didn't even have a dvd player in the room. You can watch movies at the wrong aspect ratio for $16/ea. When it's messed up they'll pretend to take it off the bill without doing so...) Morals are relative to situations...
Same severity as Chernobyl.
The diehard leftwingers I know are still signing praise to him. "If you don't like Obama, defriend me now", my west-coast half-uncle recently posted. (I was defriended by him a long time ago for calling him out on his bullshit.)
Now do the same thing with [some] regular expressions. What?!?! Windows search doesn't take [some] regular expressions? My command-line has since the 1990s. I win. Too bad I didn't think of that as my initial example :D
Yea, I addressed what you just said when I wrote: "Or you can maybe use a find program that gives you your results in a list that you can then delete. It's not gonna be as quick." So I'm not sure why you just made my own point for me. I just tried this out, and, y'know what? The directory traversal is far slower than the command-line I use. Maybe it's because I turn indexing off, but indexing slows your system down such that your cumulative delays far outweigh the time it takes to type "del /?". All in all, I'm still 99% convinced that my way will take less cumulative user time.
Everything can be done in a GUI, but not nearly as easily. What if you need to delete every .BAK file in a folder tree that has 100 folders, each of which has 100 subfolders? CLI you say "del /s *.bak". GUI, you go in and manually delete 100*100 times, taking hours. Or you can maybe use a find program that gives you your results in a list that you can then delete. It's not gonna be as quick.
Reporting on dead victims isn't journalism, it's history.