It's too bad they are tasteless like fucking styrofoam. I don't know anyone that actually eats twinkies. They're just a cultural reference and nothing more.
Also, what you heard is an urban legend. Twinkies have a shelf life of three and a half weeks.
I've given up on all stuff Google. I really just want one solid place to provide a good chunk of my services (so that it is all cohesive), but Google can't get their shit together. Things come and go overnight. They get abandoned. They make things very convoluted (Google Drive/Docs could not possibly have a worse interface and a shittier capability to sort/organize things -- want to easily find the size of a file in your google docs/drive? Good luck!).
All Google has done is proven themselves to throw too many things at the wall, abandon them quickly, and do them poorly. Once a big Google fan, I've come to realize that their big hits are less from the wisdom of Google and their engineers and more a result of simple probability. If you throw 500 things at the wall, two of them are inevitably *not* going to be total shit.
Well, we know that Microsoft and Google have apparently been giving a feed of data to the NSA for quite some time, now.
They make two of the three dominant browsers.
Anyway, the only thing you can do is utilize strong encryption. Nothing else matters, because everything you do goes through your ISP and can be (and probably is) picked up/tracked there. Unless you're encrypting, that's your weakest point.
PRO TIP: Just because you can voice a dissenting opinion and you have 500 channels of television to choose form and more fast food joints than you can imagine doesn't make a country free. Just because you're not being forced to work in labor camps and you don't have to fear for your life if you say you don't like the president doesn't make your country "free".
Unfortunately, short of those things happening, we keep acting like we're the freest place on earth and we have nothing to worry about.
I'm sorry, but the CIA is not supposed to collect intelligence to operate against its own citizens. Since that sounds like what ABIN is doing, it is therefore not the "Brazilian version of the CIA".
Unless ABIN is also not supposed to spy on their citizens, but is doing it *anyway* and doesn't give a fuck, in which case they are exactly equivalent to the CIA.
Nobody is taking out DRM from XBOX or Playstation. They're only talking about taking away region locking and phoning home for daily authentication. You're still going to have to deal with Ubisoft and their uPlay bullshit and redeemable one-time codes and so on.
People also seem to be constantly conflating DRM with used games. The two have little to do with each other. Sony has said they won't infringe on your right to own your purchases and lend, give, trade, sell them and they won't let others do that, either. That doesn't mean DRM won't still be used.
Really? I see a ton of people with those little round dot bandaids and similar things over their macbook/pro/other laptop cameras all the time. In an age where the government petitions the court to use your webcam to monitor you and malware exists to monitor your webcam and stream it back to douchebags somewhere and so on, you'd be a fool *not* to. Or, at least, not to make a specific conscious decision to leave it uncovered.
Here's what is wrong with it -- and the comparisons to Steam are always off the mark.
On previous consoles, you can play any game you own. You bought it. It is yours. You physically have it somewhere. You can still play your PS2 games on a PS2. You can still play your NES games on an almost 30 year old NES. With digital games on console, you'll be able to play them until they decide to turn the download server off. Or turn the DRM system off. Or turn off XBox Live and move on to the next thing. It also means that there is no more going out and buying a Sega Jaguar from 20 years ago and a bunch of used games somewhere to play it on, because you enjoy it or because you weren't into games at the time the Jaguar came out, but you'd like to experience them.
Then, there's also the issue of generations... A game you buy in September of this year on the 360 won't be playable when you upgrade to the XBOX ONE two months later. On Steam (well, PC in general - let's stop acting like Steam is the entirety of PC gaming) - I can still play games I bought ten years ago on my newest rig, even though it is the tenth machine I've built in ten years. I can still play PC games on my PC that are thirty years old.
And, finally, Microsoft has shown no interest in discounting games. Their "on demand" selection is both pathetic in variety and price, usually charging more for the digital version of a game that is several years old than the actual physical copy would cost to order online and have shipped to your house. On PC - you have a massive collection of indie stuff directly from developers and publishers, a ton on Desura, many sold through Humble Bundles. You have tons of older stuff preserved through GOG, and you have unbelievably steep discounts on newer games, on Steam. Often, during the same year they were released. And all that without paying $60/yr.
Gamestop's business model is irrelevant. Further, what do you or I care? I am not in the business of worrying about the financials of the game industry. I am in the business of watching my own finances and if I can save money, that is important to me. Gamestop is pretty crappy and so is their exploitive business model. Using that as some justification to diminish consumers' rights to own their purchased content and have portability and resale and so on is a bit like using the shit the Westboro Baptist Church says as an excuse for eradicating free speech.
I care about things like buying a game on my account on my console in the den and letting another family member play it on their account on my other console in the home theater, without incurring a $10 fee or having to re-buy the entire game. The "ten family members" thing is a bullshit solution that I do not accept. It needs to be tied to my hardware, which they know is mine because I register it with serial number on xbox.com. Then, anyone should be able to play the game in my home, whether it's ten people or fifty.
And, of course, phoning home absolutely matters when your internet is out. Or if you have a machine somewhere in your home that isn't connected. Or you are taking it with you to a cabin on vacation or something.
Frankly, it doesn't matter why or when you might do these things. As the customer, it is our obligation to say what we want and the company's job to provide it. It isn't my job to justify why I don't want to deal with their bullshit which in no way benefits the customer.
Amazon put up a poll for XBOX ONE versus PLAYSTATION 4 and they quickly canceled the poll, because with about 45,000 votes, 95% of them were for the PS4. It was a slaughter.
No, the question is: What else can we foce people to have to opt-out of? (Even though most things on the net require you to OPT IN to them, anyway -- it's not like this stuff just shows up in your face). How about religious material? Political material? Suicide support groups? Sex information? Materials about evolution?
It's an issue, precisely because other people *do* make it their business. It's sort of like when people complain about "the gays" and how they won't just "mind their own business and keep it to themselves" while everyone saying that is busy trying to invade their bedroom and their private/personal lives.
I'm pretty sure most of them would quite happily see a day when nobody *does* care.
With our understanding of many mental illnesses and with the overwhelming consistency of having one set of genitals and naturally identifying as that same gender, I can see why we have this bias and why we so readily dismiss the abnormality. It seems easier to conclude that these are mental issues and, therefore, the mind should be addressed instead of catering to mental illness with such drastic physical/legal alterations.
However, if nature can get minds wrong, it can certainly get bodies wrong -- which means just as much weight must be given to the possibility that what someone feels they are is legitimate as what they appear to be.
This also raises conflicts. How in the hell can we possibly determine when we should be caring for a mental problem and when we shouldn't, so that the person can just make the change and move on with their life?
Well, nature and reproduction would tend to disagree with your statement.
However, if someone is either of indeterminate or both genders or is not the gender on the outside which they inherently know themselves to be on the inside (I know some might assert this is a mental health issue, but I don't know how you prove or disprove that), I don't see how them rectifying that so that they can continue on with their life should bother anyone else.
That said, I'm sure there are also potentially valid reasons for retaining the "born" or "inherent biological" gender of a person, even after changing it as far as legality and identification. If we could move beyond the vile attitude against people in this situation, then retaining in some form in some place that single bit of information wouldn't be such an issue.
I think the problem with how this is addressed (or lack thereof) is society has a tendency to lump everything into a single pile. As a result, general consensus *seems* to be that everyone dealing with gender issues is simply making a choice by whim and deserves the conflict and hassle of their self-serving and surely flippant-toward-society choices.
I don't think it's a case of willfully dismissing these issues. I think it's a case of people simply generally not understanding and not being presented with enough information to really understand. I've known colleagues and friends-of-friends who have dealt with these things and it really opened my eyes. Far from "selfish and flippant", a lot of people are born with both genitals and doctors and parents make a quick determination of what gender to assign to their child (sometimes with surgery to make it permanent), only for the child to grow into an adult that is absolutely the *OTHER* gender on the inside. That is, in every way but externally, they are the "opposite" gender. I can not even imagine what dealing with that must be like. Then there are those who were simply born one gender but they know in their heads that they are the other. Apparently there is precedence in nature for this occurring. However, we generally just think "what's in your underwear is what you are" and it is as simple as that.
Ultimately, I don't really understand why we care -- aside from affording people sympathy for what they have to deal with. If someone feels they are one thing to the point that they need to have i surgically corrected/affirmed and/or they ned to have it identified legally . . . how in any way does that impact anyone else? Is everyone just irrationally afraid that if they "tolerate" other people's personal decisions that some day they're going to end up dating someone of one apparent gender that *used* to be another? Is it really that primitive and selfish or . ..?
Actually, it's probably a fantastic idea that Facebook doesn't allow anything to be posted that might be naughty in any way whatsoever (because, you know, words are obviously worse than actual actions or something). I mean, think about it. Law enforcement groups of all kinds trawl Facebook both to uncover crimes and to find proof of guilt for crimes they've already picked someone up for. If someone is a jackhole and smacked a bicyclist (no matter how much they often fucking deserve it) and then the cops dig around their Facebook profile and see a bunch of posts about smacking cyclists, then . . . well . . .
But if Facebook doesn't allow you to post anything "questionable", then Facebook is no longer a useful resource for uncovering the dirt to help establish guilt for an action.
How about all the women on twitter and facebook after Chris Brown beat the ever loving shit out of Rihanna and they were running around saying they'd let him beat the hell out of them? And attacking *her* for being beat up by him? That was pretty sickening shit. I didn't see any defense force out for that.
Pretty hideous shit, but it seems better to just let people be hideous so everyone else can have a platform to respond to them, which in turn emphasizes just how stupid the original hideous comments *are*.
Anyway . . .
"Call me crazy, buttttttt I would let Chris Brown beat me up anyyyy day"
"Everyone shut up about Chris brown being a woman beater... Shiiittt he can beat me up all night if he wants"
"Not gonna lie.. I think I'd let Chris Brown beat me #sosexy #lovehim #awkwardtweet #dontevencare"
"I'd let Chris Brown beat me up anytime;) #womanbeater"
"I'd let Chris Brown beat me up"
"Like I've said multiple times before, Chris Brown can beat me all he wants.l... I'd do anything to have him oh my"
"chris brown could beat me all he wants, he is flawless"
"Chris brown.. Please beat me;)"
"Chris brown could beat me up all he wants #idontcurr"
"I don't know why Rihanna complained. Chris Brown could beat me anytime he wanted to"
"Damn chris brown you can beat me up anytyme boo!"
"I would let Chris Brown beat me"
"I'd let Chris Brown beat me any day;)"
"I'd let chris brown punch me in the face"
"id let chris brown beat me"
"ok not gonna lie i'd let chris brown beat the eff out of me"
"i wish chris brown would punch me"
"Chris Brown could serenade me and then punch me in the eye. I'm down for it."
"I'd let chris brown punch me in the face"
"Dude, Chris brown can punch me in the face as much as he wants to, just as long as he kisses it (:"
"Chris brown can punch me ANY DAY."
"Okay i'd let Chris brown punch me in the face"
"chris brown can punch me whenever he wants #love"
I don't even buy that these "pages" are real. There have been plenty of recent examples where someone staged hateful and sickening violent threatening (in at least one case, misogynist) comments on someone's page on facebook. Turns out, it was the "victim" herself leaving these messages from other accounts, to generate attention, sympathy, and publicity.
So . . . excuse me if I don't immediately buy into the bullshit, here.
Also, people shouldn't rely on some uber corp as their source of publishing and reading free-thought of any kind. If you want to say hideous shit or controversial shit and not be pressured by anyone or have something removed, put up a website.
How about having friends in real life? Then you don't need facebook or anything similar at all.
My account consists of nothing but an image that says my email address and says if you want to talk with me, you should know how to reach me and if you don't know how to reach me, use my email address -- but either way, never expect a response on FB, because I don't use it.
People like to throw the excuse around that they just use facebook because "it's where all my friends are" or "to keep in touch with family", but I call bullshit on that. You can use email to keep in touch with friends and family. Or even better, visit them or make a fucking phone call. The best part is, then you can just deal with the important stuff and not spend every second of every day listening to the most mundane and trivial bullshit of every person's life.
I remember when gaming used to be a lot of fun. 2013 marks at least the third year straight where you can't fucking blink without someone screeching in your face about "gender issues". Note, it's only EVER about gender issues. I think gaming should work to be more inclusive, but it's just working to be more PC, instead. Worse, it's really NOT working to be more inclusive. Again, the only topic EVER discussed is "sexism". There is nearly never much discussion about homophobia, xenophobia, or race. Maybe for every fifty stories about how "mysoginyst" (used incorrectly, almost always) gamers and developers and publishers are, there *might* be one story that just briefly mentions race, xenophobia, or homophobia -- which I would suggest are actually far more frequently encountered in gaming than anything else. I can go for days playing online without hearing something about a woman in the kitchen, but I can't be in a game online for two minutes without hearing the N-word thrown around or gay slurs hurled around.
I won't be replacing my RSS feed with full article content and images and videos that are static -- staying until I read them -- with high signal to noise ratio . . . with fucking twitter and facebook, which is what every fucking idiotic dumbshit pundit I have seen commenting about RSS the last few months has said everyone is doing, while RSS "is dying".
Slashdot Mirror
It's too bad they are tasteless like fucking styrofoam. I don't know anyone that actually eats twinkies. They're just a cultural reference and nothing more.
Also, what you heard is an urban legend. Twinkies have a shelf life of three and a half weeks.
Squirrel!
More like, with the IRS.
I've given up on all stuff Google. I really just want one solid place to provide a good chunk of my services (so that it is all cohesive), but Google can't get their shit together. Things come and go overnight. They get abandoned. They make things very convoluted (Google Drive/Docs could not possibly have a worse interface and a shittier capability to sort/organize things -- want to easily find the size of a file in your google docs/drive? Good luck!).
All Google has done is proven themselves to throw too many things at the wall, abandon them quickly, and do them poorly. Once a big Google fan, I've come to realize that their big hits are less from the wisdom of Google and their engineers and more a result of simple probability. If you throw 500 things at the wall, two of them are inevitably *not* going to be total shit.
Well, we know that Microsoft and Google have apparently been giving a feed of data to the NSA for quite some time, now.
They make two of the three dominant browsers.
Anyway, the only thing you can do is utilize strong encryption. Nothing else matters, because everything you do goes through your ISP and can be (and probably is) picked up/tracked there. Unless you're encrypting, that's your weakest point.
PRO TIP: Just because you can voice a dissenting opinion and you have 500 channels of television to choose form and more fast food joints than you can imagine doesn't make a country free. Just because you're not being forced to work in labor camps and you don't have to fear for your life if you say you don't like the president doesn't make your country "free".
Unfortunately, short of those things happening, we keep acting like we're the freest place on earth and we have nothing to worry about.
I'm sorry, but the CIA is not supposed to collect intelligence to operate against its own citizens. Since that sounds like what ABIN is doing, it is therefore not the "Brazilian version of the CIA".
Unless ABIN is also not supposed to spy on their citizens, but is doing it *anyway* and doesn't give a fuck, in which case they are exactly equivalent to the CIA.
Nobody is taking out DRM from XBOX or Playstation. They're only talking about taking away region locking and phoning home for daily authentication. You're still going to have to deal with Ubisoft and their uPlay bullshit and redeemable one-time codes and so on.
People also seem to be constantly conflating DRM with used games. The two have little to do with each other. Sony has said they won't infringe on your right to own your purchases and lend, give, trade, sell them and they won't let others do that, either. That doesn't mean DRM won't still be used.
Really? I see a ton of people with those little round dot bandaids and similar things over their macbook/pro/other laptop cameras all the time. In an age where the government petitions the court to use your webcam to monitor you and malware exists to monitor your webcam and stream it back to douchebags somewhere and so on, you'd be a fool *not* to. Or, at least, not to make a specific conscious decision to leave it uncovered.
Here's what is wrong with it -- and the comparisons to Steam are always off the mark.
On previous consoles, you can play any game you own. You bought it. It is yours. You physically have it somewhere. You can still play your PS2 games on a PS2. You can still play your NES games on an almost 30 year old NES. With digital games on console, you'll be able to play them until they decide to turn the download server off. Or turn the DRM system off. Or turn off XBox Live and move on to the next thing. It also means that there is no more going out and buying a Sega Jaguar from 20 years ago and a bunch of used games somewhere to play it on, because you enjoy it or because you weren't into games at the time the Jaguar came out, but you'd like to experience them.
Then, there's also the issue of generations... A game you buy in September of this year on the 360 won't be playable when you upgrade to the XBOX ONE two months later. On Steam (well, PC in general - let's stop acting like Steam is the entirety of PC gaming) - I can still play games I bought ten years ago on my newest rig, even though it is the tenth machine I've built in ten years. I can still play PC games on my PC that are thirty years old.
And, finally, Microsoft has shown no interest in discounting games. Their "on demand" selection is both pathetic in variety and price, usually charging more for the digital version of a game that is several years old than the actual physical copy would cost to order online and have shipped to your house. On PC - you have a massive collection of indie stuff directly from developers and publishers, a ton on Desura, many sold through Humble Bundles. You have tons of older stuff preserved through GOG, and you have unbelievably steep discounts on newer games, on Steam. Often, during the same year they were released. And all that without paying $60/yr.
Gamestop's business model is irrelevant. Further, what do you or I care? I am not in the business of worrying about the financials of the game industry. I am in the business of watching my own finances and if I can save money, that is important to me. Gamestop is pretty crappy and so is their exploitive business model. Using that as some justification to diminish consumers' rights to own their purchased content and have portability and resale and so on is a bit like using the shit the Westboro Baptist Church says as an excuse for eradicating free speech.
How is this going to help you, if it requires kinect to identify you during automatic login to your account?
I care about things like buying a game on my account on my console in the den and letting another family member play it on their account on my other console in the home theater, without incurring a $10 fee or having to re-buy the entire game. The "ten family members" thing is a bullshit solution that I do not accept. It needs to be tied to my hardware, which they know is mine because I register it with serial number on xbox.com. Then, anyone should be able to play the game in my home, whether it's ten people or fifty.
And, of course, phoning home absolutely matters when your internet is out. Or if you have a machine somewhere in your home that isn't connected. Or you are taking it with you to a cabin on vacation or something.
Frankly, it doesn't matter why or when you might do these things. As the customer, it is our obligation to say what we want and the company's job to provide it. It isn't my job to justify why I don't want to deal with their bullshit which in no way benefits the customer.
Amazon put up a poll for XBOX ONE versus PLAYSTATION 4 and they quickly canceled the poll, because with about 45,000 votes, 95% of them were for the PS4. It was a slaughter.
http://gengame.net/2013/06/amazon-prematurely-ends-ps4-vs-xbox-one-poll-when-ps4-takes-95-of-the-vote/
No, the question is: What else can we foce people to have to opt-out of? (Even though most things on the net require you to OPT IN to them, anyway -- it's not like this stuff just shows up in your face). How about religious material? Political material? Suicide support groups? Sex information? Materials about evolution?
It's an issue, precisely because other people *do* make it their business. It's sort of like when people complain about "the gays" and how they won't just "mind their own business and keep it to themselves" while everyone saying that is busy trying to invade their bedroom and their private/personal lives.
I'm pretty sure most of them would quite happily see a day when nobody *does* care.
Exactly this.
With our understanding of many mental illnesses and with the overwhelming consistency of having one set of genitals and naturally identifying as that same gender, I can see why we have this bias and why we so readily dismiss the abnormality. It seems easier to conclude that these are mental issues and, therefore, the mind should be addressed instead of catering to mental illness with such drastic physical/legal alterations.
However, if nature can get minds wrong, it can certainly get bodies wrong -- which means just as much weight must be given to the possibility that what someone feels they are is legitimate as what they appear to be.
This also raises conflicts. How in the hell can we possibly determine when we should be caring for a mental problem and when we shouldn't, so that the person can just make the change and move on with their life?
Well, nature and reproduction would tend to disagree with your statement.
However, if someone is either of indeterminate or both genders or is not the gender on the outside which they inherently know themselves to be on the inside (I know some might assert this is a mental health issue, but I don't know how you prove or disprove that), I don't see how them rectifying that so that they can continue on with their life should bother anyone else.
That said, I'm sure there are also potentially valid reasons for retaining the "born" or "inherent biological" gender of a person, even after changing it as far as legality and identification. If we could move beyond the vile attitude against people in this situation, then retaining in some form in some place that single bit of information wouldn't be such an issue.
Hey, it's Elledan from #hardocp!
I think the problem with how this is addressed (or lack thereof) is society has a tendency to lump everything into a single pile. As a result, general consensus *seems* to be that everyone dealing with gender issues is simply making a choice by whim and deserves the conflict and hassle of their self-serving and surely flippant-toward-society choices.
I don't think it's a case of willfully dismissing these issues. I think it's a case of people simply generally not understanding and not being presented with enough information to really understand. I've known colleagues and friends-of-friends who have dealt with these things and it really opened my eyes. Far from "selfish and flippant", a lot of people are born with both genitals and doctors and parents make a quick determination of what gender to assign to their child (sometimes with surgery to make it permanent), only for the child to grow into an adult that is absolutely the *OTHER* gender on the inside. That is, in every way but externally, they are the "opposite" gender. I can not even imagine what dealing with that must be like. Then there are those who were simply born one gender but they know in their heads that they are the other. Apparently there is precedence in nature for this occurring. However, we generally just think "what's in your underwear is what you are" and it is as simple as that.
Ultimately, I don't really understand why we care -- aside from affording people sympathy for what they have to deal with. If someone feels they are one thing to the point that they need to have i surgically corrected/affirmed and/or they ned to have it identified legally . . . how in any way does that impact anyone else? Is everyone just irrationally afraid that if they "tolerate" other people's personal decisions that some day they're going to end up dating someone of one apparent gender that *used* to be another? Is it really that primitive and selfish or . . .?
Actually, it's probably a fantastic idea that Facebook doesn't allow anything to be posted that might be naughty in any way whatsoever (because, you know, words are obviously worse than actual actions or something). I mean, think about it. Law enforcement groups of all kinds trawl Facebook both to uncover crimes and to find proof of guilt for crimes they've already picked someone up for. If someone is a jackhole and smacked a bicyclist (no matter how much they often fucking deserve it) and then the cops dig around their Facebook profile and see a bunch of posts about smacking cyclists, then . . . well . . .
But if Facebook doesn't allow you to post anything "questionable", then Facebook is no longer a useful resource for uncovering the dirt to help establish guilt for an action.
Huh? What are the legal liabilities of "#throwshoesathookers" or whatever?
How about all the women on twitter and facebook after Chris Brown beat the ever loving shit out of Rihanna and they were running around saying they'd let him beat the hell out of them? And attacking *her* for being beat up by him? That was pretty sickening shit. I didn't see any defense force out for that.
Pretty hideous shit, but it seems better to just let people be hideous so everyone else can have a platform to respond to them, which in turn emphasizes just how stupid the original hideous comments *are*.
Anyway . . .
"Call me crazy, buttttttt I would let Chris Brown beat me up anyyyy day"
"Everyone shut up about Chris brown being a woman beater... Shiiittt he can beat me up all night if he wants"
"Not gonna lie.. I think I'd let Chris Brown beat me #sosexy #lovehim #awkwardtweet #dontevencare"
"I'd let Chris Brown beat me up anytime ;) #womanbeater"
"I'd let Chris Brown beat me up"
"Like I've said multiple times before, Chris Brown can beat me all he wants.l... I'd do anything to have him oh my"
"chris brown could beat me all he wants, he is flawless"
"Chris brown.. Please beat me ;)"
"Chris brown could beat me up all he wants #idontcurr"
"I don't know why Rihanna complained. Chris Brown could beat me anytime he wanted to"
"Damn chris brown you can beat me up anytyme boo!"
"I would let Chris Brown beat me"
"I'd let Chris Brown beat me any day;)"
"I'd let chris brown punch me in the face"
"id let chris brown beat me"
"ok not gonna lie i'd let chris brown beat the eff out of me"
"i wish chris brown would punch me"
"Chris Brown could serenade me and then punch me in the eye. I'm down for it."
"I'd let chris brown punch me in the face"
"Dude, Chris brown can punch me in the face as much as he wants to, just as long as he kisses it (:"
"Chris brown can punch me ANY DAY."
"Okay i'd let Chris brown punch me in the face"
"chris brown can punch me whenever he wants #love"
source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys#21312sf
http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/files/2013/02/rihanna-abuse.jpg
I don't even buy that these "pages" are real. There have been plenty of recent examples where someone staged hateful and sickening violent threatening (in at least one case, misogynist) comments on someone's page on facebook. Turns out, it was the "victim" herself leaving these messages from other accounts, to generate attention, sympathy, and publicity.
So . . . excuse me if I don't immediately buy into the bullshit, here.
Also, people shouldn't rely on some uber corp as their source of publishing and reading free-thought of any kind. If you want to say hideous shit or controversial shit and not be pressured by anyone or have something removed, put up a website.
How about having friends in real life? Then you don't need facebook or anything similar at all.
My account consists of nothing but an image that says my email address and says if you want to talk with me, you should know how to reach me and if you don't know how to reach me, use my email address -- but either way, never expect a response on FB, because I don't use it.
People like to throw the excuse around that they just use facebook because "it's where all my friends are" or "to keep in touch with family", but I call bullshit on that. You can use email to keep in touch with friends and family. Or even better, visit them or make a fucking phone call. The best part is, then you can just deal with the important stuff and not spend every second of every day listening to the most mundane and trivial bullshit of every person's life.
I remember when gaming used to be a lot of fun. 2013 marks at least the third year straight where you can't fucking blink without someone screeching in your face about "gender issues". Note, it's only EVER about gender issues. I think gaming should work to be more inclusive, but it's just working to be more PC, instead. Worse, it's really NOT working to be more inclusive. Again, the only topic EVER discussed is "sexism". There is nearly never much discussion about homophobia, xenophobia, or race. Maybe for every fifty stories about how "mysoginyst" (used incorrectly, almost always) gamers and developers and publishers are, there *might* be one story that just briefly mentions race, xenophobia, or homophobia -- which I would suggest are actually far more frequently encountered in gaming than anything else. I can go for days playing online without hearing something about a woman in the kitchen, but I can't be in a game online for two minutes without hearing the N-word thrown around or gay slurs hurled around.
I'll tell you what I won't be doing.
I won't be replacing my RSS feed with full article content and images and videos that are static -- staying until I read them -- with high signal to noise ratio . . . with fucking twitter and facebook, which is what every fucking idiotic dumbshit pundit I have seen commenting about RSS the last few months has said everyone is doing, while RSS "is dying".