I notice that they took these samples from cigarettes and chewing gum. Seems to me that if you leave something like that in a public space, there's no privacy concern.
Huh? Is this some kind of moral equivalency thing? The most trivial of litterbugs deserve to have their DNA analyzed and cataloged? Seems way out of proportion to me.
Why are so many people so willing to accept "rampant left bias" but refuse to see the rampant corporate bias?
Maybe it has something to do with who is complaining. Here's a simplified theory:
Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo. So they are not going to be happy about news reporting on any changes.
Progressives, by definition, want to see a change in the status quo. So any reporting on the way things are is nothing new to them - they wouldn't be progressives if they didn't already think the status quo sucked.
So you get one group getting their views challenged and another getting their views reinforced. Seems plausible that the one getting their views challenged would be motivated to find allternate explanations that don't conflict with their world view.
Well, the people reading will clearly see that you have no understanding of abrogation
Will they? When al-Qaradawi himself said it doesn't work the way you claim it does, when he was specifically talking about verse 9:5 and he said it in arabic on al jazeera that kind of makes it seem like I have a much better gasp of the topic than you do.
Come back with the verse that abrogates 9:5 and then we can talk.
Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?
With regard to your Al Azhar quote. What you don't understand is that people are free to practice their religion - but *only as second class dhimmis who must pay an extortion tax of jizya or be at risk of being killed*
Oh, so now the taco defense does not apply? You are changing your interpretation as you go. Your new explanation is still just as ridiculous. If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions. Never mind the actual wording of the declaration -- "absolute equality in rights and duties." Not secondary in rights - equal.
You know what makes more sense? That Al-Azhar said what they mean.
Hmm. How 9:5 is read when taking into account 9:4 is usually interpreted this way, "fight all unbelievers that you don't have a treaty with. If you have a treaty then fight those that have breached the treaty. If you have a treaty and its conditions are still met, then leave them alone for up to four months" (hudna).
Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.
You know what really cracks me up? How you started using my name over and over again instead of referring to me with a pronoun. It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.
Al taqiyya for non-Muslims (notice the EU domain) and guillable Westerners (like you). That's not the position in Arabic and in documents published for Muslims to read.
Remeber all those christian churches that signed on? They are in egypt. They speak arabic. They signed on to the original arabic document. They wouldn't be fooled by a bogus english translation because they read the english version.
I suspected you would try the taco defense. That's the one that trumps any critical thinking. Anybody who says anything that disagrees with you is lying. Even the very same people that you cite as an authoritative. Do you understand how circular that reasoning is? There is literally nothing that can change your mind. It is the same thing as the salem witch trials. That ain't science, that is mindless bigotry.
I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.
Mayhaps part of the problem is that some of the drone-related operations are so blatantly wrong that soldiers who are executing them must feel the inevitable guilt. Not "was it right or was it wrong?", but "why did I just kill a group of civilians on purpose?".
I think that is probably true. Not that I believe that deserves a medal or anything, but I am willing to believe that for a normally adjusted human, killing someone, even by remote control, is very destructive to the pysche.
I watched a video a of person dying because I thought it was a very important event, that her death ought to be witnessed by as many people as possible. It was far more intense than I ever expected, even though it was no hollywood shoot-out or anything like the way death is portrayed in video games or movies. Even today I still get broken up any time I think about it.
So not only do I think that it is entirely possible for drone operators to be affected by the things they do, I think it is a good thing. It means that we haven't been able to completely take the humanity out of war, not yet at least.
Their choice is to become Muslims (join the evil crew; which is evil), submit as dhimmis...
If they don't do these things then they are liable to be killed. How is that not evil?
First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you...."
The following verse 9:6 says "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure...." In other words, don't hurt the guy, preach to him and then let him go.
I expect you've got your twisted reasons for saying the verses before and after 9:5 don't count. So I've got more:
2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"
--That's pretty straight-forward.
18:29 "so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve"
-- Looks like even atheists are welcome.
6:108 "Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance"
-- Basically the golden rule for religion - treat others religions as you would your own religion. Hardly a recipe for religious subjugation.
60:8 "God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you. God loves those who are just"
-- Also pretty straight-forward. If people aren't attacking you, you should not attack them.
An non-abrograted commandment to kill all Muslims even if they are not a threat to believers. This is evil.
Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren. If you can't dispute the text, pretend it doesn't count. Looks like that AC had you pegged on that one. But, unsurprisingly even that newest form of delusion doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses.
You've listed Yusuf Al-Quradhawi and the al-Azhar University as sources of proof that verse 9:5 is the real deal that over-rides everything else, that all of the other verses about freedom of religion don't count. Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox. While al-Azhar University in Egypt is arguably the "chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world." So when those two say something it must be true, right? They are your go to guys in this argument.
So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:
"...aggression on Muslims and not disbelief is the basis for Muslim warfare... There is disagreement on the so-called Sayf aya (the verse of the sword). Some claimed that it abrogated 200 verses of the Quran among which are the forgiveness and tolerance. But there are those who say that the Sword verse itself is abrogated." Who is an authority on Islam Robert Spencer or Al Qaradawi?
And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion. Not just one or two professors who might be cranks, this statement has the full force and standing of the authority of al-Azhar itself.
Freedom of belief and the right connected to it of full citizenship (muwatana) for everyone, based [in turn] on absolute equality in rights and duties, is considered the cornerstone of the modern social order. This freedom is guaranteed by dirime
The farmers knew it was Monsanto "tainted" because they sprayed the crop with glyphosate. That makes no sense whatsoever unless they knew it was GMO.
I didn't say they were ignorant. I said they did not sign a contract with monsanto nor did the grain elevator they purchased them from advertise them as monsanto seeds. In other words there was no conspiracy.
I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5.
No, you don't get to just link to so some random website and say "that is my argument." You want to cite proof for your claims about 9:5, that's fine. But until you make a straight-forward testable claim, then there is nothing to debate.
Put all your cards on the table and we duke it out right here.
Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence
Because you have not held up your side of the deal yet.
Answer the question - why is 9:5 evil? Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith. Stay focused and make a specific point.
You are free to give up and walk away if you are unable to fulfill the requirements of the deal.
When farmers purchase Monsanto seeds, they sign a contract and agree, in writing, not to save seed.
No, when farmers purchase Monsanto seeds from MONSANTO they sign a contract like that. This case has nothing to do with that scenario.
This guy bought seed from the local grain elevator - seed that was sold on the open market without Monsanto's involvement and no advertising that the seed was monsanto tainted seed. He had no contract with Monsanto for those seeds or any of their precursors.
The terms of the deal are you pick a verse that you think is indisputably evil. Claiming that something that so many people argue over is self-evident is ridiculous.
If you can't articulate why it is evil, then you can't complain when nobody pays you heed. If you aren't all about hate, then you sure need to be about the persuasion.
A logical way to fix the vulnerability is to have more sophisticated detection at the border gateways into your private network.
That sort of functionality has seemed like a no-brainer to me for about a decade. I desperately want something that runs on my home router that monitors all connections, in and out, with both real-time in a user-friendly interface (not just a eyeball destroying table of ip addresses and port numbers but some sort of graphical summary) and generates reports on a hourly/daily/weekly basis. It should also incorporate a nice high-level way to kill off some behaviours - don't make me manually write a bunch of iptables rules for each case.
So far everything I've seen that comes close in either native firmware or any of the DD-WRT variants is still terribly painful to use, if it is functional at all.
Being set up by the DOC and being private are unrelated concepts, and in the case of ICANN, both are true.
Being a private organization does not exclude it from working on behalf of government. ICANN was created by the Dept of Commerce and continues to perform its work under contract to the Dept of Commerce. making it effectively just another part of the US Government.
Would you quit with the blather and just make your point? This is like pulling teeth.
At least now you've actually cited a single verse. But so what if it is the justification for "jihad" (and especially "cultural jihad" when you claim to have no problem with "cultural muslims"). Be specific as to what you think verse 9:5 means that is evil because I sure as shit am not going to argue with on multiple points - you don't get to cite 9:5 and when you lose that one weasel about the definition of jihad.
If you're going to rename yourself to hide, using an existing famous name will work very well. E.g. Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Michael Johnson etc.
No it won't - because everyone you have to deal with using that name will specifically remember you because you have a famous name but aren't that person.
Because it is evil! you haven't even read the Qur'an and hadiths.
No YOU haven't read them. About 6-7 years whenever a nutbag like you showed up on slashdot I engaged. I read the links they posted and then I went and googled on my own. Every single time there was more to the story. Evil people like you selectively quote and deliberartely ignore contradicting evidence.
I applied thorough research and critical thinking and none of your fellow dhimmi-wannabes' claims could stand up to that. NONE. How do you think I know what a dhimmi is suppossed to be? This ain't my first rodeo. But after a year of seeing nothing but idiocy from guys like you, I learned my lesson - you are all just idiots.
Look, I'll make you a deal. You pick ONE verse from the Quran that you think proves the absolute evil of Islam. Something that you think is indisputable. If I can't tear it down, I'll concede - the mooslims really are evil. But if I am able to show that there is more to the story, that the verse has context that you are ignoring, or that you've picked a misleading translation, something like that then you shut the fuck up about islam forever. Deal?
I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black.
There is nothing wrong with *respectfully* calling someone of African descent a "black"
Holy crap! You think THAT is what I was talking about? I am the one who said "black" - not you. You are so ignorant of the world you live in that you don't even recognize the oldest bigotry-denial trope in the book.
If you can't even maintain mental coherency while reading just one sentence, why would you expect people to believe even a single word you say? If numbnuts like you are the best we have to fight this evil mooslim conspiracy, then the war is already over.
I have no problem with 'cultural' Muslims
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More only good muslim is a non-muslim bullshit. I'm sure all the muslims in the world are over-joyed that you and your dhimmi-wannabe buddies are here to tell them that if they aren't wild-eyed killers, then they aren't real muslims.
Or pick one so popular that it's impossible to pick you out of all of the other John Smiths on the net.
Exactly. It is far easier to hide in a crowd of a million than yourself in an empty field.
Anyone considering getting a fake id in real life should pick from the most common first and family names (there are name frequency lists you can google for) - John Smith really is super common but it is almost a cliche. If you go with something like Tom Johnson you will still be in the company of hundreds of thousands of other Tom Johnsons and not seem quite so fake.
You don't have to share everything, but establishing your presence and "owning your name" gives you some measure of control in regards to what people find if they search for you.
I'm less worried about my reputation and more worried about people looking for ways to leverage inadvertantly disclosed information about me to their own advantage. If your are lucky the best you can expect is to control some of what google shows on the first page of search results under your name. That's only good for the most casual of searchers - anyone actively looking for dirt on you will go far past that first page of hits.
With respect to reputation if you do suddenly get famous enough to be "in the news" google is going to put that stuff right up there at as the first hits anyway because any news site is going to have a much higher page rank than your piddly facebook page -- seen that happen to a couple of friends already.
Slashdot Mirror
2 monitors are much better than 1 large monitor in my experience
I agree - one in portrait mode for a full-screen web browser for reading documents and the other in landscape mode for interactive work.
I notice that they took these samples from cigarettes and chewing gum. Seems to me that if you leave something like that in a public space, there's no privacy concern.
Huh? Is this some kind of moral equivalency thing? The most trivial of litterbugs deserve to have their DNA analyzed and cataloged? Seems way out of proportion to me.
Why are so many people so willing to accept "rampant left bias" but refuse to see the rampant corporate bias?
Maybe it has something to do with who is complaining. Here's a simplified theory:
Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo. So they are not going to be happy about news reporting on any changes.
Progressives, by definition, want to see a change in the status quo. So any reporting on the way things are is nothing new to them - they wouldn't be progressives if they didn't already think the status quo sucked.
So you get one group getting their views challenged and another getting their views reinforced. Seems plausible that the one getting their views challenged would be motivated to find allternate explanations that don't conflict with their world view.
Well, the people reading will clearly see that you have no understanding of abrogation
Will they? When al-Qaradawi himself said it doesn't work the way you claim it does, when he was specifically talking about verse 9:5 and he said it in arabic on al jazeera that kind of makes it seem like I have a much better gasp of the topic than you do.
Come back with the verse that abrogates 9:5 and then we can talk.
Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?
With regard to your Al Azhar quote. What you don't understand is that people are free to practice their religion - but *only as second class dhimmis who must pay an extortion tax of jizya or be at risk of being killed*
Oh, so now the taco defense does not apply? You are changing your interpretation as you go. Your new explanation is still just as ridiculous. If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions. Never mind the actual wording of the declaration -- "absolute equality in rights and duties." Not secondary in rights - equal.
You know what makes more sense? That Al-Azhar said what they mean.
Hmm. How 9:5 is read when taking into account 9:4 is usually interpreted this way, "fight all unbelievers that you don't have a treaty with. If you have a treaty then fight those that have breached the treaty. If you have a treaty and its conditions are still met, then leave them alone for up to four months" (hudna).
Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.
You know what really cracks me up? How you started using my name over and over again instead of referring to me with a pronoun. It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.
Al taqiyya for non-Muslims (notice the EU domain) and guillable Westerners (like you). That's not the position in Arabic and in documents published for Muslims to read.
Remeber all those christian churches that signed on? They are in egypt. They speak arabic. They signed on to the original arabic document. They wouldn't be fooled by a bogus english translation because they read the english version.
I suspected you would try the taco defense. That's the one that trumps any critical thinking. Anybody who says anything that disagrees with you is lying. Even the very same people that you cite as an authoritative. Do you understand how circular that reasoning is? There is literally nothing that can change your mind. It is the same thing as the salem witch trials. That ain't science, that is mindless bigotry.
I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.
Mayhaps part of the problem is that some of the drone-related operations are so blatantly wrong that soldiers who are executing them must feel the inevitable guilt. Not "was it right or was it wrong?", but "why did I just kill a group of civilians on purpose?".
I think that is probably true. Not that I believe that deserves a medal or anything, but I am willing to believe that for a normally adjusted human, killing someone, even by remote control, is very destructive to the pysche.
I watched a video a of person dying because I thought it was a very important event, that her death ought to be witnessed by as many people as possible. It was far more intense than I ever expected, even though it was no hollywood shoot-out or anything like the way death is portrayed in video games or movies. Even today I still get broken up any time I think about it.
So not only do I think that it is entirely possible for drone operators to be affected by the things they do, I think it is a good thing. It means that we haven't been able to completely take the humanity out of war, not yet at least.
Their choice is to become Muslims (join the evil crew; which is evil), submit as dhimmis ...
If they don't do these things then they are liable to be killed. How is that not evil?
First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. ..."
The following verse 9:6 says "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. ..." In other words, don't hurt the guy, preach to him and then let him go.
I expect you've got your twisted reasons for saying the verses before and after 9:5 don't count. So I've got more:
2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"--That's pretty straight-forward.
18:29 "so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve"-- Looks like even atheists are welcome.
6:108 "Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance"-- Basically the golden rule for religion - treat others religions as you would your own religion. Hardly a recipe for religious subjugation.
60:8 "God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you. God loves those who are just"-- Also pretty straight-forward. If people aren't attacking you, you should not attack them.
An non-abrograted commandment to kill all Muslims even if they are not a threat to believers. This is evil.
Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren. If you can't dispute the text, pretend it doesn't count. Looks like that AC had you pegged on that one. But, unsurprisingly even that newest form of delusion doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
My understanding of Sura 9 is the same as Osama bin Laden's and Quradhawi's and Qtub's and Al Azhar's. We agree it all means the same thing and abrogates the other verses.
You've listed Yusuf Al-Quradhawi and the al-Azhar University as sources of proof that verse 9:5 is the real deal that over-rides everything else, that all of the other verses about freedom of religion don't count. Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox. While al-Azhar University in Egypt is arguably the "chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world." So when those two say something it must be true, right? They are your go to guys in this argument.
So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:
Who is an authority on Islam Robert Spencer or Al Qaradawi?
And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion. Not just one or two professors who might be cranks, this statement has the full force and standing of the authority of al-Azhar itself.
The farmers knew it was Monsanto "tainted" because they sprayed the crop with glyphosate. That makes no sense whatsoever unless they knew it was GMO.
I didn't say they were ignorant. I said they did not sign a contract with monsanto nor did the grain elevator they purchased them from advertise them as monsanto seeds. In other words there was no conspiracy.
I have provided you a link with a thorough analysis of the positions for and against 9:5.
No, you don't get to just link to so some random website and say "that is my argument." You want to cite proof for your claims about 9:5, that's fine. But until you make a straight-forward testable claim, then there is nothing to debate.
Put all your cards on the table and we duke it out right here.
Now for all your talk you still have not a single skerrick of counter evidence
Because you have not held up your side of the deal yet.
Answer the question - why is 9:5 evil? Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith. Stay focused and make a specific point.
You are free to give up and walk away if you are unable to fulfill the requirements of the deal.
When farmers purchase Monsanto seeds, they sign a contract and agree, in writing, not to save seed.
No, when farmers purchase Monsanto seeds from MONSANTO they sign a contract like that. This case has nothing to do with that scenario.
This guy bought seed from the local grain elevator - seed that was sold on the open market without Monsanto's involvement and no advertising that the seed was monsanto tainted seed. He had no contract with Monsanto for those seeds or any of their precursors.
No, why you consider it not evil?
The terms of the deal are you pick a verse that you think is indisputably evil. Claiming that something that so many people argue over is self-evident is ridiculous.
If you can't articulate why it is evil, then you can't complain when nobody pays you heed. If you aren't all about hate, then you sure need to be about the persuasion.
A logical way to fix the vulnerability is to have more sophisticated detection at the border gateways into your private network.
That sort of functionality has seemed like a no-brainer to me for about a decade. I desperately want something that runs on my home router that monitors all connections, in and out, with both real-time in a user-friendly interface (not just a eyeball destroying table of ip addresses and port numbers but some sort of graphical summary) and generates reports on a hourly/daily/weekly basis. It should also incorporate a nice high-level way to kill off some behaviours - don't make me manually write a bunch of iptables rules for each case.
So far everything I've seen that comes close in either native firmware or any of the DD-WRT variants is still terribly painful to use, if it is functional at all.
This is essentially SEO for recruiters, and isn't really that constructive.
Makes me wonder if they only bought Slashdot for its pagerank.
Being set up by the DOC and being private are unrelated concepts, and in the case of ICANN, both are true.
Being a private organization does not exclude it from working on behalf of government. ICANN was created by the Dept of Commerce and continues to perform its work under contract to the Dept of Commerce. making it effectively just another part of the US Government.
Would you quit with the blather and just make your point? This is like pulling teeth.
At least now you've actually cited a single verse. But so what if it is the justification for "jihad" (and especially "cultural jihad" when you claim to have no problem with "cultural muslims"). Be specific as to what you think verse 9:5 means that is evil because I sure as shit am not going to argue with on multiple points - you don't get to cite 9:5 and when you lose that one weasel about the definition of jihad.
Why is 9:5 evil?
Rest in peace, oh great America. You had a nice run leading the world in science and technology.
Pretty soon now you will be just another religious state, just like the ones you are fighting right now, but with a different religion.
That is not true.
One-in-Five Adults and One-in-Three Under Age 30 Have No Religious Affiliation. This kind of stuff are the death-throes of religious conservatism. As the more normal people leave formalized religion, the crazies are left behind. Without a moderating influence, they get even crazier than before.
Let us look at Sura 9. It has many evil ideas in it
Pick ONE verse, not an entire chapter and quote it.
If you're going to rename yourself to hide, using an existing famous name will work very well. E.g. Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Michael Johnson etc.
No it won't - because everyone you have to deal with using that name will specifically remember you because you have a famous name but aren't that person.
Because it is evil! you haven't even read the Qur'an and hadiths.
No YOU haven't read them. About 6-7 years whenever a nutbag like you showed up on slashdot I engaged. I read the links they posted and then I went and googled on my own. Every single time there was more to the story. Evil people like you selectively quote and deliberartely ignore contradicting evidence.
I applied thorough research and critical thinking and none of your fellow dhimmi-wannabes' claims could stand up to that. NONE. How do you think I know what a dhimmi is suppossed to be? This ain't my first rodeo. But after a year of seeing nothing but idiocy from guys like you, I learned my lesson - you are all just idiots.
Look, I'll make you a deal. You pick ONE verse from the Quran that you think proves the absolute evil of Islam. Something that you think is indisputable. If I can't tear it down, I'll concede - the mooslims really are evil. But if I am able to show that there is more to the story, that the verse has context that you are ignoring, or that you've picked a misleading translation, something like that then you shut the fuck up about islam forever. Deal?
You keep creating and knocking down false strawmen of your own making.
Yeah? What strawmen are those? You are the one telling muslims that their religion is evil.
I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black.
There is nothing wrong with *respectfully* calling someone of African descent a "black"
Holy crap! You think THAT is what I was talking about? I am the one who said "black" - not you. You are so ignorant of the world you live in that you don't even recognize the oldest bigotry-denial trope in the book.
If you can't even maintain mental coherency while reading just one sentence, why would you expect people to believe even a single word you say? If numbnuts like you are the best we have to fight this evil mooslim conspiracy, then the war is already over.
I have no problem with 'cultural' Muslims
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More only good muslim is a non-muslim bullshit. I'm sure all the muslims in the world are over-joyed that you and your dhimmi-wannabe buddies are here to tell them that if they aren't wild-eyed killers, then they aren't real muslims.
Since Kosher is just dietary all that extra scope doesn't really apply when making a comparison.
Or pick one so popular that it's impossible to pick you out of all of the other John Smiths on the net.
Exactly. It is far easier to hide in a crowd of a million than yourself in an empty field.
Anyone considering getting a fake id in real life should pick from the most common first and family names (there are name frequency lists you can google for) - John Smith really is super common but it is almost a cliche. If you go with something like Tom Johnson you will still be in the company of hundreds of thousands of other Tom Johnsons and not seem quite so fake.
You don't have to share everything, but establishing your presence and "owning your name" gives you some measure of control in regards to what people find if they search for you.
I'm less worried about my reputation and more worried about people looking for ways to leverage inadvertantly disclosed information about me to their own advantage. If your are lucky the best you can expect is to control some of what google shows on the first page of search results under your name. That's only good for the most casual of searchers - anyone actively looking for dirt on you will go far past that first page of hits.
With respect to reputation if you do suddenly get famous enough to be "in the news" google is going to put that stuff right up there at as the first hits anyway because any news site is going to have a much higher page rank than your piddly facebook page -- seen that happen to a couple of friends already.
I have Shia Muslim friends
I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black.
I have zero problem with Muslims (and hate no-one, so stop making shit up).
Same old hate the sin, love the sinner bullshit. The only good muslim is one who isn't muslim. You loons are all the same.