When this type of discussion comes up I have this little analogy I like to use...

Office Worker : Computer :: Carpenter : Hammer

What would you do if you hired a carpenter that didn't know how to use their hammer? Or tried to use the hammer for everything? Or could use the hammer but despite seeing the claw end every time they used it were completely oblivious as to its use. I think the much larger problem is that people refuse to or have been so dumbed down that they cannot comprehend what they see, hear and read even if they take the time to actually see, hear or read something.

I can never really grasp the question the OP has asked. It's really simple, I have things I don't want anyone but my closest friends to know about me and some stuff that I don't want anyone to know. Can you guess what I do to prevent others from knowing about those things?

Is it really an invasion of your privacy that the people who run a website or cable company providing you network services to be able to figure out where their resources are being used? What portion of their resources are used? Did you catch that use of the word THEIR, these aren't YOUR resources being monitored so if the owner wants to monitor them, so be it. You are the one CHOOSING to use THEIR resources. When they begin monitoring the things that aren't being provided to you by them you will have a legitimate complaint about loosing your privacy.

Anyway, back to the question; How do I prevent people from knowing things about me that I do not want them to? I choose NOT to post those things online; just like in real life I don't tell everyone about these things.

PS: I watched 3 episodes of lost last night and will be viewing several sites including slashdot.

PPS: I will also share that I'll be visiting fark.com and continue not having a problem with them knowing I used some of their resources; I've also exorcised my right to give up a bit of privacy by letting you all know that though I was in no way obligated to since I will not be using any of YOUR resources in doing so.

I find this question to be extremely easy to answer. Whats worse is I only support 10 of them and come across things on a daily basis that I would never have to even think twice about answering if the same task can be accomplished in windows. The answer is they simply aren't ready for business so they don't market toward business.

  Here's just one shining example: Accounting on Xerox copiers isn't correctly supported.

erm, my experience was with verizon so I used them as an example, but i would imagine the same applies to tmobile, att, etc...

Whats your point? You have to provide your real identity to get the service anyway. This is about customer service and making sure joe sixpack's phone works when it leaves the store so that both verizon and google look good.

When you leave you can feel free to delete whatever account they setup for you and you can setup your MichaelSmith account.

Really? It wasn't until after this last update that you could block specific applications from showing up in your feeds.... well as far as I know because I was never able to find it in any previous version.

Click the hide link on an update from farmville or whatever annoyance you have and you now have the option to block all updates from that specific application. Makes it tons easier to see status updates....

I agree with the gp, its the change that people bitch about.

If you remember, way back games like donkey kong and pac man were pay to play at a nickle, dime, or quarter per play. When they moved to consoles they turned to buy once play forever. Now they are just reverting back to the old original model. ;)

Damn, I was all set to prove you wrong. It seemed like Doom came out well before 93....

From wiki:

And I would say its because of those exact opposite reasons (the "i got mine" attitude) that we all pay individually and have to be 30k in debt just to begin getting our starting level work experience.

That quote just shows how completely stupid it was to say 90%.

The last sentence could be rewritten to: "For simplicities sake, we just assumed that 90% of people would pirate it since none of the methods we measured could actually be used to determine anything other than people who use the internet have an IP address."

Thanks for the reply, I'm aware of this. It was mostly a rhetorical question as it seems like the system SHOULD make sense.

Isn't the justice system supposed to make sense as well? Why wouldn't a judge listen to that argument and think to himself, "This is all making very good sense to me."

But as another poster said it's generally not the downloader rather the person making it available that is the one in trouble.

Re-read what I said. I said when I find a DVD , NOT something on demand. If it were on demand I would watch it on netflix.

If they pay some licensing fee on every DVD rental they are doing it wrong as brick and mortars have no such thing.