Difference; I can take down that art. I can't easily remove a tattoo from my skin. I know this is subtle, but it's important.

Just because your skin will be wrinkled doesn't mean it's a good idea to go for broke and make it wrinkled AND hideous. Some of us want to maintain a modicum of good looks, if possible. Tattoos aren't helpful in this area.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that kids 30-50 years from now are going to be much like kids today in that they would not find that stuff interesting in the least, and use your rambling lectures on the importance of some math equation as further proof that you're off your rocker. Not saying that they're right, but that's probably how they would take it.

I'm not opposed to tattoos either; I'm just opposed to shallow decision-making. No matter how you slice it, this guy's presentation of the question just reeks of it; and sadly, it's demonstrative of a trend I've noticed over the last decade or so of considering tattoos more or less temporary. It still costs a lot of money to get them removed; it's not exactly something you just walk into a clinic and get done in an hour. I have enough friends with tattoo regret to be aware of the details. It's just not pretty.

Like an idea, or symbol, or picture a lot? Get a fucking t-shirt of it. This has the advantage of getting the cheap laugh at the party, but you can also walk home with your dignity relatively intact. It takes a remarkably low level of self-respect to devalue yourself by attaching the whole of your existence to a few cheap symbols.

Think of how dignified those tattoos will look when you age and your whole body looks like Reagan's neck. Do you really want to explain to your grandkids why you thought a math equation or Mighty Mouse or a kanji character that means "desk" was something that held enough meaning that it required you to permanently scar your body with it?

This applies to everyone who resolves to get a tattoo before deciding what it is of, btw.

Again - no idea whether this is true or just hype, but thought it was worth mentioning.

First, the only social networking site you're allowed to have a profile on is LinkedIn, which is fitting because it's designed from the ground up to do nothing but exchange business information in the most factual and boring way possible. Access to Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter is blocked in the office by our corporate-run firewall, and if you get caught discussing business with clients on a personal profile with one of these sites, you're subject to being written up.

Second, every change, even correcting a typo, requires submitting paperwork and waiting a matter of weeks to hear a "yea" or "nay" from corporate; given that timeliness is a key factor in most social networking sites, this fact alone renders them completely useless.

Most end up passing on making a profile at all, since it ends up being a huge hassle for little benefit compared to just calling people and meeting in person the old-fashioned way. I find it hard to believe there isn't some better middle-ground that corporate entities can find which would leverage communication technologies with adequate record-keeping.