Comment I call bull on this (Score 1) 220
This is about as relevant to my driving skills as it is to my jumping-on-turtles skills in real life.
This is about as relevant to my driving skills as it is to my jumping-on-turtles skills in real life.
Even if you are unjustly banned from Facebook, you can come back and re-add all those people, at least the "main" ones, and work your way again to having 350 friends, I'm sure he didn't find them all in 2 days the first time around, and I genuinely doubt he kept in touch each and every single one of them. He can't learn their names and make a second account and look them up?
He wasn't smart enough to ask for phone numbers and/or e-mails after contacting far away relatives?
He can't use services like instant messengers?
How did he survive before Facebook existed, suing telecommunication providers because their service fees were too high, thus prohibiting and/or limiting his access to contact loved ones from afar?
Is all this still Facebook's fault?
Do you remember those days when Google didn't have the fancy-schmancy auto-complete or instant-search? I do, because I never used them, so this doesn't affect me in the slightest.
If you're gonna search for The Red Dragon torrent, you KNOW you're gonna have to type it out, instead of waiting for Google to finish the phrase for you. So basically you are whining that you're gonna have to type search inquiries, are we really this lazy?
This is why I don't think it'll die as fast as some of us want it to, because just as crappy video games are enhanced by good visuals, mediocre movies are likely to draw masses even after bad reviews if they look good.
To me this is not a revolutionary way of looking at movies, just another tool to enhance what's already present, just like 2-speakers turned into 5, then 8, etc. Better sound doesn't make a good movie good, it helps it, but it doesn't define it.
If it dies out, then that's that, we'll see another attempt in 20 years.
The only people that will actually wait for a religious figure to "approve" anything in order to implement it to their daily life are the people less likely to use the Internet, in this case. All the religious acquaintances I've met/kept in touch with online have used it regardless of this so-called "blessing".
It doesn't matter if you're religious or not, if you're all waiting for someone to tell you "hey, this thing ain't so bad, I used it, so you can use it too!" then you deserve to be mocked.
The suit claims that Taco Bell's meat-like offering is filled with extenders and other non-meat substances listed in the lawsuit like water, "Isolated Oat Product," wheat oats, soy lecithin, maltodrextrin, anti-dusting agent, autolyzed yeast extract, modified corn starch and sodium phosphate as well as beef and seasonings. Yum!"
I can't imagine how this awesome will be with simultaneously-connected rotating Kinects.
This could be a huge turn for companies that make a living out of the loopholes of the Internet from yesteryear, which can either stop doing their data-mining or change they way they do their data-mining. Quite possibly a more obtrusive way.
OR
This could just be a placebo, so that us semi-geeks (the ones that read these things and are aware of them but aren't really attracted to ACT upon it) can sit back and look at the rest shut up about it for a little while.
A conversation with a non-geek on the subject of data privacy tends to go like this:
They sell it to credit card companies, advertisers, marketters, and anyone else who wants to sell you some junk: a) So what? how does that hurt me. I get more targetted advertisments and possibly products that better suit me
They give it to the government: a) If the government wants to know what I did at that party last week.. I would have happily told them
When we revert into some paranoid disutopia the forces of opression will use your twitter comments to identify you as counter to their objectives and have you dragged from your homes and taken to the acid mines where you'll
If we want to convince people that privacy is important, we need better scare statements!
Compared to most people here, I'm hardly a "geek" but in my social circle outside the computer, I certainly am considered one.
And my answers would be "So what? I don't have to buy what they advertise to me." / "I doubt the government would be that interested in me, in anything I would part of some shallow stats report about internet usage." and "Oh, get a life".
The idea of having to to be connected at all times to a server to basically "have a computer" is ridiculous to me, Because of privacy? No. Because I'd have to pay a monthly fee to USE a computer (because, y'know the whole no-internet-no-files-hence-no-computer thing)? Hell yes.
I know an internet-less computer is hardly the way to go about in this day and age, but at least I have the option that if I don't have Internet access, I can at least have all my files right where I want them and still work with them.
"Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser." -- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"