No, Google+ can fuck off, too.

The difference is that nobody takes Google+ seriously, and t's never going to be in the position of Twitter or Facebook. I just didn't think it worth mentioning the loser of the trinity.

That's exactly how "normal" people think/operate.

It's the tyranny of minute differences. You don't need to be on reality TV to see that people routinely judge each other on the most superficial bullshit.

Absolute bullshit. Just look at reality TV, the judgment just gets more and more trivial and insane. You can be a social pariah for wearing the wrong-colored dress, or for singing off-key.

I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think that the ubiquity of social media leads to less harsh judgment.

I don't need to go back in time. I regularly speak to my 91-year-old grandmother, who is absolutely fine with all of that.

You have a revisionist view of history. It's not like being gay or rebellious is a new thing, our grandparents were once young and did these things, too.

What makes you think this is new? Your parents, and probably your grandparents had embarrassing pictures of them. That doesn't stop people judging them.

Just look at the "celebrity" media. People are eager to destroy supermodels who wear the wrong kind of bathing suit, or who have gained a couple of pounds. And the people who want to destroy them are the same people who look like fat slobs compared to the supermodel.

This will never be a non-issue. Human hypocrisy knows no bounds. Facebook photos which would otherwise be ignored will become scandalous once the subject steps into the spotlight.

Personally, I prefer to confront reality head-on. Hiding the bullshit just inoculates you to what's really happening.

Where's the incentive to support sites that don't engage in shitty practices, if you can make the shitty sites seem better by hiding what they actually do?

The irony is thick with this one.

"Social Media" is basically designed to be click-bait. That's the only way they can recoup the investment money from the Venture Capitalists.

Sure, they might all start out being about "connecting and sharing with your friends" but then they hit critical mass and have to make some money. So they turn into whoring advertising machines. No longer are you just following your friends, but you're suckered into following companies, so you can win tickets to a Lady Gaga concert.

Now they complain about "clickjacking"?

Fuck "social media", and fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.

Except the author doesn't give up their copyright in any way when they publish through the iBookstore, or iTunes Store, or the App Store.

Don't let facts get in the way of your your delusions, though.

I was referring to the "democracy," not Megaupload. If the OP thinks democracy is so farcial, then why the strident outrage about it being abused? Also, it was a joke.

But to be serious, the tragedy here is that moderate supporters of democracy and humanism are attacked on both sides - from the corrupt abusers of power on one side, and the extremist brick-throwers on the other. We don't really want either to run society. Does anybody believe that if Anonymous had significant power, they would be any less corrupt than the military-industrial bull-boys?

I guess acting reasonably just isn't edgy enough to get any attention.

If it's farcical, then surely abuse of it isn't a big deal? Kind of like making fun of a clown.

What makes you think electing Ron Paul will change anything? Do you think that the entrenched powers will simply let him walk in and change things?

The US actually makes 0% of its own oil. Oil is dug up, it's a natural resource that is refined, not something that's "made."

Because cameras have poor resolution, and showing the lecturer and slide in the same frame makes the slide illegible, while simultaneously making the lecturer's facial expressions and nuances also illegible?

Also, there are usually exposure problems given the limited dynamic range of cameras, so the slides typically end up being way over-exposed.

Steve Ballmer? He's the one who coined 'squirts,' after all.

The xkcd comic in question doesn't specify any underscores, so "correcthorsebattery" is exactly what it recommends. The underscores were added by the slashdot commenter.

Also, sites requiring stupid things is exactly what the comic is commenting on. It's saying that narrow-minded password policy is actually weakening security. That's the whole point.