Yes and No.

LYour all or nothing approach is no better that the strawman you propose. No one is suggesting that this affect anyone other than FB.

FB certainly has the ability to delete data that is on it's servers.

In fact, I looked at their policies, thanks to another post:

No, it looks to me based on this that within 90 days your data on their site is deleted. If this is not the case, they need to update this document to declare what they keep when deleting your account!

It has been found out that employees are spending 5-20 hours handling IM and twitter, now that emails are banned.

If they would only stop screwing around and make the company gobs of money without taking up any time!

NO.

The problem is that people who used to be related in 2nd degree are in an environment (Facebook) where they are much *MUCH* more likely to then be linked in the 1st degree. And so on.

In fact, FB itself puts pressure to narrow the degrees of separation of every active member.

So, NO, this data mining mission means nothing about how people are really connected outside of FB.

I would like to know how someone who has sex with consenting adults can be considered a 'casual rapist'.

Please elucidate the points on which you are basing your statement.

Regards.

Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the people they have brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally), tortured (and yes, I mean that quite literally), killed, or bankrupted through intimidation using the legal system.

And they are infiltrating centers of power, a secret society beyond government bounds.

But other than that, they are 'at best annoying and a scam'.

Regards.

Until they sold it to a geothermal power generation company, which put caps on all the geysers.

Regards.

Your LOGOS will not work here! We know too well the ways of the Farce,

And here I thought the distinction was a bit subtler than that.

If I recall correctly, a free market was determined as necessary for "true capitalism" but that they were not defined as the same thing.

Certainly it uses the concept of a free market as one in which the maximum benefits can be achieved, and goes on in that vein. However, this appears to be quite distinct from claiming they are the same thing, as you infer.

In fact, because the work talks about them distinctly (as in a less free market is bad for capitalism), it is pretty certain that Adam Smith thought they were distinct, too.

You are obnoxious, and probably quite wrong.

You "lose".

Regards.

Of his own book.

We are of course living in the metaverse created by the 31337 memes soon released after the advent of the synthesis of programming and psychology.

Forcing functions and the like are prevalent and redirecting all our energies in crazy insane ways.

The major gist of that book is an UR language, that is able to reprogram people without even their knowledge. This is that UR language. Advertising is a window dressing to the real advent of psy-ops running through our brains.

Well, that may be TMI. I hope that at least the men in grey are polite!

Regards.

Soo...it is too expensive for phone companies to handle micropayments yet:

Now, if you could just explain the small problem of how micropayments are too expensive for the phone companies but will not be too expensive for web sites, your argument will be all set.

Regards.

He also is deluding himself that "average people" aren't affected by all of this.

Of course they are. Who does he think is paying for all of those lawyers?

Regards.

Yes, it is mandatory. You can be in the faction that isn't in any factions, though. :)

More practically, my argument works much better if BTC has value and that "fact" is agreed upon up front.

Regards.

Are you insane?

You and the OP are essentially advocating that every criminal be punished to the fullest extend of the law for what could have happened.

What? Does that not occur to you that in your regime speeding becomes 1st degree murder. So executions all around.

Meanwhile, your "opponent" (since you obviously see them as that) is merely claiming that perhaps 10 years is a BIT MUCH for breaking into a computer system causing $800,000 of "damage".

The person you are arguing against has stated repeatedly that they believe what the guy did was wrong.

Therefore your shill insistent calls to somehow "Prove he was justified!!!" are just bullshit, designed to pile a little more on your pile of crap arguments.

Yes, please go to a nice emotionally based analogy tangent, when we have a perfectly understandable situation in front of us to talk about. Doing so solves nothing, and is an indication that you agrument does not hold up.

Either you are doing so to generalize your arguments so this case falls within the boundaries, or you are tyring to sway logic through emotional appeal.

If it's the former, do YOU want the death penalty for speeders or not? If not, you are not following your own logic.

If it's the latter, while a it is a decent rhetorical trick, I find myself unswayed by the emotional argument you present.

Regards.

Excuse me, friend, I'd rather see a post telling other people to do some damn research.

Especially compared to one trying to use some sort of faux social conformity pressure to imply they are somehow behaving badly for doing so.

Regards.

Now wait a minute.

Aren't you part of the faction that is claiming the BTC have monetary value?

I think the courts would entertain the notion of "illegal generation of bitcoins" just as well as any other illegal use of someone else's resources to produce a product.

Why do you think it is not so?

Regards.