oops! You are quite right-- AdBlock Plus was blocking display of that option for some reason.

When I disabled the add-on, the option was visible (with "No One" previously selected)

The page (& link) for Settings>Privacy>News Feeds and Wall>Facebook Ads now has NO OPTIONS. It is currently empty, perhaps because of all the upset customers.

I try to keep all of my info private, although I have started to use Facebook to connect with friends & old classmates. This is for the general paranoia of personal data, even though I don't use such simple things as passwords or recovery passwords. Still, I have experience with people's credit card information (inc purchases and purchase locations) and unlisted cell phone numbers being compromised by "social engineering", by ex-wife, friends, etc, without even the claim that they were the person themselves-- just as a "knowledgeable" friends or supposed spouse.

The fact that the privacy settings are by default ALLOWED, and may be kept by any application or advertiser who already has it (and that transfer may happen in an instant) still remains very troubling.

Dr Suess!!! (Theodore Suess Geisel)

Who really taught children important lessons about the world, in their most formative years? Really, I love the other doctors, but by that time I had already learned to appreciate those who are different from Sneeches on the Beaches!

footnote: I put on a Hello my name is tag as "T.S. Geisel" and talked to semi-finalist applicants and parents my senior year at Sci&Math. Amazing how far a sport jacket and tag will get you!

The Grateful Dead, many other "jam bands", and other musical groups, have found that freely giving away some of your material HUGELY increases your fan base. Ever since the Grateful Dead started allowing tapers to bring equipment including mic stands, and tape and distribute live shows on a non-monetary basis, their popularity zoomed, they were established as icons of the culture, and they even achieved MTV playlist status with "Touch of Grey". This model works well for them because

• they have other sources of income in their work/art, such as concerts and commercial releases.
• they continue to perform new material & new variations, which new and old fans then seek
• they have a unique style, which is best heard, and even better heard from concert/live recording vs studio
• fans trading their music, and giving to new fans, is "viral marketing", before the term was coined

Some reasons then why one might want a different model

• "greedy" for every last penny (perhaps justifiably so)
• unable/unwilling to keep working and producing great output
• product, while perhaps original and unique initially, remains fixed, or becomes stale or repititious

Now I am not really going to make the moral judgement of how long someone should be able to copyright their works, and hold them in their own tight control. I would believe that old works should be public domain at some point, and also that creativity deserves some reward.
However, there ARE points in between in which both the artists and the public can benefit overall, and as the Grateful Dead and other artists have seen, giving to your public does not always mean taking away from yourself as the artist. Fair use can help an artist, and the public domain help cement artist in history, but "permitted use" by an artist speaks directly to their strongest fan base and evangelists of their work. Even Stephen King has given away book chapters online, on the premise that you will buy the rest. He may not have gotten much richer, but I'm sure he reached fans.

Or if you prefer, you can wait in front of a book store in the mall to sign your books, and hope to explode into fame.

I'm contemptuous of mutton. I'd prefer a nice FLT -- fakon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the fake-bacon is nice and crispy, and the tomato is ripe...

Mmmmmmm...

Tomato is the star in my vegetarian sandwich. :-D

I too call BS on the thermal wetsuit trick.
Mythbusters had a 2006 episode in which they tested tricks done in movies to defeat security measures. In particular, they tested trying to defeat thermal sensors, including the method of wearing a wetsuit. They even tried spraying down the suited person with a fire extinguisher to cool them.
The result? The person regained heat fairly quickly, and showed up easily on the thermal sensors.

I really *don't* have a problem with CVN acting as a commercial company; I just feel that this is so important as to warrant widespread distribution (without being illegally shown in total of course)
I don't want to commercialize justice more, but perhaps it could be available publicly shortly after subscribers have it, even with some sort of sponsorship if necessary.
There are many models for selling content which don't require the audience to directly pay, and something in that vein would help promote open, public justice (without making CVN or others "shine the light" on this case without money for the cameramen)
In any case, I am for the case being televised to as great an audience as possible.

unfortunately, Courtroom View Network is a subscriber-based service (read John Shin's supporting declaration), so only the paying public who already knows about the case will be able to view it. Granted, many people never watch CourtTV either, but a case such as this with issues that interested much of the general public has the potential to gather LOTS of viewers, educating a large segment of the population (both on the RIAA's agenda, and on their actual tactics).

I fear that the hurdles put up by making people subscribe to CVN's service will influence many to not bother "tuning-in", especially in a culture where people are accustomed to "surfing", and previewing TV channels and websites before committing to the entire thing.

I was thinking maybe the US would take down the griefers in Second Life.
Furry playground for some, but probably an Al Qaeda training center in disguise.