Ur, no. The relevant information that link provides is what we already know:
1. College students with self-esteem issues use Facebook a lot.
2. Self-absorbed college students use Facebook a lot.
3. Self-absorbed college students make a lot of self-aggrandizing posts on Facebook.
4. Self-absorbed college students upload a lot of self-aggrandizing photos on Facebook.
It's pretty obvious that other people use Facebook too.
Seems like a false dilemma here. If only one in a million users suffers because data is improperly harvested and used, that doesn't support the misuse unless it is essential to keeping the other 999,999 happy. I doubt it is.
I concur with your remarks on authorities; if anything, their means of collecting, storing, and using data are even scarier than many of the worst corporate offenders. I do wonder why Anonymous isn't campaigning against some of the recent policies.
Act sensibly on the net and you'll be fine for the most part.
That sounds suspiciously like the "only criminals have something to hide" defense, thinly veiled with a qualifier that defeats any merit your point might otherwise have.
Yes, we get it, people who experience serious retribution likely did something to provoke it. Thank you, oh oracle of ancient triteness, er, wisdom.
Yes, the prior poster could have expressed their position more effectively, but you haven't actually countered it. What exactly is your response, in the event that someone's information is dredged up and used to destroy them? It seems self-evident that even innocuous statements can be twisted into damaging weapons for the person with any reputation worth destroying.
These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Please don't confuse hypothetical situations with statistics. If you're going to claim that they bear any relation, please cite studies or some very convincing proofs. As it stands, you're arguing that something that isn't a statistic has no statistical merit and is therefore moot, while insinuating that your wholly unqualified, unverified concept of sensible behavior - whatever that means - holds some degree of the same.
Now then. In the entirely possible case that someone is badly affected by the use of such collected data, what protects them?
Isn't Anonymous kind of synonymous with progressive anarchy?
More like a creeping mold.
1. Develop a manner where a person could support themselves legitimately anywhere in the world. (ie: generate legit income from fair labour)
2. Develop a manner where a person could know what organizations to support and which to avoid.
3. Help inform people about what they do that is positive.
Project Chanology, anyone?
4. Cultivate talent.
Ha. Good one.
6. Maintain their own security.
Not an issue for an all-inclusive anonymous group that by nature keeps its borders open.
7. Shun asshats.
You miss the point of Anonymous.
9. Create some technologies and give them away to the planet.
Already happened. I don't know why people don't appreciate free DDOS scripts.
10. Develop a future for Anonymous. What is Anonymous in 20yrs? Is it still an underground group of loosely affiliated people? Is it every human being on the planet? What are the goals of this group? What should the goals be? What shouldn't the goals be?
You're overanalyzing Anon here.
NSA is restricted by law to deal with foreign communcations only.
Too bad the NSA acts outside the law.
By extension, I shouldn't use a phone ever, because the person on the other end will almost certainly be vulnerable to tracking and eavesdropping.
We shouldn't have to spend our days attempting to cloak ourselves from our own government agencies. The ability of certain agencies to use GPS tracking has saved plenty of lives through helping to locate victims during rescue efforts, and that's just one worthwhile use. We shouldn't have to sacrifice that just to keep gratuitous government eavesdropping at bay. This smacks of the "she had it coming by the way she was dressed" rape defense. Yes, she looked good. No, it's not her fault he caught a flash of skin and assaulted her.
The above notwithstanding, this is well beyond simply forgoing cell phones. Seven proxies or not, we're all exposed when an agency with the power of the NSA decides to pay attention.
20% better than Rock 1.0.
How did you manage to respond to everything except my main point?
Yes, I'm aware you were responding generally - that's why I referred to it as a generalization - and I'm aware of what a standard deviation is and what they represent given various populations. What I asked for was a specific citation and what, if any, specific data points or ranges you were attempting to speak for.
What I was not looking for was a hardcore statistical analysis. What I was looking for was a citation that would point me in the direction of one, so that I could figure out how to interpret your figures. I don't know your assumptions or where half the numbers come from, and it's going to take more than a simple google search to figure those out. I'm not looking to nit pick here: I'm just trying to figure out what the hell you're referring to in a post that's mostly mathematical.
Pulling numbers and averages out of the air is a wonderful generalization: I'm glad it helps you sleep nights, but your numbers don't mean anything without context and I can think of plenty of cases where these don't apply.
Which bachelor's degrees/sectors/sources are you referring to?
Windows 7 IS a worthy upgrade from XP - certainly from the security point of view.
Windows 7, which contains a glaring accessibility backdoor like its predecessors? That Windows 7?
I have helped people with transitions from XP/Vista to 7 and found an almost unanimous praise for it. Given the choice, people preferred 7 for reasons of aesthetics, functionality and robustness.
Let's not confuse looking prettier than XP or Vista for a recommendation. I'd switch business computers to Mint if that were the key factor.
The longer the Linux crowd believes that Microsoft can not make decent quality (once in a while at least), the longer they'll fail to make any changes which might someday resolve the issues that push people away from Linux.
That's a red herring.
First off, Microsoft makes terrible software as a rule. Given enough attempts, any company can make (and/or steal) something at least remotely popular. Even and especially if it is manned by a bunch of monkeys with typewriters. And while I'd agree that 7 has some improvements and isn't as ill-conceived as Vista, it's honestly less use to me than XP. I'm not about to jump on another version of Windows to try to improve security over prior versions: that's what virtually every other operating system on the planet is for. So the security has a few improvements, just like every other version ever released. Big screaming deal.
Second, the issues that push people away from Linux have everything to do with growing pains, infighting, usability, and a focus on making something that isn't aimed at the utter moron demographic. A substantial portion of what keeps the masses away from Linux is an asset, not a liability. Let us not forget that the ideology and culture surrounding Linux lend themselves to patching known security holes first and drawing shiny buttons last.
"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban