It's definitely true that in being super famous, you give up the anonymity in daily life--people will recognize you. That's inherent with super-fame (at least super-fame that involves people knowing what you _look_ like. A writer could still have that.)

What is NOT inherent in super-fame, is people coming up and asking you for pictures every five minutes when you're out and about. That may be a thing, though, and a known cost of being a celebrity--people are going to do that, much as it sucks. Addtionally, celebrities do get hounded by the slimeball portion of the media, but only because that media is trying to earn money at the celebrities cost.

We could make it a thing where we throw rotten tomatoes at construction workers (or computer programmers), and it would then be true that having rotten tomatoes thrown at you is simply a cost you pay for being a construction worker. No reasonable person seems to think that's a good defense though--yet it's essentially the same argument you just gave. This is a thing, so it is a thing. Okay, you added some "they get lots of money" bullshit. They get what the market dictates, plain and simple. They don't get paid for being harassed by paparazzi or sharing private photos. They get paid for acting in movies, singing songs, and giving witty interviews.

Even if you decide "it's okay to constantly harass celebrities when they're in public", that's still COMPLETELY different from "it's okay to take and distribute and view a celebrities private photos". It is a thing that paparazzi harass celebrities. It is NOT a thing that celebrities have to publish all their email or share every photo they take in their own home.

That's not a generally-held view. Because it's completely baseless and completely unreasonable.

Slashdot: Where we care about privacy, unless there's a chance to see a naked girl Pro-tip: There are millions of photos of naked women out there that can be viewed wiithout violating anyone's privacy. Go make use of those if you're in so desperate need.

I recently upgraded my Time Warner Internet connection from 30Mbps to 50Mbps. I logged into my account on the website, clicked the upgrade button, and chose the new service, which was actually cheaper than what I was currently paying.

Shortly thereafter, they emailed me to say my order was on hold and that I needed to call them. I did and was informed that the promotion I had chosen (while logged in to my account) was not available to me. I was told I instead had to pay considerably more, and that it would include starter TV. I had the guy confirm multiple times that I simply could not get 50Mbps without also getting TV service, and finally went with it.

So they installed the TV, bumped up my Internet speed, and happily charged me lots of money. $90, I think was what it was supposed to come to after all fees. (I'm still renting a modem from them.)

A month later, I look at my bill and it's $144. So I call them. There was a pro-rated charge with regard to me switching mid-month, which I let slide because w/e, and there was a $19.99 fee for installing extra TV connections. I told them no and they said "Oh, you shouldn't even have been billed that. I'll remove that charge."

I then asked if it was possible to get 50Mbps Internet without TV service (having already spoken to their help chat online and been told I could). This guy said yes, totally an option. He transferred me to customer retention and I cancelled my unwanted and unused TV service (rejecting the discount--if only I'd know I might've been able to get a discount on the Internet I was keeping and still cancel the cable), saving another $20.

I also asked them to reimburse me for the month I'd paid for TV, given that I only had it because there salesman lied and said I couldn't not get it. Again they agreed, and said they'd call me on Wednesday once all the changes had gone through and they'd no how much my credit would be.

They never called, naturally. But I assume my new statement will show up soon, so then I'll know.

An investor is not an owner. The money he paid for the stock did not go to Apple, it went to some other market player. In a very real sense,

When I buy a car, the money doesn't go to the car. It goes to the previous owner of the car. When I buy stock, the money doesn't go to the corporation, it goes to the previous owner of the stock.

The stock is a title to the corporation. Investors very literally are the owners.

"They've changed their website. I've been raped!"

You must be popular on Facebook.

You don't think my Google Voice contacts and my GMail contacts were naturally overlapping features?

I don't know. I use it for commenting on YouTube and will soon be using it for my Google Contacts (Gmail and Voice) as well.

Yeah, Google+ isn't replacing Facebook. But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services. If you don't want to go post to your feed, that's fine.

When someone offers you a choice between several books, do you feel texture of the pages and sniff the book, or do you choose based on their contents? This one contains a futuristic tale of suspense. That one a selection of Bible readings. This a history of geometry. This one is musty. That one has glossy pages. This one has rough-cut edges.

I'm one of those readers who actually read books for their contents. I suspect you are as well. I know of no one who chooses their books based on the physical feel of it. The point of books is their content, and ebooks contain the same content. The point of libraries is to provide people access to the content of books, and this library makes that content available to its patrons.

Seems to me that this library serves the same purpose as a regular library.

Strangely, they are taken seriously by people who study oppression.

"Safe" means people are treated with respect and dignity, with no power dynamic associated with sex or gender stereotypes. If that's being pushed on you unilaterally, then, yes, that's a problem, but not a problem with the people with pushing it.

Your perception that women aren't oppressed in this culture does not stand up to the pervasive personal experience of the oppressed people.