WTF?

Love,
Ace

WTF Reason Number 1: Breast Feeding

Facebook has for a long time now allowed users to report inappropriate pictures. Many times people will report a picture of a women breastfeeding as inappropriate and Facebook will remove the picture. There is nothing inappropriate about a women breast feeding. The following Flickr image by gweggyphoto exemplifies what is wrong with Facebook’s anti-breastfeeding policy:

Image by gweggyphoto

WTF Reason Number 2: Terms of Service

Facebook recently changed their terms of service to the following:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

At the start of this week Facebook returned their terms of service to their original form and added back the following statement:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

However this does not address the concern the majority of Facebook users still have. If you are an artist, poet, photographer, or just a regular person who does not want Facebook to use whatever pictures you upload or whatever you type on your friends’ walls for Facebook’s next commercial, then you are out of luck because Facebook’s current terms of service allows them to even sell you content to third parties. Scary huh? Hopefully, they get the message and their lawyers are working on solving this problem.

WTF Reason 3: Being Dicks to Families of the Recently Deceased

As Stephanie Bemister wrote Consumerist.com, Facebook does not allow you to remove dead relative’s profiles even if you send their death certificate, are their next of kin, and have legal jurisdiction to do so. I smell a class action suit coming soon…

Facebook instead choses to memorialize the profiles and leave the wall open for anyone to say anything they’d like. Sounds like a good idea, but that should be left up to what the family’s wishes are. In Stephanie’s case, she is not even friend’s with her brother Bill Bemister who’s profile she is trying to delete. He died before accepting her friend request. Stephanie’s daughters are constantly reminded that their uncle is dead due to his profile popping up in their home pages. Bill was a journalist who used Facebook more as a business device and did not know most of the people he is actually friends with. “Unfriending” Bill would cut his nieces completely off and they would not be able to see what people are putting on his profile.

It seems that what jrizos wrote on comments section may not be too far off: “Wait’ll she hears about the “memorial” book of his images and wall comments they’ll make available for just $19.95 (plus shipping).”

Even the guy in the picture is tired of waxing as he is shaving.

Like every other popular news source, the editors of College Being endorse Barack Obama. We are doing it just because everybody else is doing it, but if you are more concerned with the issues, here you go:

He’s Black

Well if you aren’t a racist this is a good thing (if you are racist, you are probably a Republican anyway). Why? Black people are cool dude. (Yeah we are totally white here… dog…) Well it is either a cool Black guy or some grumpy old man. Plus, who cares about the decisions they make when they are president? In reality we should be voting for who we can stand to watch and listen to for at least four years.

Further reading: Check out College Candy for some pros and cons to the election being over.

Image by radiospike photography

Basically, what they’re training to do is disperse, incapacitate, and arrest protesters.

Thoughts after the jump.

The reason this concerns me is because normally, such jobs fall to the police and in extreme cases the National Guard. Instead, we’re going to have soldiers who have trained and taken part in urban warfare, ready to be deployed on American streets in the event that protesters become too unruly for the liking of the federal government. This is not policing; this is not crowd control; this is the beginnings of martial law. This is the beginning of a coup. This is the beginning of fascism.

I realize that this more than likely sounds paranoid to some. But the fact is, no government lasts forever. To say that a military coup, or a fascist regime, can’t happen here because we’re a democracy is to invite those who would infringe upon our freedom for their personal gain. As Americans, it is our duty to vigilantly protect our Constitutional freedoms from all enemies–foreign and domestic.

I don’t know what’s going to happen in the coming months. But there’s a very real possibility that this will not end well, that the rights we hold as entitlements will be threatened. I suggest all who are concerned take steps to prepare themselves. Buy guns, buy ammunition, buy canned food and bottled water. The worst thing that will happen is you’ll be prepared for a natural disaster. But we may need to be prepared for something far more insidious, and I’d rather be called paranoid for worrying about a totalitarianism that never comes, than be unprepared for one that does.

If you are still undecided on who to vote for there are one VP debate (this Thursday) and two presidential debates (Oct 7th and Oct 15th) still coming. All debates start at 9pm and last for 90 minutes. Many of the local channels should be showing them so just flip through them when the debate is about to start.

Also, you can check out Google’s In Quotes to find out what each candidate said on any issue. Image by farlane.

Yesterday, due to the U.S. House of Representatives not passing the bailout bill, the stock market dropped over 700 points–the worst fall I have seen in all my life! What does this mean for you?

For most college students, it will not mean much. You should not be involved in personal investing in the stock market unless you have some serious knowledge. Most of us use the stock market to gamble instead of investing.

All (up to $100,000) of your money that is in savings accounts is safely secured by the federal government, even if the bank closes. Do not worry about all the dramatic stock fluctuation as it will only give you stress. Instead focus on putting your money into high-interest savings accounts to invest in your future.

Lastly, do not listen to what news people on TV are saying about the financial crisis (for the most part). They get more ratings by scaring you and will constantly contradict themselves every single day. Instead, just turn off the TV and go outside.

To recap: Do not worry, save, turn off TV.

There is a big difference between piracy and stealing. The biggest problem with piracy is how easy it is to do it. There is also relatively low risk of getting caught due to the high number of individuals who do it. Also, there is isolation when you commit this “crime”. The RIAA might find out that someone from your house downloaded an illegal song, but they cannot definitely find out who. This is a big legal black hole, especially in most western countries where civil liberties are kind of a big deal (America may have gone to far west that it is now hitting Soviet Russia).

The big difference which makes it easier for people like the RIAA to sue you is that in American civil court you just need to found likely to have committed the act. This is opposite American criminal court where you have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In the end it is a bit absurd that making a copy of something has such high legal ramifications. Someone stole my CD player from inside my car a few years ago. F them, now I don’t have a CD player. If they just stole this paragraph, I still have the paragraph.

[Source: Law and Order]

Inspiration:

[Source: Digg]

There are a number of fanatics, in all religions. What about the “Army of God,” the Christian group that condones the assassination of doctors who perform abortions? What about Catholic and Protestant fanatics in Northern Ireland, bombing each others’ kids because of centuries-old hatred? What about Jewish hardliners in Israel who see no problem with murdering Arabs because of some idea of divine inspiration? Or atheists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, who put millions to death because they disagreed with the regime? And those are just the most visible examples. There’s also people like Ann Coulter, who advocates “invading [Arab] nations, killing their leaders, and converting them to Christianity.” A sentiment Jesus would have approved of, certainly. There’s also people like George W. Bush, speaking of a “new crusade” to the holy lands, either ignorant of or (more frightening) accepting of the genocidal fanaticism that the term “Crusade” has come to describe.

Yes, Islam has some seriously bad people claiming to act in its name, and unfortunately some of them are in positions of power–just as atheist and “Christian” dictators caused most of the bloodshed of the 20th century, so too will fanatical “Muslims” violate the teachings of their own professed religion and likely dominate the violence of the 21st. But that doesn’t make non-fanatical Muslims guilty of mass murder or the support thereof, any more than all Christians, Jews, or atheists are responsible for the crimes of Hitler or Baruch Goldstein or the Khmer Rouge.

I understand that Ace’s post doesn’t make the unfortunate argument (or at least, doesn’t do so directly) that so many of its contemporaries do; that is, Islam is somehow more prone to violent fanaticism than other religions. Nonetheless, it attempts to paint all Muslims–even those living happily in the Western world and as far from fanaticism as possible–as at least complacent with regard to the abuses by Islamic dictators, solely by virtue of their religion. It also creates unnecessary distinctions between one tyrant and another. It promotes the idea that those who choose to abuse the teachings of Islam in pursuit of power and violence are somehow any different from those who choose the teachings of Jesus Christ or Karl Marx as their platform. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what their clothing, and they generally have supporters keeping dissenters in line regardless of their justification for doing so. No person should have to apologize for the actions of another, simply because of a few shared characteristics or basic beliefs. Sure, hold bin Laden and the Taliban and Hamas, as well as those who support and aid them, responsible for their actions. But don’t force anyone who shares their religion to choose between making constant public denunciations of every single one of their actions, or being labeled a supporter.

“Could you just have given us two drinks and charged us for one?”

At first taste the mojitos taste delicious, but where is the kickback that I usually get after drinking any type of alcoholic beverage? We ask the waiter if there is even alcohol in the drinks.

“Of course there is. I saw the bartender put it in myself.”

“Okay, I’ll take your word for it,” I say.

Well after drinking my two mojitos and enjoying some music at Cocowalk, I drive my cousin and the other people that came out with us home, completely sober might I add.

The next day, yesterday, we went out to famous Ocean Drive on South Beach. We walk around for a bit, but then find a nice bar having a two-for-one happy hour special. Inside only, the sign reads in small print. “Great,” I say, “it is super-hot out here!”

We sit at the bar and talk to the nice Haitian bartender while ordering our drinks. Man, mojitos aren’t two-for-one here so I order a tequila sour and my cousin orders a tequila sunrise. My sister, who came out with us orders water because she is underage. Well, at least in Miami she’s allowed to sit at the bar…

I watch as the bar tender puts in what she says is 6 to 7 shots of tequila into each of our drinks. Holy crap! This time I could definitely feel it.

We talk some more, my cousin gets hit on by some Latino guy, and we are all just pretty much enjoying ourselves and chatting with the petite Haitian. Then, the bartender allows us to order a mojito and a caipirinha, a famous Brazilian drink. Also at the end of the night she only charges us for one drink.

Final thoughts and conclusion: We went to Chilli’s and got four tiny sugar waters no alcohol for about $20. We went to a bar and made friends with the bartender and got four huge drinks with a ton of alcohol for the same price (including tip). Conclusion: Don’t listen to two-for-one specials. The bars/resturants need to be making money from them anyways. What you will end up happening is you will get a drink with no alcohol or a drink that costs twice as much as it should so you are in fact paying for two drinks. Just be friendly, tip well, and you will get drinks for free.

Also, you could always do what Nick from College Being says, “Just order beer.”

Make sure to watch out for other bartender scams.

While this is not the first time that the Olympics have been a venue for political statements, it is easily the most egregious offense since the end of the Cold War, and the first time since the end of apartheid that a gold medalist has been barred from attending by the host country rather than their own government. The Olympics are supposed to symbolize international unity and friendly competition, not the host government’s unwillingness to be called out on its (direct or indirect) support of genocide.

China is within their rights to keep whoever they want from entering their country. But it’s hard to take their propagandistic claims of openness and freedom, pushed by the government for the benefit of visiting journalists, seriously when they have no qualms whatsoever about squelching freedom of speech and activism.